Raw vs. Kibble [Archive] - Top Golden Retriever Sites Discussion Forums

jsnow

12-29-2006, 07:46 AM

I have been researching Raw for a while now and it seems to have rave reviews. Regardless of all the reviews a part of me is still scared to start the change. For example I know eggs have risk and people still drink them raw and I eat raw cookie dough and I am alive. I am not sure what makes me reluctant to change.

I feed Kaylee Innova, Nature's Variety, and Innova EVO. I change her food every few bags. I give her wet food also about 3-4x a week. I also give her a raw marrow bone once a week that I re-freeze each night after she chews on it for a while. I usually let her have it for 2 days. Kaylee is NOT unhealthy. Her teeth are clean from the bone. She never itches and her stools are fine.

I want her to be as healthy as she can be and nothing makes her happier then soup bone day. She won't move till every piece of meat is gone. This makes me know she should be eating raw, but I just cannot imagine anything happening to her.

I was hoping I can see some pictures of dogs that are raw fed. I would like to see their teeth, coat, maybe some befores. I would like to hear some stories from real people about the changes in their dogs since the change.

Thanks for any help that is provided.

elvira

12-29-2006, 10:13 AM

i saw pictures of the teeth at an other forum. Before :

http://www.astro.uu.nl/~stegeman/Forum/moya/gebitmoya291106kleiner.jpg

After only 3 weeks :

http://www.astro.uu.nl/~stegeman/Forum/moya/gebitmoya191206kleiner.jpg

My Oldest dog had diarree and was very thin, due to the diarree. I swithed him to raw and he didn't had any diarree anymore and put on weight. My pup never ate kibbles, so I can't tell you about a change. The coat of both dogs grow very quickly. I have showed Nelson for 2 months every 3 weeks and before every show I had to trim him.
Below a picture of Nelson at the show. This is in the puppy class and all dogs are about the same age . Nelson is the first dog. They are 7 months old, only the last is a bit younger (3 weeks) (no 2 and 3 are 5 days younger than Nelson)

http://www.mijnalbum.nl/Foto=Q86GY7CT

When I saw the other dogs, I thought they were much younger.

At this website are some before and after pictures :
http://www.voernatuurlijk.nl/foto/voorna.htm

Brok is Dutch for kibble, rauw vlees = raw meat, voor = before, na = after

Jo Ellen

12-29-2006, 10:58 AM

Hop on over to the pictures forum .... there should be pictures of Whooper and Stanley there (from Sandra in the UK). She feeds her dogs raw and they are the most awesome dogs, unbelievably gorgeous and strong and healthy. You may even find pictures of her dogs eating raw.

Or maybe she'll post some pictures here when she finds your post!

:003

elvira

12-29-2006, 11:55 AM

jsnow

12-30-2006, 06:26 PM

I started a slow and gradual switch. This evening was her first raw meal, but it is prepackaged NV lamb brand. I give her soup bones for her teeth so I figure this was an easier step for me to take. As soon as I took it out of the fridge she seemed excited. She even jumped up to smell it which she NEVER does.

She smelled it for a few seconds. Licked it. I turned my head it was gone! I guess she liked it. :)

We'll see how she does. I will keep everyone posted.

Sandra

01-01-2007, 09:39 AM

I found her website with pictures of raw eating goldens :

http://www.freewebs.com/rawdoggies/fotosnrvhondjes.htm

Look how much Zingaro enjoys his food :

http://www.mijnalbum.nl/MiniFoto=TVWZODYS

And Nelson :
http://www.mijnalbum.nl/MiniFoto=CD6ZXCVE

Haha that's funny, that's my site. :D
The first page are my dogs.

The second page before and after pictures of dogs on raw meat diet:

First picture is a dog which was treated with Frontline and de-worming programm because the dog had terrible itch. After the treatment the dog's skin was full with bad looking hot spots and was on fire. The after picture is one month later on natural raw feeding.

Second picture is a Bobtail just after pregnancy. The after picture is a couple of months on raw meat diet.
The third picture is a young pup in very bad condition. The after picture is a couple of months on raw meat diet. This 'little pup' is a great guy upon about 70 cm high.

The fourth picture is a beautiful dog which had terrible spots on his head and neck. The after picture is a couple of months on raw meat diet. This dog is now doing very great.

The fifth picture is a german sheappard with very bad grain allergy (kibble problem!). Her skin was very bad and her fur was falling out. The after picture is 6 months after and this dog is now free of all her very bad problems.

The sixth picture is a young gorgious dog (of a very famous Dutch breeder of working sheappards) which burned too much energy out of kibble and became very lean. The after picture is a couple of months on raw meat diet. The breeder decided then to give all her gorgious dogs raw meat diet. She already weaned up puppies on raw meat diet and the dogs are doing very well.

The last picture is a dog on kibble which had also grain allergy. The after pictures is at least 6 months on raw meat diet. This dog had terrible de-tox sciences (do not know the English word for braking down the bad waste out of the body before letting the good bacteria and enzymes do the rest to give this dog a 'new healthy body').

The third page show pictures of a dog's teeth which is just 3 weeks on raw meat diet. The second picture is after 3 weeks.
I hope to be able to show more pictures after a couple of weeks of this dog.

I do not have to tell you what bad things kibble causes to our beloved dogs/cats. You have thought about that by choosing your type of brand. It is difficult to make a decision when your dog is not ill or needs otherwise a different diet. The changes you see then when changing to raw are really unbelievable. But believe me, all our dogs have great benefit by feeding raw meat diet and should not be fed with cooked cheep grains and meat out of kibble.
Good luck with your decision, what ever that will be. :434

Greets,
Sandra, Stanley & Whooper

Sandra

01-01-2007, 09:42 AM

sap4goldens

02-02-2007, 08:27 AM

elvira

02-03-2007, 05:34 AM

Have you read wonders work ?

http://www.rawmeatybones.com/

I buy most of the meat at a big Islamitic Butcher.(Sandra also buy meat there). They have goat, lamb, chicken and duck legs. In holland there are several forums about raw feeding, where you can find adresses were to buy your meat. Sometimes the organise a day to exchange food (Mr. X can buy cheap goat ribs and Mr. Z. can buy cheap rabbits, so mr x sells the goat ribs to mr z. and visa versa).

lammer29

02-03-2007, 05:54 AM

I started another thread about Nature's Variety Raw Instinct Kibble just yesterday.It is free of any grains at all. The company mostly puts out a raw line, so I thought I'd try the Kibble since I am not ready for the raw just yet (if ever). Not that I don't think it's great, just not for us at this point. i thought this was a good option, but as you'll see from the other thread, quite pricey.What are the thoughts from those of you who feed raw on this food option?their website is www. nature'svariety.com

lammer29

02-03-2007, 06:30 AM

Sandra

02-04-2007, 02:13 AM

Sandra, or anybody who has some advice to offer,

After much reading I have decided to change my dogs diet. They are currently on a very high quality kibble but I'm convinced they should be on some form of a raw/meat based diet. I have read about so many I now have a whole new source of confusion. Which one? I have checked around my area and it looks like I'm at a disadvantage when it comes to getting the non-processed ingredients for the switch. There are no butchers or slaughter houses in our area anymore.

The most extensive research I done comes from Mogen Eliason. However, several other articles I've read seem to discount his theory and contradict his "Canine Choice - by Nature" approach yet still advocate some form of raw/cooked, meat/vegetable diet. I want to do what's best for my dogs to give them the best chance at a long and healthy life. I am convinced that a major contributor to the variety unfortunate health conditions our babies suffer from can be traced back the departure from their natural diet.

Do you know of, or can you recommend an online source that would have quality ingredients? I have seen several who advertise "all natural," or "no preservatives," but being new to this I'm not sure I even know what to look for.

Any suggestions/advice you have to offer would be greatly appreciated and I'm sure Carter and Cassie would be eternally grateful.

By the way, Sandra, you have a couple of beautiful babies and you take some really great pictures.

Lysle http://www.topgoldenretrieversites.net/forums/images/smilies/dogbark.gif http://www.topgoldenretrieversites.net/forums/images/smilies/reddogx.gif

Hi sap4goldens,
Changing to raw meat diet is not difficult. It becomes difficult when you cannot find the right places getting the meat from. Here in The Netherlands we have many butchers and slaughter houses. We also have one Islamic butcher which offers a beautiful assortment of raw meaty bones for dogs especially.
Here many dogs are on the full raw meat diet, but also on some frozen grinded raw meat too. I do not know the English word for this, but it's a complete commercial product based on grinded raw meat.
Every dog needs natural bacteria and enzyms for upgrading health. The whole metabolism of the dog survives on these bacteria and enzyms, which never will be found in kibble.
Heating food based on granes and other cheap carbo-hydrates is reducing health and natural resistance in our pets.
And the outcome of some researches state that breeding dogs only fed kibble are becoming more and more weaker, which increases auto-immune diseases. One very big cause of auto-immune diseases is vaccinating, the second big cause is heated food based on cheap carbo-hydrates.

Found some websites of manufactures which sell grinded raw meat products. If you want to buy this, look for natural bones included, not synthetical added.

http://www.naturesvariety.com/content.lasso?page=1308
http://www.stevesrealfood.com/
http://www.farmoredogfood.com/
http://www.healthypetdiet.com/
http://d21c.com/buddyx2/MORIGINS/mORIGINS.html

I hope this information is satisfying.
Take care and let us know what you decided.

Greets,
Sandra, Stanley & Whooper

Sandra

02-04-2007, 02:30 AM

This has started a whole new view for me. I definitely was confused about Raw vs home cooked. When I first looked at this I was thinking of those that home cook their dog's food, not actual raw food.DUH! Now I get it!I started to look at the web site and it finally sunk in! Are there ever any problems with the dogs being able to digest the raw food? Especially dogs that have ony had kibble food.What do you think of the frozen raw that you thaw?I started to think that I might try the raw to supplement the kibble and that is when I finally figured out the raw part and was taken back. Feeding has become a brain work out lately!P.S> My lab mix always got sick on any bones I gave her, cooked or uncooked, would always get diareha(sp), would the frozen raw affect her the same way probably?The medallions/patties sound interesting though.Do you need to start slowly as when you are changing kibbles?

Hi lammer29,
:D Feeding raw is NOT difficult and hard to understand.
That is something the commercial manufactures wants us to believe and wurser........the kibble manufactures KNOW feeding raw is the best, but are advocating this way of feeding because we all must buy there kibble. And this is really not a lie.
Our dogs, cats, ferrets are carnivores and should be fet like that.
If you want to switch to raw meat diet I recommend to start slowly with light raw meat ingredients. Chicken necks, chicken backs, some fish like mackarell or other fat fish in your area. It's important not mixing raw meat diet with kibble, but give this in a seperate meal. For example in the morning some kibble, in the evening a raw meat meal.
Or one kibble day, the next day a raw meat diet meal.
My experience is that dogs fed kibble for years, do not have many problems making the switch. These dogs have to make the switch slower then younger dogs, but sure undergoing lots of benefits on the raw meat diet.
Whatever you decide, choose a diet that you feel comfortable with.

Greets,
Sandra, Stanley & Whooper

CanadianGolden

02-04-2007, 06:47 PM

Keep in mind that dogs can get salmonella poisoning, among other bacterial and viral infections, from eating raw foods. As much as people want you to believe that dogs are somehow impervious to these pathogens, it is simply not true. They are somewhat LESS susceptible than humans, but not immune in any sense.

Jo Ellen

02-04-2007, 07:02 PM

I don't know anyone who feeds raw that that has happened to. Do you Sandra? We are more likely to get salmonella or e-coli ourselves, from handling raw food ... but we do it nearly everyday. I've never had it or known anyone who has. Need to use our common sense is all.

If dogs were that susceptible to salmonella or e-coli my dog would certainly have had it by now ... for all the garbage and dead carcasses she's had in her mouth.

Look for statistics on salmonella and e-coli in dogs. Sure it's a possibility, a very slight possibility .... but very hard to find known cases, in my experience.

It's a scare tactic, IMHO.

Sandra

02-05-2007, 01:43 AM

Well Jo Ellen, I have to agree with you.
The meat/fleshy bones/organs I buy are human quality and handeled with great care before consuming. Check researches on the Internet and what will you find? No information about dogs getting Salmonella and E-colli bacteria out of fresh raw meat diets.
The most sick dogs I know of switched from kibble to raw and they increased health. Of all bacteria Salmonella and E-colli survive on very weak mammals. The outcome of nature studies showed that weak animals did not die due to those bacteria problems at all.
The most dangerous fact is that treats out of the petstores are full with sick making Salmonella. Several cases are known of dogs on kibble died after consuming those treats, not after eating raw meat diet. And if you're afraid getting Salmonella or E-colli out of raw meat, then freezing before consuming is an option. Thawing is not giving new sick makers when thawn the right way.
And another fact is that real sick making Salmonella bacteria are used in human medical treatments for fighting several types of blood cancer. Also these humans did not die due to Salmonella.
So, what is the trueth here? In The Netherlands several vets are very pro raw meat diet. And of course I have 2 cases of very increased health walking around here after switching from kibble to raw meat diet.
Many many cases of illnesses in pets has related with wrong dog food. That is for me the most important fact that dogs, cats and ferrets are true carnivores and raw meat diet really increases health.
So, I do not know any cases of dogs died due to raw meat diet. And here in The Neterlands there are a lot of pets fed this way. Also in foreign countries (fora or other information sides) are no cases of dead dogs. The risk giving a dog only heated food out of kibble is in my opinion higher then putting a dog on fresh raw meat diet. I know am able to say that if I did not make the switch several years ago my Stanley sure did not live very long. So again, what's the 'trueth' here? :204

Greets,
Sandra, Stanley & Whooper

ej+cj

02-05-2007, 03:51 AM

My 2 dogs (1 is an 11 wk puppy) both eat raw food. They have never had a problem and are very strong and healthy. I have been rather scrupulous, but not over the top, about cleaning wherever their food has touched or been. Despite this, for the past 6 months I have myself been infected with recurrent Helicobacter.(Treated 3 times) Nobody else in the household, just me. And I do all the feeding. I am an otherwise robust healthy person with a very strong immune system. The symptoms of this were severe intermittent gastric pain. There is no question I am getting this from my dogs, the gastroenterologist (who thinks I am nuts) thinks they shouldnt lick me or kiss me. Tell this to a golden! Anyway, I am not changing the way I feed them. Eventually I will develop an immunity to this or die I suppose.-(just kidding). Just thought this might be interesting to read. By the way I have never had salmonella, giardia, etc.cheers,ej+cj

CanadianGolden

02-05-2007, 01:34 PM

An example of the danger of bacteria can be seen in a disease that afflicts greyhound racing dogs, called "Alabama rot." The disease is caused by E. coli in the raw meat that was given as part of their diet.

Raw meats may also contain parasites. Some raw diet recipes call for freezing of the final product, which greatly reduces (but does not necessarily eliminate) the potential for parasites.

The nutritional balance of a homemade raw diet is not generally verified by organizations such as the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO), and as such, many who oppose raw diets believe that a raw diet carries a risk of unbalanced nutrition. One study that analyzed the nutritional content of 3 homemade diets (included the BARF diet) and 2 commercial raw food diets and compared it to the AAFCO standards, showed that nutritional imbalances occurred in one or more of the fellowing areas: calcium, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, sodium, zinc, vitamin D, and vitamin E. When feeding a raw diet, frequent analysis by a veterinarian to verify that proper nutrients are being ingested is important.

Raw food diets can be low in calcium and phosphorus or have abnormal calcium-to-phosphorus ratios. This can lead to hyperparathyroidism and fibrous osteodystrophy in puppies. Achieving the proper balance of these minerals is vital. Literally, it is possible to kill a dog if these are not properly balanced. Back before this was known, my friend supplemented her Wolfhound puppy with calcium and phosphorus, which threw off the ratio. The dog developed severe hip and elbow dysplasia and Wobbler's syndrome.

"Neither the American Veterinary Association nor the British Veterinary Association endorses the health benefits of raw food. Both organizations caution that animals fed raw meat run the risk of contracting food-borne illnesses. The British veterinary group declares that "there is no scientific evidence base to support the feeding of raw meat and bones," and warns humans they risk exposing themselves to bacteria like salmonella." Mieszkowski, Katharine. The Beef Over Pet Food. Salon.com. Retrieved on 2006-03-07.

I got this info from Wikipedia, which cited sources listed here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_feeding

Raw feeding can be done well, but IMO it is very difficult to create a properly balanced diet. There is also the risk of pathogens. A pre-prepared meat/vegetable diet (for example, dehydrated diets) is a much better choice and is far safer than raw food.

sap4goldens

02-05-2007, 03:05 PM

CanadianGolden,

Your information is very appreciated and deserves consideration.

However, I have some major issues concerning the findings by all the "experts." If all they say is true and the exact balance is so critical, how is it dogs of so many breeds survived into the modern era? Considering that commercial dog food has only been in existence for less than 150 yrs and was not widely used until the last 60 or so, how did they survive?

When it comes to modern findings and current accepted theories I'm more than a little skeptical. If you believe all the "experts," then it's a miracle I'm alive and an even bigger miracle I'm not completely screwed up. According to all the "findings" that have come out in the recent past, I should be either a serial killer, abusive husband/father, or at a minimum, a criminal. Because I was paddled/whipped and verbally abused as a child my self esteem should be in the crapper. To put it simply, I should not be able to function in civilized society. (At one time I was a Psychology major with emphasis in child development. I did not complete the curriculum but I have kept up because I plan on getting back into counseling after I retire when I can afford to work in that field.)

The main reason I have such a hard time with these so called "experts" is that they don't address the fact that canines/felines all animals lived/live very well without human intervention. Left to their own devices in their natural habitat they do quite well until humans inject themselves into the equation. It's, like everything else in nature, when we humans get involved and think we know better, yet we tend to make a mess of things over the long haul. The pattern seems to be that, in nature, the objects of our attention seem to get screwed up worse than before we decided to "fix" them.

Please don't misunderstand, I'm not trying to discount what you have said as much as I'm looking for an explanation as to how things got along without our intervention for thousands of years.

I love my dogs and want the best possible everything for them. I want them to be healthy and happy and live a long life. I just have a hard time with the argument that the standard "commercial" dog food is superior because it is so far removed from what nature intended. Almost nothing that is in commercial dog food would be part of the canine diet in nature. How does that work out to be a good thing?

Dogs are carnivores and yet the experts would have us all but eliminate meat from their diet. I'm sorry the "meat and meat by products" found in most dog food is a far removed from what's found in nature. I'm a very logical person, and logically speaking, kibble doesn't make sense.

We seem to have discovered that we have been terribly misguided in our assessment of what's good for us where diet is concerned. Is it possible we screwed up with our pets as well?

Don't get me wrong, we humans have made phenomenal advancements in our world. However, not everything we touch has turned to gold.

And again, please don't misunderstand, I am asking to be educated here. I'm not merely trying to be argumentative. I want to know what is best for my dogs and the reasoning behind why one way is better than the other.

Thanks in advance...

Lysle

And Sandra, thanks fot the information you provided. It was very helpful and I especially appreciate the links. I had not come accross those in my research.

Lysle

CanadianGolden

02-05-2007, 05:10 PM

Dogs have evolved. They are not wolves anymore. Not to mention, the average lifespan of a wild wolf is, I believe, under 7 years. So really, they are not getting along well in the wild.

Obviously, there are exceptions (as in your case regarding your past and now current ability to function in society). But experts make recommendations based on statistics. Just because someone smoked for 50 years and got lung cancer doesn't mean smoking doesn't cause cancer, or that we would recommend smoking as a healthy practice.

Sandra

02-06-2007, 01:34 AM

An example of the danger of bacteria can be seen in a disease that afflicts greyhound racing dogs, called "Alabama rot." The disease is caused by E. coli in the raw meat that was given as part of their diet.

This 'study' was based on food not suitable for human consumption. The meat was already rotten and of bad quality. I'll try to find right information about this.

Raw meats may also contain parasites. Some raw diet recipes call for freezing of the final product, which greatly reduces (but does not necessarily eliminate) the potential for parasites.

Ofcourse raw meat contains bacteria, that's why it's called raw meat. But carnivore pets have a great system to deal with those bacterias, which human cannot.

The nutritional balance of a homemade raw diet is not generally verified by organizations such as the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO), and as such, many who oppose raw diets believe that a raw diet carries a risk of unbalanced nutrition. One study that analyzed the nutritional content of 3 homemade diets (included the BARF diet) and 2 commercial raw food diets and compared it to the AAFCO standards, showed that nutritional imbalances occurred in one or more of the fellowing areas: calcium, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, sodium, zinc, vitamin D, and vitamin E. When feeding a raw diet, frequent analysis by a veterinarian to verify that proper nutrients are being ingested is important.

AAFCO is the big overall organisation of worldwide food industries. Whatever carbage those industries want to put in animal food has to be approved by AAFCO and FDA. And in commercial raw food products the same vitamins and minerals has to be put in as in kibble. Only the quality of meat is better and not heated. The heating process of kibble makes that important vitamins and minerals will become toxic and 'trigger' with anti-oxidants like BHA, BHT and Ethox.
But.........that's a very big issue what AAFCO would like to hide a bit.

Raw food diets can be low in calcium and phosphorus or have abnormal calcium-to-phosphorus ratios. This can lead to hyperparathyroidism and fibrous osteodystrophy in puppies. Achieving the proper balance of these minerals is vital. Literally, it is possible to kill a dog if these are not properly balanced. Back before this was known, my friend supplemented her Wolfhound puppy with calcium and phosphorus, which threw off the ratio. The dog developed severe hip and elbow dysplasia and Wobbler's syndrome.

There's no need to supplement with extra vitamins and calcium in a proper raw meat diet. If a dog will be fed like it should in raw meat diet, then the dog/puppy gets all it needs and grows up very well, without bone problems. Earlier, I mentioned of the researches done about this very important issue. It states that dogs grown up on raw meat diet grow up gradually without the big growth spurts which causes growth pains etc. A very bad commercial trick is that dogs do not need a balanced food. In the raw meat diet nothing is balanced per day, but the dog gets all of the important nutrition within 2 or 3 weeks. Believe me, I do not know any puppy that died growing up with raw meat diet or became lame or something. :D

"Neither the American Veterinary Association nor the British Veterinary Association endorses the health benefits of raw food. Both organizations caution that animals fed raw meat run the risk of contracting food-borne illnesses. The British veterinary group declares that "there is no scientific evidence base to support the feeding of raw meat and bones," and warns humans they risk exposing themselves to bacteria like salmonella." Mieszkowski, Katharine. The Beef Over Pet Food. Salon.com. Retrieved on 2006-03-07.

As long as there are fine vets defending these organisations and walk their own honoust path, nothing of these can be stated as 'trueth'. As long as a lot of very important breeders show the opposite, as long as studies (not funded by the big food companies) show different, as long as the veterinarian organisations are sponsorred by big kibble companies nothing can be stated as true. As long as kibble only excists for highley 55 years -exactly the time when breeds showed significant health problems- and raw meat diet much longer, the only trueth in here is that our dogs are forced to eat the carbage out of the human industries which are controlled by the organisations mentioned above.

I got this info from Wikipedia, which cited sources listed here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_feeding

Raw feeding can be done well, but IMO it is very difficult to create a properly balanced diet. There is also the risk of pathogens. A pre-prepared meat/vegetable diet (for example, dehydrated diets) is a much better choice and is far safer than raw food.

Coocking meals is not safer, not for the dog. His metabolism is build to consume raw meat and absorp those bacteria and enzymes out of raw meat diet.
Did you really think that very very respectable breeders (for example) took a stupid risk feeding something that's not appropiate? Effidence is there it's better for overall health then feeding heated processed foods. Feeding raw is not difficult. Of course you must not start your own way, there are guidlines and rules for that.
I understand that people are not fund of feeding something that's far from their bed. But it is in my opinion not right to ignore the trueth what's really in our kibble and what kind of health problems it causes. :204

Sandra

02-06-2007, 05:12 AM

CanadianGolden,
Here's some info about the cause of death concerning the Greyhound 'study'.
Those dogs ate '4D meat', a very bad quality commercial raw food.

"The basic formula fed to the racedog is 4D meat (Cattle that areDown and cannot stand, Diseased,Dying, or Dead) mixed with drykibbled dog food."

My dogs do not eat sick meat, it's human consumption quality. Those dogs died adventually due to a kennel cough epidemic which was related to that 4D meat consumption.
What more 'proof' do those food companies want for letting us, the buyers of commercial dog food, believe that raw food is dangerous?
The same bad quality 4D meat will also be found in kibble and canned food, the only exception is that the meat stuff have been heated before consuming.

Jo Ellen

02-06-2007, 06:11 AM

Remember the recent kibble recalls due to aflatoxin contamination?

Dogs have evolved. They are not wolves anymore. Not to mention, the average lifespan of a wild wolf is, I believe, under 7 years. So really, they are not getting along well in the wild.

Our dogs are domesticated ... we can't expect them to hunt any longer for their food. But I challenge anyone .... offer your dog the choice between a raw meaty bone and a bowl of kibble ... what will they choose? We all know the answer to that question! :D Some of the wolf behaviors and characteristics and drive are still very evident in our domesticated dogs .... and I personally think this is more true for golden retrievers than some other dog breeds.

Wolves living in the wild only 7 years ... I really don't believe that's because of their diet. Show me that it is, if you can. I would venture to say their lives are cut short more often due to competition for resources, encroachment and human stupidity.

Daniela (UK)

02-06-2007, 06:38 AM

Hi,

I don't have any links to offer or big words to use .. but I can tell you one thing...

my dog is on raw diet, closely monitored by our hollistic vet. Our normal vet can't believe the brilliant condition she is in considering how ill she is (SAS and immune difficiency) and every time we go to see her she asks more and more about what I feed and how and what I do as she is starting to realise that the food has a lot to do with how she is doing.

I would not feed my dog what I would not eat myself .. I live a healthy life style and giving my dog kibble is to me like eating fast food myself.. I like myself too much to do that :D

Daniela

CanadianGolden

02-06-2007, 12:34 PM

Sandra

02-06-2007, 01:55 PM

See the "Dilated Pupils" thread for some links from AVMA that support my opinion.

Jo Ellen-- Your dog preferring raw meat has nothing to do with whether or not feeding that meat is dangerous. It is a fact that raw meat may contain pathogens such as Salmonella. Obviously not all meat will. I am not willing to feed my dog food that has a fairly high chance of having a bacterium on it, especially when I can feed her a high quality dry food or a diet made of cooked meat and other fresh foods that has a much lower likelihood of being contaminated. I don't understand how others can risk their dogs' health just to give them something that is slightly healthier than dry food.

You sure do not know what you're talking about. With all respect, my dog Stanley would be in much wurser state now due to that 'high quality kibble' you prefer. Putting my dogs in danger, think!! Both my dogs are under vet control. Stanley from day 1 we made the switch to raw food. All the blood tests and bladder tests he went through were better than ever. Before he had signs of immune disease and bladder stones. That's gone now, without medicine, just good fresh food. Whooper had very terrible hot spots due to kibble. His belly and brest were full of it and after putting him on the raw meat diet his skin was recovering. Until this day his skin looks pretty pink without spots and his fur is beautiful. It's quit understandable you've your againsts about it, but a very big lot of respectable breeders will not follow you in this. Dogs dead due to raw meat diet are not known, puppies growing bad or dying due to raw meat diet are not facts. Come with statistics and let those breeders read this whom feed their dogs this diet as long as kibble exists.
Kibble is more risk then a proper fresh diet based on ingredients a carnivore should have.

CanadianGolden

02-06-2007, 04:39 PM

Jo Ellen

02-06-2007, 05:15 PM

I find it very curious that kibble vs raw can so easily turn into such a heated passionate debate.

I don't understand how others can risk their dogs' health just to give them something that is slightly healthier than dry food.

CG, it kind of sounds like you're saying those who feed raw care less about their dogs than those who feed kibble.

Am I taking your words too personally? Am I the only one here that's coming away with that feeling ? :confused:

lammer29

02-06-2007, 06:00 PM

I certainly have much to think about from my original post questions. It appears that both sides of the fence are certainly passionate about this subject! I haven't made any decisions, but I do thank all of you who responded, atleast I feel that I can weigh both sides and it will be an informed decision.It is obvious that we all care about our dogs very much and it is in this spirit that we belong to this forum. I have learned much from so many posts and most, if not all, of the times when I leave the computer I just have to go hug my girls, so they get the added, nonobvious benefit, too!I don't think there is a "right" answer, just what works for us and our dogs.Thanks.

CanadianGolden

02-06-2007, 06:15 PM

I find it very curious that kibble vs raw can so easily turn into such a heated passionate debate.

CG, it kind of sounds like you're saying those who feed raw care less about their dogs than those who feed kibble.

Am I taking your words too personally? Am I the only one here that's coming away with that feeling ? :confused:

I think everyone here is highly oversensitive. Of course I don't think you care less about your dog; I don't even know you. The way I look at it, you have 2 options. One is slightly healthier, but higher risk. The other is slightly less healthy, but much less risky. To me, it seems an obvious choice to sacrifice a little health for a lot of safety.

Jo Ellen

02-06-2007, 06:52 PM

Highly oversensitive?

Why would you think that?

CanadianGolden

02-06-2007, 07:07 PM

Often, when someone posts an opinion, and labels it as such, and it happens to disagree with the opinion of someone else on this forum, they're immediately offended. It's an opinion. People, I assume, come here to read opinions. Obviously not everyone will agree with everyone else.

People should not automatically assume that a difference of opinion is a personal attack.

Sandra

02-06-2007, 09:43 PM

Please provide me with scientific studies or reports from a reputable source before telling me that I don't know what I'm talking about. Anecdotal evidence is not proof of anything except that one method worked for your individual dog.

Not only my dog but only in The Netherlands thousands and thousands dogs.
Read the books written by vets. That was a big eye opener to me.
As long as studies are funded by the big food companies which own the kibble manufactures nothing stands on trueth.
In science there's no trueth about the bad effects of raw meat diet. The one study that provided good information was recently broken down, with no reason at all. Yes, a fund problem....yeah right.

Sandra

02-06-2007, 09:49 PM

I think everyone here is highly oversensitive. Of course I don't think you care less about your dog; I don't even know you. The way I look at it, you have 2 options. One is slightly healthier, but higher risk. The other is slightly less healthy, but much less risky. To me, it seems an obvious choice to sacrifice a little health for a lot of safety.

To me, my dog had no choice. Some dogs do not get better on kibble, and then the option to raw meat diet changed his life incredibly. Whooper the same story, less ill but does unbelievable on the diet. You saying putting my dogs on high risk for no reason, that's something that makes me very mad.
But again, I think putting dogs only on kibble and nothing else is a bigger risk then providing better health with a change of diet. The facts of kibble are there also, so what's the trueth here?

Baylee Golden

02-06-2007, 10:02 PM

One thing I know about the fad of raw food is that it is claimed that feeding raw somehow magically cures all ailments. If a dog by some coincidence has a good month after eating raw it is attributed to the food when all sorts of factors are at play. I would love to see some true medical evidence rather than anecdotal stories (there are plenty of both positive and negative stories out there). In the meantime I am sticking to quality kibble with the addition of fresh vegetables and COOKED meats as training treats.

CaynCher

02-07-2007, 12:26 PM

Briefly read through all of these posts & as CG stated everyone is entitled to their opinion on the subject of raw Vs commercial. I must say it is my opinion to agree with Baylee Golden as to what I will & have been feeding my Goldens. My Golden, age almost l4, has been fed that way all of his life. He has never had to have his teeth professionally cleaned nor had any major health problems from his diet. None of the dogs that my parents had when I was a child were fed raw & they reached ages from 13 to 17 years. Most of the animals raised in the US for human consumption contain lots of chemicals which I myself would not care to consume. The meat also contains red dye to make it attractive or it would be more gray in color. So really you should buy organic or raise it yourself to avoid this. I would like to see statistics showing that dogs fed strictly raw meat in the USA have longer lifespans than those fed cooked or otherwise since our family dogs lived a long time & were very healthy to boot.

:dogbark :reddogx

Soda

02-07-2007, 05:15 PM

I really think there are advantages to both sides. While I follow a similar routine as Baylee Golden and CC, I do wonder about the perservatives additives etc. in the food and long term effects. Just look at the things put into human food that is supposed to contribute to various conditions and dieases. Sandra is right about many of the studies funded by dog food companies. I interrupt data in my job and understand that publishing data can be tricky as well as not as impartial as we are led to believe. I don't put a lot of stock in them unless I can review the full methodology and data sets. It would be interesting to look at the audits of these studies (if funded with public funds) and see exactly how they arrived at the results.

CanadianGolden

02-07-2007, 06:33 PM

Studies about dog food brands are sponsored by food companies, but the article from the AVMA had nothing to do with dog food companies. They do not fund information about raw food, so anything negative that the researchers found had nothing to do with commerical food companies.

Soda

02-08-2007, 02:22 AM

Not disagreeing with you. My post made no reference to the avma article. Seems like there are risks within both methods. Hard to compare the two methods with the currently information that is available.

Gees, guess we'll all have to start teaching our dogs to hunt or start hunting ourselves.....Oh wait, what about the wildlife that are exposed to pesticides.....and I'm sure global warming has something to do with something! :D

Just a little joke there. My point was there are no choices that are totally without some risk. And people are passionate about the choices they make. We continue to weigh the risks and chose the method that works for us.

sap4goldens

02-08-2007, 01:02 PM

I think I need to clear something up here.

Apparently I left CanadainGolden, and possibly several others with the impression I was some sort of psycho or mental case when I was younger.

Please let me clear this up.

What I was trying convey, albeit not very well apparently, is that it's odd to me how anybody from my generation or before grew up in one piece, healthy, mentally sound and emotionally stable. When I read all the warnings and articles concerning caring for and raising children these days it should not have been possible. If you go by all the what not to do's and beware of's, and the don't do this and don't allow that's etc...etc...etc... It's a wonder any of us survived and grew up to be "normal."

Our generation played out side in the dirt, climbed trees, went swimming in creeks and ponds and yet we survived. Sure, we had some skinned knees, ear infections and even some broken bones. We were also graded in school according to what we learned and how well we did or didn't do our work. If we did very bad in our school work and failed the tests, we were held back. However, all of us could read when we graduated. We also knew history and we could at the least add, subtract, multiply and divide. And we could spell pretty good too. We got paddled in school if we did something too terribly wrong. And most of us got a whipping when we got home as well. We were chastised, in school, in church or wherever if we were rude or disrespectful. Because bad behavior and/or disrespect was not tolerated, especially in school. We played competitive games and sports... And we kept score! We grew up knowing you don't always win, but you don't always loose either. And sometimes, you might just tie.

For the most part we grew up into well rounded responsible adults with a pretty good understanding of what's what. But if you listen to all the experts of the past several years, we were raised in all the wrong ways. Our parents, in some cases, should have been arrested, and we should have been removed from a "bad" environment. (Sorry for the soapbox rant but I can't help it.)

I know I took a long way around but my point is this... Forever there have been those who thought they knew better and that what was done in the past was all wrong. And in many cases they have been right. But more and more, when I watch the news each night, many is the time I am appalled at what I see and hear and if that is he result of the better way... I'd rather be doing it all wrong.

Now, my question is this... Is there something that indicates that the dramatic change in the "domesticated" animal diet is more beneficial to the animal rather than the human? It seems to me most of the benefit is for us. It's easier and cheaper, but what makes it better?

And yes, the wolf/dog has evolved. However, evolution is an extremely slow process and the result of a change in environment for the most part. I doubt there has been that much change over the last 500 years and almost nil in the last 50 that would require/validate that drastic a change in diet.

For that reason alone it seems raw and/or cooked makes more sense. I'm still waiting for someone to explain the advantage of kibble for the animal rather than their human companion. The introduction of kibble in their diet seems to barely precede many adverse health conditions for the animal.

Unfortunately, most of the information available is "anecdotal" where raw/cooked is concerned because apparently no one is willing to finance research to verify these results. Yet, I have not read of a quality study that disputes these results. Why is that?

This is all so confusing, and unfortunately it appears much of the debate is fueled by emotion.

Sorry for stirring the pot, but I really want to know.

Lysle

CanadianGolden

02-08-2007, 03:06 PM

Dogs have evolved from wolves (which happened more than 500 years ago...). I am not suggesting that dogs evolved in the last 50 years.

My point is that there is more of a risk of disease from raw food than from cooked food. Yes, cooked food, including kibble, CAN have pathogens in it, but it is less likely to than raw food.

Raw food may be, I agree, slightly healthier for the dog. Maybe the equivalent of a person eating organic meat and vegetables every day versus frozen vegetables and non-organic meat.

However, to me, the benefit of safety outweighs the slight deficit in nutrition. If you feed a good quality dry food (or even if you feed COOKED meat), the difference in nutrition to your dog is fairly small, whereas the increase in safety is large.

Would most of you eat raw meat and eggs every day? Maybe once in awhile, but not all the time, because you're likely to get salmonella. And while dogs are somewhat more resistant to these pathogens than we are, they are still able to contract them. Not to mention, dogs really only show resistance to salmonella, and not to the myriad of other pathogens present in a lot of raw meat.

Jo Ellen

02-08-2007, 03:57 PM

This hasn't come up yet and I know I'm going to be blasted but I do believe, honestly I do, that there is a point to be made for feeding dogs a species-appropriate diet ... and I don't mean from a strictly nutritional physiological point of view.

A raw meaty bone is certainly more fulfilling for a dog than a bowl of kibble. I never, NEVER, get this look when setting down a bowl of kibble for Daisy .... but ALWAYS get this look when giving her a whole raw mackeral. It means something, it's worth something, it's important, I believe it is.

http://pic4.picturetrail.com/VOL707/3456374/7102662/148908585.jpg

CanadianGolden

02-08-2007, 06:05 PM

I'm not going to flame you. It doesn't make a difference to me what you feed your dog; I've never met you.

I aim to spread facts and knowledge.

However, your experience may be based on your individual dog. My dog goes insane for ANY kind of food equally. As well as tennis balls, sticks, etc. So I'm not sure it's a great way to gauge what's healthy.

In addition, a child will go crazy for ice cream and cookies, but not for broccoli. It also doesn't indicate which is healthier.

Jo Ellen

02-08-2007, 06:25 PM

It also doesn't indicate which is healthier.

I wasn't trying to argue that point at all. I was making an entirely different point ... perhaps you missed it.

elvira

02-09-2007, 04:12 AM

Sandra

02-09-2007, 01:50 PM

CanadianGolden; you're right that our dogs are no wolves. But they still have their short intestinal tract and carnivore teeth. All the organs of a dog (carnivore) are made to receive food supplies out of raw meat diet. The whole metabolism of a dog/cat/ferret is build to survive and receive food based on a carnivore diet. The organs are not build to digest and filter grain based heated kibble, which are triggers on several diseases which are immune related (for example epilectic disease).

I'm not fighting you about raw meat diet versus home meat diet, because I respect people in that. I would like you to respect mine and millions other dog loving people too, of which dogs are fed this way for years and years.
If I did not respect people at all, I would gladly interfered in kibble topics which I won't.
But some people asked for 'evidence' that a carnivore diet is better then kibble or canned food.

Salmonella does exist in heated food too and evidence is there dogs became ill after eating dog treats:
http://www.fda.gov/cvm/septvet2000.htm
Although no illnesses from these products have been reported in the United States, consumers should handle dried animal parts like they would handle raw meat, according to Dunnavan. In other words, wash your hands with soap and hot water after handling, avoid putting the treats on food contact surfaces (such as kitchen countertops), and don't allow children to touch their mouths after handling until they've washed their hands. Dunnavan also advises consumers not to purchase unpackaged dried treats, which are more likely to be contaminated by Salmonella.
While healthy pets rarely become ill from the bacteria, they can become carriers of Salmonella and infect humans or other animals. This means that you could become infected if Fido licks your face after chewing a contaminated product.

Earlier this year, FDA alerted U.S. distributors of both the suspect Canadian products and U.S.-manufactured dried animal parts

Most AVMA reports come from the University of Ohio which is funded by Purina:
http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/jan05/050115ww.asp

Jane Anderson's opinion about the 'research' you mentioned:
http://www.rawlearning.com/responsetoAVMA1.html

Raw meat diet increases healt (for example on cats):
http://www.healthypetjournal.com/default.aspx?tabid=20622

How AVMA's bad science became a hype:
http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache:hlL42SYvv-4J:alter-idem.smartmonkey.org/cats/badscience.pdf+dogs+raw+meat+AVMA&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=17
The tragedy of this flawed study is that the damage has already been done. There are 65,000
veterinarians in the AVMA, and most of them receive this journal. All but about 3,000 of them practice
conventional medicine, recommend commercial dog foods, and prescribe commercial therapeutic diets.
This article has given them seeming justification for their skepticism about raw food diets. Even if
corrections are published, these readers’ opinions have already been influenced. Although JAVMA has
printed a series of small corrections and letters to the editor on the topic, without a highly publicized
retraction, correction, and/or apology – given about the same space and prominence as the original
article – it is unlikely that many will feel it necessary to reconsider their newly solidified positions.
As far as we’re concerned, one of the oddest parts of this whole tale is the report from one participating
owner who said that, in all the time he was dealing with the authors, they never once asked him if his
dog was healthy. Wouldn’t that be the first question to ask?
-By Jean Hofve, DVM
Dr. Jean Hofve is the Companion Animal Program Coordinator for the Animal Protection Institute,
located in Sacramento, California.

The real trueth about kibble:
http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/jesse.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0106-03.htm
http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/petfood2.html

The recall of several brand of kibble making dogs very sick and died. Only recalls over the last 4 years, the others I did not mention but the list is big. This is our very healthy dog food we're talking about.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/22/dog.deaths/index.html
http://quikonnex.com/channel/item/25732
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2003/NEW00910.html
http://www.aplus-flint-river-ranch.com/define-royalcanin-recall.php
http://www.michigan.gov/mda/0,1607,7-125-1566_2310_42020---,00.html

Please read this very interesting view of a very respectable dr. Ian Billinghurst. His opinion is shared by important vets like Dr. Tom Lonsdale, Dr. Belfield and scientists who support carnivore diets for dogs, cats and ferrets.
Bone and joint disease in young dog - Are we barking up the wrong way?
http://www.crosskeysbooks.com/newsdesk_info.php?newsPath=2&newsdesk_id=95

I could give you lots and lots of views what kind of diseases kibble causes, especially the auto-immune diseases which make the breeds weaker and weaker.

Look on the Internet for reports of commercial produced raw meat diet and 'evidence' of sick dogs and dogs died due to this (other then the racing dogs 'study'). You'll not find the answer you need to support your view on your opinion.

But I will stop here. Please, make benefit out of this and make up your own opinion. :)

Greets,
Sandra, Stanley & Whooper

Soda

02-09-2007, 04:10 PM

Again, I think it's important to evaluate the studies and make the decision on what's right for you and the dog :)

Thanks for posting the info Sandra, interesting.

CanadianGolden

02-09-2007, 07:48 PM

Last year there was a programm on the Dutch television. They make programms about all kind of products and are allways welcome in every factory they visit. When they made a programm about petfood, they weren't allowed in any factoryc, but one. This one produced a raw complete food. They tried to go to a meeting of producers of pet food, they weren't allowed. The pedigree canned food label says "with 20% fresh meat, this is very healthy". They callled the number on the label and asked, why there wasn't more meat in it, while meat was that healthy. Ofcause, they couldn't answer this question.
For the kibble-lovers : How can this be good for a carnivor, while there is far more cereals in it, than meat ?

And about evolution : what do you think, dogs ate before the kibble was invented ?

Pedigree isn't what I'd call a good quality dry food. Of course you can find unhealthy dry food, but healthy food also exists.

Before kibble, dogs ate table scraps, and I'm sure most of them weren't as healthy for it. If that had been such a great method, we'd be recommending cooked food. They didn't eat *raw* food, they ate scraps of cooked food. I am fine with cooked food provided it is a balanced diet.

Jo Ellen

02-09-2007, 08:15 PM

They didn't eat *raw* food, they ate scraps of cooked food

How do you know what dogs used to eat? Back when families would butcher their own cows or shoot their own turkeys for dinner, rabbits, way back when. Back in the pioneer days, I'm sure dogs had plenty of opportunity to find their own meals or snacks ... many still do. I remember my favorite dauchsund when I was a child ate my turtles.

What about the dogs that hung out with the Indians? I seriously doubt the Indians cooked the food for their dogs, I just find that very hard to believe.

Dogs have a taste for raw meat, I don't think it's because they've been eating cooked meat all along.

Dogs do not have an issue with raw meat, either physically or mentally -- WE do.

Sandra

02-10-2007, 02:04 AM

That's totally correct, Jo Ellen. Big issue is what human think.
Nice story about how dogs were fed in earlier days is to read on our forum. The explaining CanadianGolden makes, is slightly different then our story. Poorness in the World War one made that dogs were forced to eat the poorest food there was, table scraps and rotten food. Before that they ate raw meaty bones, organs and a few table scraps. Mostly raw, sometimes cooked. Just like Lonsdale explained in his books.
Back then there were no illnesses due to specific breeding.

Back then there were no illnesses due to kibble food and vaccinations. Back then (before WW1) the dogs were pretty healthy on the fresh food they ate. Kibble food, vaccinations and medical drugs took all their resistance away.
I do not want to close my eyes for this. That's one of the many reasons I wrote my website. Unfortunately in Dutch language, but my information is very wurthfull for the Golden breeders I want to reach.

The food my dogs eat is very well balanced in its own natural way. Every day they eat their little prey with some fiber or herbs to finish it. No extra supplements, no grain balanced diets, just normal carnivore food. And look how healthy they are....... :D

CanadianGolden

02-10-2007, 09:11 AM

Sandra

02-10-2007, 11:10 AM

Obviously we will have to agree to disagree. I don't see any studies supporting your opinions, and you're obviously not going to change to agree with mine.

I hope that your dogs remain healthy and suffer no ill effects from potential pathogens in food.

No facted science is known that pets died due to raw meat diet. You as a home made coock are well aware that I'm right about this. Commercial science is not yet able to confirm the bad effects of pathogens in a diet that exists longer then there was commercial food. No sick dogs are known, little high risk there is for human beings. But salmonella and pathogens are everywhere around us, not only in food.
There are so much benefits changing a kibble diet into a diet that stands close to a dogs natural way of surviving. That's unbelievable true. And yes, I'm convinced my dogs eat what suits them helping increasing their health and staing that way.
Never I'll turn to kibble or other processed food again.
Again, I'll not attack you on your way of feeding because it's far much better then any processed food at all. But seeing these pictures you cannot hide yourself behind the idea that dogs do not need a carnivore diet. One of the many many benefits, my boys do not need dental care anymore.....or dental care injections for that matter.......... :D

http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h180/monsters_photos/g9.jpg
http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h180/monsters_photos/g4.jpg

I refer to the several studies done by Billinghurst, Lonsdale and Eliassen. I refer to the very open eying study of our very famous Dr. Pottenger's Cat Study.
http://archives.zinester.com/15495/102378.html
http://www.mercola.com/2005/mar/16/natural_pet_foods.htm

CanadianGolden

02-10-2007, 11:14 AM

Sigh. I am not hiding myself behind anything. When did I say dogs don't need a carvinorous diet? Meat should be the major ingredient in all dog food. And in the foods I feed, it is. I don't feed any old food. None of my dogs need dental care either, or have ever been sick except for at the end of their lives. You're attacking me, and claiming that I'm stupid and wrong, and it is obnoxious and uncalled for. I'm done with this thread now.

Jo Ellen

02-10-2007, 11:20 AM

Maybe we're afraid if we feed our dogs a raw meat diet, they will turn into wild beasts again. I have had lots of people tell me never to let Daisy get a taste for blood or she'll be killing chickens and goats and such. That's total hogwash.

Seeing is believing. Sandra's dogs are a perfect example of what can be accomplished with species specific nutrition. It's not rocket science, it's not the devil incarnate ... it's a beautiful beautiful BEAUTIFUL thing paw

Tailer'sFolks

02-10-2007, 11:21 AM

For all it is worth, I do think this has been a very informative thread.

Lots of great info from all points of view.

One of the Greatest things about this Website is that we can discuss & educate each other.

Opinions do matter.

If we can't state our views, have discussions, open our brains to new ways to think about things...then why bother being here in the first place.

Jo Ellen

02-10-2007, 11:22 AM

You're attacking me, and claiming that I'm stupid and wrong, and it is obnoxious and uncalled for

That's absurd, CG .... Sandra was not doing that anymore than you have done in your previous posts on this topic. Obviously we all feel strongly about our beliefs. I think you're being highly oversensitive yourself now.

CanadianGolden

02-10-2007, 11:36 AM

She has stated that "I know she is right" and I am "hiding behind...something".

I don't see why she cares what I feed my dogs. I tried to educate someone who was on the fence about some of the facts regarding raw food.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=339295
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16677120&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=12512556&query_hl=7&itool=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16478425&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

Sandra, the above three articles provide examples of dogs harboring Salmonellosis, Cryptosporidium, Neospora, and Toxoplasma due to being fed raw food.

Conclusions from the final paper listed:
CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Bacterial contamination is common in commercially available raw meat diets, suggesting that there is a risk of foodborne illness in dogs fed these diets as well possible risk for humans associated with the dogs or their environments.

Also, here is a quote from the third article listed:
"Among clinic patients, dogs fed raw meat were significantly more frequently seropositive (65.2%) than those eating only commercial dry feed or cooked meat (25.7%)."

Honestly, this is not about what you feed your dog. It doesn't matter to me. But you cannot state that there are no incidents of dogs becoming sick due to such a diet. Obviously dogs can get sick from eating dry food as well, but do not assert that a raw diet is risk free when I can give you multiple studies showing that dogs DO get sick from the pathogens in raw foods. You also stated that I (CG) think that dogs do not need a meat diet, and I certainly did not say that.

We both have healthy, happy dogs. Let's both promote only factual information (that is, personal experience without extrapolation, and scientific studies), and let others make their own decisions.

Jo Ellen

02-10-2007, 12:31 PM

In your first link, CG, the article merely states that dogs fed a raw chicken diet have salmonella in their stools. Not that the dogs were sickened by this but that it presents a public health hazard.

I don't understand how this presents any more of a public health hazard than our own stools. Our own stools are full of e-coli and other dangerous bacteria. We use our common sense, personal hygiene. I don't pick up Daisy's stools outside without gloves and I always wash my hands afterwards right away. That's common sense. Same with preparing raw meat for cooking, there's just certain things you do and don't do or you might get sick. MIGHT get sick ... I know many people, children included, do not wash their hands after going to the bathroom ... yet they live long and healthy lives.

CanadianGolden

02-10-2007, 12:47 PM

That's one article. What about the others?

Jo Ellen

02-10-2007, 01:13 PM

2nd one...

Again, I don't see where the dogs were sickened, only that bacteria was found in their stools and in the environment.

What kind of bacteria would be found at any dog facility? I would imagine quite a bit, because it's in their stools and stool travels :p Can you find salmonella and e-coli and other potentially harmful bacteria in kibble stools? I would guess yes.

What's on our telephones? Our door knobs, our garbage cans, our lawns, the bottom of our shoes, in our bathrooms, our kitchen cutting boards, our hand towels, the dogs, the cats, the kitty litter ....

Jo Ellen

02-10-2007, 01:20 PM

3rd one ...

I don't understand this one. What is seropositive? That they found antibodies to a bacteria in the dogs? Were any actually sickened? Not too clear on this one.

Right away though, I question the sample. Dogs from shelters and dogs from military training camps ? Need to think about that one.

CanadianGolden

02-10-2007, 01:32 PM

These were controlled studies, so where the dogs are from is irrelevant, because the incidence was higher in dogs fed raw food even compared to controls from the same location. In addition, no, a normal dog should not be shedding toxoplasma and salmonella in its feces, and neither should you. Yes, they have bacteria, but not these strains or species. You will also notice that the control dogs had a much lower incidence of the same bacteria.

I guess you are not very familiar with the scientific protocol, so I hope that cleared things up a little.

Jo Ellen

02-10-2007, 01:43 PM

4th one...

Bacterial contamination is common in commercially available raw meat diets, suggesting that there is a risk of foodborne illness in dogs fed these diets as well possible risk for humans associated with the dogs or their environments.

Here either, I'm not reading the dogs were actually sick or diseased. Bad stuff is found in all raw meats, our own included. Is that true? Yet all of the recent foodborn public health hazards or serious illness I'm aware of have come from produce...and not produce contaminated with dog feces either.

We do much better with potentially harmful pathogens when we handle our own food, raw meat included.

Jo Ellen

02-10-2007, 01:49 PM

I guess you are not very familiar with the scientific protocol

That's where highly oversensitive reactions come from, CG. Let's just talk, shall we?

I have a degree in psychology. I am familiar with science and the method and the protocol. I am not a scientist. I am not a genius.

Daisy is feeling uncomfortable today. I would love to pick up on this again, later....

CanadianGolden

02-10-2007, 02:30 PM

When you question the validity of the results because of the population from which the subjects were gathered, and state that all dogs have bacteria in their feces, you implied that you don't know the scientific method, because the concept of a control is vital to the basic structure of all experiments.

Jo Ellen

02-10-2007, 02:34 PM

even studies with controls can be flawed

Jo Ellen

02-10-2007, 02:57 PM

A total of 1,013 feces samples and 8 mesenteric lymphonodus samples obtained from apparently healthy dogs were examined for the incidence of salmonella infection. One strain of S. typhimurium (ST) was isolated from feces of one dog, and S. enteritidis (SE) was isolated from the mesenteric lymphonodus of one dog. Sera obtained from 330 apparently healthy dogs were examined for Salmonella antibodies using an ELISA with heated whole cells of SE and ST. Fifty-one of the 330 serum samples were considered to be positive for salmonella antibodies, including 12 which were SE-positive and 39 which were ST-positive. These results indicate that dogs cause possible environmental problems as Salmonella carriers.

Not sure what their diets were, doesn't say ?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=12499701

Jo Ellen

02-10-2007, 03:10 PM

http://www.mountaindogfood.com/HealthCare/Salmonella2.pdf

"36% of dogs carry salmonella in their digestive tracts."

The article is full of examples of dogs being administered salmonella, even salmonella that caused sickness in humans, yet they don't get sick. They shed it, sometimes, in their stools, but they don't get sick. Not even small puppies that have immature immune systems.

CG, I am still not finding any evidence that salmonella presents a significant risk of great harm to our dogs.

Jo Ellen

02-10-2007, 03:22 PM

Interestingly, this article also states that information from the Center of Disease Control showed that 80% of salmonella infection cases were from human sources.

Another point, in a sample of dogs where 78% had strains of salmonella, no cases were passed to their handlers.

Sandra

02-11-2007, 02:17 AM

Sandra

02-11-2007, 02:43 AM

The 'famous' PubMed publishes of Salmonella studies are not independed and funded by some very clever food companies which control dog food manufactures as well.
The last 'study' done is not finished due to bad science and not wurth making evidence that raw meat diets are dangerous for dogs. The stole research only made present Salmonella existed, but did not descripe the several types of sick making Salmonella because there weren't. And suddenly the study was called of.................

Salmonella is everywhere around us, walking outside is wurser then feeding a high quality raw meat diet. Dogs are resistant to it.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=17285243&query_hl=12&itool=pubmed_docsum

Study on dogs fed KIBBLE and were getting a big Salmonella outbreak. What's the trueth in here?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16979851&query_hl=12&itool=pubmed_docsum

The pet treats study again........
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16810148&query_hl=12&itool=pubmed_docsum

Just to concentrate on this very big issue. Several types of deficiencies are known due to kibble. This is just one of them. My dogs do not have deficiencies at all, they're under vet controll each 6 months.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=14584742&query_hl=21&itool=pubmed_DocSum

Explaining Salmonella like it really is:

http://k9joy.com/dogarticles/doghealth01salmonella.pdf

http://www.mountaindogfood.com/HealthCare/Salmonella.pdf

Sandra

02-11-2007, 03:10 AM

Responce on article in Dogs in Canada magazine

The Raw Truth - Separating Fact from Fiction

A comment by Ian Billinghurst

Veterinary Surgeon - Australia

To the Editor(s) of Dogs in Canada,

Dear Madam/Sir,

I read with interest an article by Hilary Watson (HW), which appeared in a recent edition of "Dogs in Canada".

In this article, HW discusses three rationales she sees as inappropriate reasons to validate the decision to feed companion animals a raw food diet. The first rationale is the premise that dogs are wolves.
The second rationale is based on the presence of enzymes in meat. The third rationale is the contention that raw foods contain nutrients more bioavailable compared to commercial pet foods. I entirely agree that choosing to feed raw on the basis of those propositions is highly unlikely. HW concluded the article with the observation that there are many sound reasons for choosing to feed a raw food diet, but failed to
mention them. The body of the article presented some 'factual' material, which did not appear to support her argument. If you will permit, I would like to share with your readers my further thoughts on this topic from the perspective of an Australian companion animal
veterinarian.

I would first like to mention what I believe would be the only sound reason one could possibly have to make the decision to follow a particular feeding paradigm. I feel confident HW would agree that such a decision would have to be based on the improved health of dogs fed that way. The gold standard basis for such decision making requires the results of appropriate studies. This would be the only way to truly
separate fact from fiction. Unfortunately there have been no scientific studies comparing the lifetime health of raw fed dogs Vs dogs fed processed pet food.

Because no such studies exist, potential raw feeders need some other basis on which to make an informed decision. Which brings me to my next point and it is this. There have been very few people who make the choice to feed their dogs a raw diet on the basis of the three rationales discussed in the article. I find that most people base their feeding choices on the words and experience of a trusted counselor, usually following a health crisis with their dog(s). This counselor could be a veterinarian, the breeder of their dog, a dog
trainer, the local pet-store owner or maybe even their neighbour who has long practical experience of feeding a raw diet.

When people make the decision to feed raw, the next question then becomes, "what exactly is the evolutionary diet of the dog?"
And of course the evolutionary diet of the dog is not the wolf diet, as dogs have evolved beyond such a diet. For example, where the wolf was and is predominantly a hunter and very much less of a scavenger, the modern dog, evolving on the 'rubbish heaps of human habitation for the last
fifteen thousand years, has become predominantly a scavenger and very much less a hunter. Without going into details (that requires a book!), the only point I will make at this juncture is that such a diet is still predominantly raw!

Having made the decision to feed raw, pet owners will only continue to feed this way if the diet fulfills its promise.
I am pleased to report that most people so persuaded rarely return to kibble feeding.
Additionally, most happily accept the evidence before their eyes, that raw diets work in producing superior health, without having to understand why! And this is good news, because the answers to that question can be difficult to pin down.

However, there are some people who need to understand exactly how and why raw foods produce their spectacular results. These people belong to a small and highly exclusive group of dedicated raw feeders who will use the dog as wolf theory or the enzyme theory or the bioavailability theory (or some other theory) in their attempt to understand why their
dogs are so healthy. Having found what they believe to be rational arguments, which they believe explain the obvious improvement in health seen in their raw fed dogs, these people will often use such hypotheses in an endeavour to 'spread the word.' They believe such hypotheses will be highly persuasive to the unconverted.

Which brings us back to those hypotheses.

Can we say that dogs are raw feeders on the basis that they are actually wolves, do the enzymes in raw foods confer some sort of health advantage and what exactly is the story of bioavailability in relation to raw foods?
Can we separate fact from fiction in these areas?

1) The claim that dogs are wolves

There is not one reputable scientist alive today, with expertise in the area of canine evolution, who would dispute that dogs have evolved from wolves and that is a fact.
Most would also agree that the separation of dog and wolf occurred in the very recent past - probably in the last
15000 years or so.
However, having said that, it is equally clear that dogs are not wolves - that also is a fact. Dogs are dogs and wolves
are wolves and we may add that dingoes are dingoes - somewhere in between. Yet again, we need to qualify that statement by pointing out another fact.
That is, all three canids will freely interbreed - this
is an undisputable fact. So clearly, all three canids share more than 99% of their DNA - a fact. Equally, it is also a scientific fact, that this is a much higher percentage of DNA than is shared between humans and chimps, which is the comparison made by HW.
In relation to that comparison, it is also worthwhile pointing out the fact that humans and chimps have never been reported as producing viable offspring, so clearly the chimp/human comparison is not valid in terms of comparing the genomic or genetic similarity or dissimilarity between
dogs and wolves.

However, when it comes to nutrition, the above discussion is actually irrelevant. What requires discussion is not the genetic similarity or otherwise of dogs and wolves. Rather, what we need to discuss is the question, "do dogs and wolves share similar digestive physiologies?''
The factual answer to that question is yes.
So no, a Cocker Spaniel is not a wolf, but they do share a common digestive physiology. And this is borne out by practical experience (for example, most Australian dogs,
until the mid 1980s were fed a predominantly raw food diet - another fact). So, from the standpoint of basic physiology, there is no reason not to feed raw. And we may add or perhaps conclude that the shared digestive physiology of the dog and wolf, could well be part of the explanation for the claimed health superiority that raw-feeders make for
their dogs.

In relation to the question of human nutrition vs chimp nutrition, as cited by the author, I would like to make the point that her conclusion is not valid. There are many studies, which demonstrate the superior health of Seventh day Adventists when compared to the rest of western
society - a definite fact. Here we may make the factual observation that the Adventist diet is more closely aligned to that of our primate cousins the Chimpanzees. As pointed out by HW, the chimps live predominantly on food such as vegetation and termites; I would add - in a similar manner to many primitive human tribes. The fact is that the Adventist diet is a very healthy diet for humans and is, unfortunately a
long way from the diet 'enjoyed' by the vast majority of unhealthy humans in Western society. It is also worth noting that both the chimp diet and the Adventist diet are very closely aligned to diets espoused by and heavily promoted by health farms (for humans) around the world.

Unfortunately the comparison between cattle and sheep and their copper requirements, although doubtless factual, bears little relevance to the question of whether or not we should feed dogs a raw diet. Cattle and sheep share a similar digestive physiology and they both consume a raw rather than a cooked diet! On the other hand, the owners of some
Bedlington Terriers may well feel uncomfortable for the safety of their dog's liver, when feeding their dogs on processed pet foods with their high copper content!

Finally, in an endeavour to separate fact from fiction, note the following.

Firstly, it is true that for the time our dogs have been
associated with 'mankind who cooks,' some of the food that dogs have eaten has been cooked. However, it is also true that in that period, the bulk of the food which dogs have consumed, has continued to be raw - scraps - mostly derived from mankind's 'rubbish heaps.'
Indeed, it has not been until the middle of the last century that the bulk of our dogs' diet has consisted of cooked grain. This period of time is an eye-blink in evolutionary terms, so that clearly, there has been no time for the dog to adapt its digestive physiology to modern processed foods.
We may therefore conclude that the evolutionary diet of the
modern dog is one that aligns with the extensive practical experience of Australian dog owners of the very recent past. That is, dogs not only tolerate raw, but, in accord with the clinical observations of a number of Australian vets (and many thousands of dog owners), actually require most if not all of their food to be raw, in order to become and remain
truly healthy.

2) Do the enzymes in meat confer an advantage to raw fed dogs?

Unless one can demonstrate that raw meat contains digestive enzymes, there is no reason to conclude that their presence may confer a nutritional advantage. If by the presence of enzymes in raw meat, we are speaking of the enzymes involved in the general metabolism of the
cell, the answer would have to be that such enzymes can not confer any particular advantage! These enzymes function at a pH close to neutral and have no function in digesting proteins, carbohydrates or fats, rather they are involved in the citric acid cycle, the urea cycle and so on.
What scientists refer to as intermediary metabolism.

However, if we are speaking of the enzymes in lysosomes, then the answer is, most definitely yes. Lysosomes are organelles found in all cells and they contain digestive enzymes and that is a fact. Lysosomes have numerous cleaning up functions within cells (including the removal of
potentially pathogenic bacteria) and they also have the responsibility of digesting/destroying the cell, which contains them, when that cell is no longer viable.
Clearly, lysosomes are a concentrated source of digestive enzymes. They function at a pH of 5 - a pH which they also
promote. The enzymes in lysosomes are the enzymes responsible for the autolysis (self digestion) of dead tissue. We see (and smell) the results of their activity in corpses left to 'rot' in the sun. That is a definite and definitely unpleasant, fact.

It is not unreasonable therefore to surmise or hypothesise (and in fact we know this to be true) that such enzymes are highly active at body temperature and in an anoxic/acidic environment. This is precisely the environment we find in a canid's stomach. In other words, yes, lysosomal enzymes, released by every cell in raw meat, (but destroyed by
cooking) would play a significant role in the digestion of raw meat within the stomach of a wild carnivore such as a feral dog, a wolf, a dingo or a wild-cat.

Given that the digestive physiology of the wolf and the domestic dog are essentially the same, we would have to conclude that lysosomal digestion would definitely occur in the stomach of domestic dogs (and cats), if allowed by the carer. Do those lysosomal enzymes confer a health advantage? The answer to that is - we don't know, but since the digestive physiology of canids over millions of years has evolved in concert with the activity of lysosmes, our guess would have to be - probably yes. I should also add at this point, that dogs, are gulpers rather than chewers.
This means they will send their raw protein into the stomach in a form where the majority of the meat cells will be
protected from the highly acidic conditions of the stomach. This will allow the lysosomal enzymes to continue their work at the desired pH - of 5, for a period of time which would allow autolysis or lysosomal digestion to play a more than token role in the digestive process of canids.

In relation to the question (raised by HW) of trypsin inhibitors, while it is true that raw soy beans contain trypsin inhibitors (and cooking will destroy those inhibitors), no person contemplating a raw diet for their dog would consider feeding it raw soy beans. On the other hand, phytate, another antinutrient present in grain, is not significantly
affected by heat and will continue to interfere with the absorption of certain minerals even after processing.

The thiamine story relates to a solo diet of raw fish flesh. It is the case that some species (of fish) will contain a thiaminase. As no competent raw feeder would bother to feed their dogs a solo diet of raw fish flesh, the facts are, this is not a valid argument against feeding raw.

The invalid raw egg white story has been around a long time. The scientific fact is that there is sufficient biotin in the egg yolk to more than compensate for the presence of avidin in the white, so in practical terms, this is not a problem for the raw fed dog. Practical experience bears this out. To produce a biotin deficiency, the facts are, even by feeding pure egg whites and little else, it is almost impossible to produce a biotin deficiency without also destroying the gut flora with antibiotics. You see the fact is, healthy gut flora produce all the biotin a dog requires.

In relation to cooking Vs acid denaturation of proteins, it is not a fact that such processes are identical in outcome. While it is true that cooking will denature the protein in a similar fashion to acid in the stomach, the facts are, cooking will also destroy many other nutrients which are not destroyed by the acid, including vitamins and essential amino acids, so once again, this is not a valid argument for
cooking as opposed to feeding raw. Another sad fact about cooking is that over-cooking (excessive heat applied to food for prolonged periods), results in indigestible complexes between starches and proteins - a common feature of cooked and processed pet foods, but factually (and thankfully) absent in raw foods.

3) The question of maximising bioavailability?

Speaking from the standpoint of evolution, it would seem reasonable to hypothesise that the bioavailability of nutrients as allowed by the diet a species has eaten for millions of years, would by definition be optimal.
Such bioavailability will vary enormously from food to food and from nutrient to nutrient. As this has been well demonstrated by HW, it requires no further comment. Clearly, using maximal bioavailability as a rationale for feeding a raw diet would most definitely be invalid and
therefore a poor reason for making the decision to feed a raw diet.

Equally, it is valid to speculate that evolutionary bioavailability may well explain and confer some of the health advantage that raw-feeders observe in their dogs.

In relation to bioavailability, it is interesting to note the slogan by KalKan cat foods as quoted by the author: " a multi-vitamin in every can."
Let us separate fact from fiction by pointing out the following.
The facts are that this is an unfortunate example in that the cat foods of the time were lacking in sufficient taurine to maintain optimal health. This lack of taurine not only reflected a failure to use animal tissue to feed cats (obligate carnivores - fact), but was in many cases a direct result of the cooking process. This was noted as particularly so when the cooked food was presented in cans. As a result, the widely advertised as perfect foods for cats, were
responsible for retinal degeneration, cardiomyopathy and reproductive failure. Each of these problems is non-existent on a properly formulated raw-food or evolutionary diet - an easily demonstrable fact.

My experience as a long time raw feeder of my own dogs and as an advocate of raw feeding in my veterinary practice, validates the view that a properly formulated or evolutionary raw food diet -fulfills the promise of improved health.
This point of view is also validated by evolutionary theory.

In conclusion, let me reiteraten that I entirely agree with HW when she says that the decision to feed raw foods should be based on sound information, not on emotion or unsubstantiated (or fictional) claims.
To make a decision to feed raw on the basis of the dog being a wolf, that there are enzymes in raw food or that raw food produces food with increased bioavailability are very simply invalid reasons for choosing to feed a raw diet. Attempting to understand why a raw food fulfills its promises is another issue, with the hypotheses discussed above, having
varying degrees of validity in this respect.

The only valid or rational basis for choosing to feed a raw food diet to one's dog must be the superior performance of the diet in terms of reproduction, longevity and freedom from disease processes in the dog(s) that eat the diet. If this promise is fulfilled, we have separated fact from fiction.

Ian Billinghurst B.V.Sc.(Hons)(Syd),B.Sc.Agr(Syd).,Dip.Ed.(UNE)

Veterinary Surgeon

Bathurst

NSW

Australia.

Copyright Ian Billinghurst 2005

Sandra

02-11-2007, 03:26 AM

Then the following: In the Netherlands there are several professional vets (not holistic vets!!!) recommending raw meat diets or commercial produced raw meat diets.
The benefits out of those diets are important for reducing health and these benefits cannot be achieved by feeding heated processed foods.

One of those pro raw meat diet vets helped to develope a ground meat product.
http://www.carnibest.nl/

This same vet developed herself a biological produced ground meat based on goat and game. She and some other vets are fanatical raw feeders themselves and understand the nutrition needs of our pets very well.
http://www.banditvoeding.nl/

As long as the dogs show remarkable health changes eating the real raw meat diet, someone has to stand up and fight for good nutrition.

CanadianGolden

02-11-2007, 07:00 AM

I'll say it again. We both have healthy dogs. Who cares what we feed them? Let's give people facts and everyone can decide for themselves. There is obviously more than one way to do things.

Baylee Golden

02-11-2007, 08:25 AM

Jo Ellen

02-11-2007, 12:02 PM

All of this information is great, lots of stuff to read and consider. I'm not through reading yet but I still have not come across anything to indicate that dogs get sick with salmonella from raw meat. Isn't that where this discussion started?

CanadianGolden

02-11-2007, 12:41 PM

This article states that dogs can become sick from salmonella infection. Sorry that it does not cite the specific sources of salmonella in the dogs examined, but it shows that a dog that is exposed to salmonella can become ill.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=1102502&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

Here is a second article in the same vein.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16102313&query_hl=6&itool=pubmed_docsum

Jo Ellen

02-11-2007, 01:54 PM

A number of documented transmissions from dogs to human beings have been recorded.

WHERE is this documented?

Sandra

02-11-2007, 02:52 PM

I'll say it again. We both have healthy dogs. Who cares what we feed them? Let's give people facts and everyone can decide for themselves. There is obviously more than one way to do things.

Well, for example.....I care....I care for my dogs and other pets very much and want the best for them. As much as you want for your dog. I do not care at all if you are against my way of feeding or not. Really, I do not. But ignoring the many benefits such like prefending diseases like cancer and other immune related diseases that can be reached with this diet, because you want facts of Salmonella outbreaks due to raw meat diet....you'll not find. Because there are no studies done on that.
If that was the case, for example my little Dutch land with its thousands and thousands of dogs fed raw would be in terrible state now. I'm not fighting you that dogs never get Salmonella, but dogs died of Salmonella out of fresh raw food is not known. Especially not if good precaution are taken before and after given raw meat diet.
Salmonella is everywhere around us, the sick making Salmonella and bacteria types are on rotten dead animals in the parc. Do you want to know how many sick making bacteria are in horsestables or cattle stables?
In my believe the last 2 studies you provided, done on these large outbreaks where pets were involved, were not related on the Salmonella issue out of raw meat diets. Because if that was the case in your last 2 researches, the 'scientists' supporting these cases would gladly 'spread the word' raw meat diets are dangerous for human being, which they cannot. :204

CanadianGolden

02-11-2007, 03:35 PM

WHERE is this documented?

One example that I found:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=10945298&query_hl=11&itool=pubmed_docsum

Also, the papers that I posted do, of course, cite references, but as you do not have a subscription to pubmed you probably cannot view them.

CanadianGolden

02-11-2007, 03:38 PM

Well, for example.....I care....I care for my dogs and other pets very much and want the best for them. As much as you want for your dog. I do not care at all if you are against my way of feeding or not. Really, I do not. But ignoring the many benefits such like prefending diseases like cancer and other immune related diseases that can be reached with this diet, because you want facts of Salmonella outbreaks due to raw meat diet....you'll not find. Because there are no studies done on that.
If that was the case, for example my little Dutch land with its thousands and thousands of dogs fed raw would be in terrible state now. I'm not fighting you that dogs never get Salmonella, but dogs died of Salmonella out of fresh raw food is not known. Especially not if good precaution are taken before and after given raw meat diet.
Salmonella is everywhere around us, the sick making Salmonella and bacteria types are on rotten dead animals in the parc. Do you want to know how many sick making bacteria are in horsestables or cattle stables?
In my believe the last 2 studies you provided, done on these large outbreaks where pets were involved, were not related on the Salmonella issue out of raw meat diets. Because if that was the case in your last 2 researches, the 'scientists' supporting these cases would gladly 'spread the word' raw meat diets are dangerous for human being, which they cannot. :204

Of course we both care what our dogs eat. But the point is, it is obviously possible for BOTH of our diet choices to produce healthy dogs. Your dogs are healthy and so are mine. So I don't feel that either of us should be criticized for our food choices, as both of them appear to be equally good for our individual dogs.

Sandra

02-13-2007, 01:31 AM

There are many things that people researching the raw vs kibble debate need to consider as well. Depending on a persons lifestyle needs they may be an important consideration as well.

Just one factor people need to consider is that it does take some knowledge and research about the proper balances of food products before beginning this plan. Otherwise the dog may miss out on many important nutrients. An additional factor is the cost and time involved in preparation of a properly balanced diet.

This is not completely true. If you have a normal interest in the facts of the several raw meat diets, you choose the diet that suits you and your dog. Stick to the 'rules' involved and the rest will follow. Feeding prey is not difficult at all. Very good back ups are the several raw feeding fora and some very good books (like Lonsdale for example). All the very important nutrients are in the simulation of your 'prey'. Shortnesses are not at case in our way of feeding. Simulating a prey and some 20% different like fiber, herbs, eggs, seeds etc. That's our properly balanced diet with all the nutrients a pet needs. Without the many many supplements which a pet certainly does not need.

One more factor is the need for storage area of the meat and other food products needed to maintain a large dog with a balanced raw diet.
Now, not to start up another controversy, I am not saying these are the most important considerations and am not placing a value or moral judgement on them. They are just considerations plain and simple and not the reasons I have chosen to proceed with the diet I have chosen for my own dog.

I did not have much choise back then. And I'll do everything to make my dog better (Stanley). So yes, I first gave the Carnibest commercial raw food and the increase of health was incredible. Later I learned a lot about the real natural raw feeding way 3 times a week I gave a little prey and the other days Carnibest. The changes were big, very big in a very positive way. Yes, it changed my live incredible because my Stanley did not have the huge problems anymore he earlier had on kibble. No more visits to the vet every month, no more bad medicine, no more bad nights anymore. So yes, for me this diet is wurth it and I bought a huge deepfreeze especially for the dogs diet. :D
The storage is not the problem in my believe. Spending money on a good deepfreeze is not that much for increasing health. What could be a problem is to buy the different kind of food you need. Here in The Netherlands it is no problem at all to provide everything out of a raw meat diet. Lots of work it is totally not, once in the 2 months we go to the butcher that provides all the meat we want (goat/lamb/calf/duck). And every 4 weeks we go to a special address which provides free range chicken. Yes, we're very lucky it is easy to get.

In all decisions we make in daily life a complexity of factors are important. There is no single correct answer. We all want to do what we think is the best for our own dogs in our attempts to keep them happy and healthy. Of those who I know feed raw, some have healthy dogs and others don't and the same goes for those I know who feed quality kibble or kibble and cooked foods. Sometimes it is just plain dumb luck.

I do not agree with you on this. Many diseases could easily be prefended with raw meat diet, but some dogs cannot be switched properly to a raw meat diet no matter what you do and they are better of on kibble or cooked diet. So dumb luck because my dogs happened to be healthy on the raw meat diet? No, I do not think so considering the many many dogs on our board alone whom increased health. I think the answer is there. Sorry to have another opinion about this.

Soda

02-13-2007, 01:58 AM

Sandra

02-13-2007, 04:27 AM

I see what Baylee Golden is saying. Diet is just one factor in a dogs health. Of course it can be a large factor but genetics, enviornment and sedentary lifestyle play large roles. General dog health cannot be contributed entirely to diet there are to many other factors.

Regardless of which method one chooses to feed their dog, it is not an indicator if the person cares or not. Some are not comfortable with other methods. There really is no one right way. It's nice to have all this information available so that we are able to choose. It seems like it's a lot like religion in that people are very passionate about the one they choose. Thats ok, but it becomes offensive to me if I'm pressured to convert. Just my humble opinion.

:D Yes......spread the word to convince.......something like that? I'm not spreading, but defending something that's attacted by wrong facts. That's something different then spreading religion. If I wanted to do that, you must really read my website about food. But you unfortunately can't, because it's written in Dutch. Not all diseases are genetically determined. Lots of organ diseases can be reduced by providing raw food and leave kibble food for what it is. Bad breeding, food and over-vaccinating. If we could change those 3 important causes, there could be hope to improve the overall state of whole populations of breeds. :)

Soda

02-13-2007, 06:11 AM

I respect your opinion Sandra, but I disagree somewhat. I agree that nutrition is important and in some case will help to regulate body functions. I don't agree in the all healing aspects that some give to this method. There are just too many factors involved to place that much emphasis on one portion of keeping our dogs healthy. I could feed a raw diet and the dog ends up with some disease or illness from a stream, the ground, other dogs, maybe he is predisposed to a disease.

I really feel that the health of my dog is not only what I feed him but deals with lifestyle. I'm not saying your way is not healthy nor am I saying that the method I choose is the best in all situations. I'm just saying it's not the cure all and shouldn't be presented as such. (I did not say that was what you're doing :) )

I really do respect your choice and you sound very committed to this choice. It sounds like you've done a lot of research and are very happy with the health of your dogs. I hope that you can respect the choices myself and others make if we choose a different method.

Sandra

02-13-2007, 07:19 AM

Offcourse I respect other choices, but after the years 'researching' myself I strongly believe immunity and proper carnivore food are one and the same. If immunity cannot be provided a pup for instance cannot fight his vaccination shots, or other types of illnesses. Grain is the highest trigger for diseases like pancreas insufficiency, epileptic disease and liver- and kidney disease. Also cancer cells grow very well on grain based food out of kibble. But the replacements of grains cause different types of illnesses as well, so how can we provide health here out of kibble?

I have red a lot of the researches Dr. Jean Dodds and Dr. D. Schultz have done on our pets. She strongly recomments not to vaccinate anymore after one year, provide raw food and wean off puppies on raw food for providing resistancy.
Mabey this has your interest?
http://www.naturalrearing.com/J_In_Learning/Immunization/vaccinations/VACCINATIONSPart4.htm

Between 2 week and 4 weeks, while still nursing, the immune system of the neonate grows and begins to take on its own duties. At the time of weaning, the immune system suffers from a decrease in nutrients and can be significantly lowered from a lack of Vitamin E and selenium. This is particularly true with ‘canned’ foods so it is better to start with ‘dry’ food. At 8 to 10 weeks, the neonate is closer to having an adult immune system. (Ed. Note: raw fresh food is of course best for weaning)

CanadianGolden

02-13-2007, 07:25 AM

Soda

02-13-2007, 08:11 AM

Thats great information but again, I have to respectfully disagree. I don't find any of the information convinces me that feeding with your method is the cure all. Having worked on some vet studies myself I believe there are just too many variables to draw that conclusion.

But thank you for the information.

Sandra

02-13-2007, 08:55 AM

No, you do not respect others' choices, because you continue to attack people who do not think your way, and say that the information I have provided (all studies published in peer reviewed journals) is "wrong".

I have truly lost respect for your opinion because of the way you push your views on others.

I do not push views, I only provide information that could help increasing health for our dogs. I really dislike kibble, because of what's in it is not at all healthy. My opinion on that you cannot change, but saying I then do not respect people which feed kibble that I find a little bit cheap to just 'get rid of me'. :D
I am not going with you on those studies, no. Glad I am not the only one, lots of scientists disagreed with those first ones and claimed this bij AAFCO.

Sandra

02-13-2007, 08:57 AM

Soda

02-13-2007, 10:53 AM

claddagh68

02-17-2007, 03:00 PM

Jo Ellen

02-17-2007, 03:43 PM

I buy human grade meat, hormone free.

DaisyMae

02-19-2007, 04:44 AM