# Grinding Raw Food



## DobManiac (Aug 12, 2007)

As anyone ever used a meat grinder to grind their raw food before feeding? I have never feed raw because I worry about my dogs choking on raw chunks. I have a friend that lost a dog due to a raw chicken piece getting caught in her thoat. I believe my butchershop will grind the meat for me with the bones still attached. 

Is there any reason why the meat should be feed whole?


----------



## briteday (Feb 10, 2007)

For a dog with all of their teeth it seems like extra effort to grind their food. 

However, two of my dogs came to us missing many teeth. So in the beginning I used to grind all of their whole chickens for one meal. And I gave them boneless muscle meat supplemented with calcium for the second meal of the day. I have since stopped grinding, for the most part. Even without several teeth they are quite capable of chewing down a chicken leg or wing just fine. And those pieces are a lot of bone, so I add some meat to compensate. For the second meal of the day I have found plenty of things besides chicken that have bones small enough for my little dogs.

If you feel that a raw diet is in the best interest of your dog and you have done all of the research to create a proper diet (a bad raw diet is far worse than a quality kibble) then go ahead and have the butcher grind for you. Just be sure to mix the ground meat well to disperse the meat, bone, and organs evenly throughout the mixture. Package it in containers that will serve no more than two day's worth of meals. Ground meat is more prone to creating the perfect environment for bacterial growth, so be sure to defrost it properly, keep it refrigerated, and use it within two day's time.


----------



## Trainer (Feb 18, 2009)

DobManiac said:


> Is there any reason why the meat should be feed whole?


Besides being easier on the caregiver, dental health and psychological well being plus its just fun to eat whole animal parts. Would you like to eat nothing but ground food your whole life?

briteday: what is a bad raw diet? I can't think of any that would be worse than eating kible.


----------



## cjac&mac (Feb 12, 2007)

Trainer said:


> Besides being easier on the caregiver, dental health and psychological well being plus its just fun to eat whole animal parts. Would you like to eat nothing but ground food your whole life?
> 
> briteday: what is a bad raw diet? I can't think of any that would be worse than eating kible.


I think Briteday means an improper rotation, or an improper supplemented raw diet. Meaning, poor balances of muscle meat to bone ratios, and such as that.

As for Feeding ground raw vs. whole.... I think it comes down to how comfortable one feels about feeding whole raw, and the realistic efforts it takes to have everything ground. Every owner has to do what's best for them and there dog. Is one worse or better than the other?... nope.


----------



## Trainer (Feb 18, 2009)

cjac&mac said:


> Every owner has to do what's best for them and there dog. Is one worse or better than the other?... nope.


I strongly disagree. You are missing one of the major benefits of raw by grinding. Periodontal health. Owners who grind are doing what is best for the owner, not the dog. They can't quite wrap their minds around the fact that dogs are quite capable of eating whole foods including bones.


----------



## rosemaryninja (Sep 28, 2007)

DobManiac said:


> Is there any reason why the meat should be feed whole?


I'd say the dental health of your dog, and also convenience. Unless your dog has serious dental issues, there's no real reason to grind up the food as long as you're feeding size-appropriate bones. You'd be really surprised at how much good a raw diet can do for teeth. Not just grinding bones, but ripping meat off them. 

Trainer: A bad raw diet is one that hasn't been properly researched. I'd rather feed my dog Pro Plan than put her on nothing but chicken wings for the rest of her life.


----------



## Canadian Dog (Nov 3, 2007)

Like you, I was planning on purchasing a grinder when I decided to switch Molly to raw and feared she would choke on a bone. Realized a good grinder is going to cost quite a bit if it's expected to grind more than chicken bones. Then found a meat processing company nearby that sells ground meat/bone/offal for dogs. It didn't take long for me to feed her ground to realize it would be like having a child with a mouthful of perfectly normal teeth to be fed baby food. It took 2 days of hovering over like an idiot to see she knows exactly what she's doing eating a chicken quarter. Glad I didn't waste the money on a grinder and instead spent it on stocking up on a variety of meat and meaty bones. Her favorite is a nice meaty rib bone which can last hours, unlike the chicken which is gone in minutes.


Edit: People choke and die too, but you don't stop eating.


----------



## Trainer (Feb 18, 2009)

rosemaryninja said:


> Trainer: A bad raw diet is one that hasn't been properly researched. I'd rather feed my dog Pro Plan than put her on nothing but chicken wings for the rest of her life.


In Tom Lonsdale's book, Work Wonders, he says that many of his veteranary clients fed their dogs nothing but chicken backs and frames and they all appeared healthy. I advocate a much more varied diet than that but taking that into account, if all I could feed my dogs were chicken backs and frames, I would feed that before I would feed any kibble.


----------



## briteday (Feb 10, 2007)

As a medical biochemist, I see a bad raw diet as one that does not contain the proper meat/bone/organ requirements, lacks a proper calcium : phosphorus ratio, lacks diversity for a complete range of vitamins and trace minerals and instead relies upon commercial supplements, a diet that the dog does not thrive on, owners who lack the proper research of the details, lack the knowledge of implementing the diet without creating stress or illness in the dog, learning to properly handle / store / defrost / feed / clean up for raw fed dogs, and finding appropriate sustainable resources before beginning the diet. Deciding today to start a raw diet tomorrow, thinking that throwing a chicken quarter or backs at a dog day after day... does not fulfill normal nutritional requirements. The dog is nutritionally better off on a high quality kibble, IMO.

As far as dental health, I tend to part company with most raw feeders on that issue. As I mentioned, two of my dogs came missing many teeth when we acquired them. They had both been on reasonable quality kibble, and had dentals every 6 months with extractions at almost every visit. When I switched them over to ground raw diets their dental health immediately improved. It's not perfect, but we can manage it with daily brushing and occasional scraping / polishing. Neither of these dogs have lost a tooth since being on a raw diet, and for two of the three years that raw diet was ground or boneless. That being said, my theory is that by removing the carbohydrates (grains or whatever else commercial kibble is using for carb filler) you remove the source of excess simple sugars that feed the oral bacteria that in turn form the plaque on the teeth. While they were on ground diets they also got recreational bones to gnaw on for pleasure, but they didn't have a daily need to gain nutrition by tearing at the meat or bones. And their teeth were still healthy.


----------



## Trainer (Feb 18, 2009)

briteday said:


> I see a bad raw diet as one that does not contain the proper meat/bone/organ requirements,


What is the proper meat/bone/organ requirement and what is the acceptable devation from the perfect ratio? Where do you get that information? Is there scientific research?



> lacks a proper calcium : phosphorus ratio,


What is the proper ratio and how much deviation would be acceptable? Where do you get that information? Wouldn't the ca/ph ratio be taken care of with the proper meat, bones, organ ratio? There is much conflicting scientific research, which do you believe and why?



> lacks diversity for a complete range of vitamins and trace minerals and instead relies upon commercial supplements,


How much diversity is preferable and how much is acceptable?



> a diet that the dog does not thrive on,


Don't you think that would take years to discover?



> owners who lack the proper research of the details,


IMO reading Dr. Lonsdale's book Work Wonders will give you the proper research. It only takes an hour or so to read. I think most people just want the "how to" information without all the biological details. Don't you agree? Do you think a person needs more nutritional information to feed dogs than they do to feed themselves and their families?



> lack the knowledge of implementing the diet without creating stress or illness in the dog,


How would you do that?



> learning to properly handle / store / defrost / feed / clean up for raw fed dogs,


How would that be different from handling raw meat for the human diet? Isn't that something we all do daily?



> and finding appropriate sustainable resources before beginning the diet.


You mean like the grocery store we all visit a couple of times a week anyway?



> Deciding today to start a raw diet tomorrow, thinking that throwing a chicken quarter or backs at a dog day after day... does not fulfill normal nutritional requirements.


Do you believe a dog should have a completely balanced diet every day? Do you believe the same about humans?



> The dog is nutritionally better off on a high quality kibble, IMO.


Do you have research indicating that? Do you believe that kibble is "complete and balanced" Have you seen this page written by a biologist. http://rawfed.com/myths/standards.html ? A quote from the page concerning AAFCO requirements for "complete and balanced", "It is, at best, an educated guess as to what our animals really need, and is based on less-than-scientific principles."

I disagree with you on the ground stuff also but I have asked enough questions for one post.  Thanks for your time.


----------



## DobManiac (Aug 12, 2007)

So the basic limitations are inconvenience and dental health. That makes sense. But honestly I was never considering raw because of teeth issues. It's a plus but not a requirement. All of my dogs' teeth are in good condition.



> Edit: People choke and die too, but you don't stop eating.


I understand that. But that doesn't mean I want to take that kind of risk with my dogs. Maybe it's just hard to understand it until I see it. 

I don't know. Anyway, it will be a while before I switch, still in the middle of research.


----------



## Trainer (Feb 18, 2009)

Dental benefits are important. Even kibble companies will admit that 80% of kibble fed dogs will have periodontal diseash by the time they are 3 years old. So if your dog doesn't have it yet, it will if you continue to feed kibble. Periodontal disease is not just gum problems and bad breath. It can lead to serious heart, liver, and kidney problems and can even kill your dog.

Trust me.  Your dogs know how to eat bones and are quite good at it. Dogs have been eating and digesting bones since there were dogs.

While you are researching, read Dr. Lonsdale's book, Work Wonders. IMO it's the best "how to feed raw" book ever written. It's straight forward, no nonsense and easy to read. You can download the book in PDF format from his webpage http://www.rawmeatybones.com


----------



## DobManiac (Aug 12, 2007)

Trainer said:


> Dental benefits are important. Even kibble companies will admit that 80% of kibble fed dogs will have periodontal diseash by the time they are 3 years old. So if your dog doesn't have it yet, it will if you continue to feed kibble. Periodontal disease is not just gum problems and bad breath. It can lead to serious heart, liver, and kidney problems and can even kill your dog.


Yes, I know all of this. But my dogs aren't all young. I have a 5 year old female that has the teeth of a one year old dog. I'm just not convinced right now that just because of an issue that may or may not show up I should consider feeding my dogs something that my be detrimental to their health. 

My handler was showing the #5 Doberman in the country. And she died because she choked on a raw chicken bone. That scares me, and I don't think I'm being outlandish by taking note of it. 

And since their all no nutritional detriments to feeding raw grinded food, I don't see it as a problem. Teeth can be maintained too many other ways.


----------



## Canadian Dog (Nov 3, 2007)

Trainer said:


> What is the proper meat/bone/organ requirement and what is the acceptable devation from the perfect ratio? Where do you get that information? Is there scientific research?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Briteday has posted numerous informative posts regarding many aspects of feeding raw diets. Do a search of her posts - you won't be wasting your time.


----------



## cjac&mac (Feb 12, 2007)

Trainer said:


> What is the proper meat/bone/organ requirement and what is the acceptable devation from the perfect ratio? Where do you get that information? Is there scientific research?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Just asking.... but are you able to provide scientific research that says dogs do not to be fed balanced diets, or even daily balanced diets? Besides obvious dental issues, can you provide the research saying that ground meat is inappropriate for dogs.? Lastly, could you provide the research that says calciumhosphorus ratios are irrelevant?

As for the AAFCO standards, I agree with you that they are a joke. In order for a food to be approved by "AFFCO standards" the "test subject" dogs have to live six months! That is an extremely short time period.


----------



## Trainer (Feb 18, 2009)

Canadian Dog said:


> Briteday has posted numerous informative posts regarding many aspects of feeding raw diets. Do a search of her posts - you won't be wasting your time.


briteday has made over 5,000 post. No way I am going to search for them. These are valid questions about points she brings up often. She often talks about meat, bone, organ ratios but I don't remember seeing her saying what those should be or where she gets that information or how much you could vary from those ratios and still have a healthy dog.



cjac&mac said:


> Just asking.... but are you able to provide scientific research that says dogs do not to be fed balanced diets, or even daily balanced diets?


I nave never said they don't need balanced diet. I do say they don't need a balanced diet daily, just as humans don't. Look to nature. No way a wild dog or wolf would get a balanced meal every day. They most likely don't even eat every day. It's just common sense. For more information on balanced diets check this out. http://rawfed.com/myths/balance.html



> Besides obvious dental issues, can you provide the research saying that ground meat is inappropriate for dogs.?


I think this will answer you question. http://rawfed.com/myths/ground.html 



> Lastly, could you provide the research that says calciumhosphorus ratios are irrelevant?


I can when you tell me what the ca/ph ratio is of the food you ate for the last 6 months and how you know that. I can when you can show me absolute proof of what it is supposed to be. You see a wide range of perfect ratios from very knowledgable people. Once it is determined exactly what it should be then maybe we can determine exactly how important it is. I don't see how you can place importance on a number that no one know what it should be.



> As for the AAFCO standards, I agree with you that they are a joke. In order for a food to be approved by "AFFCO standards" the "test subject" dogs have to live six months! That is an extremely short time period.


----------



## Love's_Sophie (Sep 23, 2007)

DobManiac said:


> I understand that. But that doesn't mean I want to take that kind of risk with my dogs. Maybe it's just hard to understand it until I see it.
> 
> I don't know. Anyway, it will be a while before I switch, still in the middle of research.



I have had dogs that scarf and choke a bit on kibble. They just don't understand that they need to chew it more thoroughly; with Raw, I haven't had that problem; it's like they know they have to chew more thoroughly.


----------



## DobManiac (Aug 12, 2007)

Love's_Sophie said:


> I have had dogs that scarf and choke a bit on kibble. They just don't understand that they need to chew it more thoroughly; with Raw, I haven't had that problem; it's like they know they have to chew more thoroughly.


Well, I have been researching all day and I'm starting to come around to it. I want them to have variety, and I think it will be ok if I feed the right kinds of pieces. I'v read that the bones in chicken quarters can be too thick and might cause choking. I also think I will spend time with them the first few meals making sure they slow down and chew. Hand feed them if necessary to prevent easy swallowing. I will most likely start with chicken backs or necks and see how it goes. 

I hope to switch one dog this week. That way I can get a feel for it before I switch the other two.


----------



## Canadian Dog (Nov 3, 2007)

DobManiac said:


> I will most likely start with chicken backs or necks and see how it goes.
> .


I wouldn't feed necks unless they are still attached to the back.


----------



## DobManiac (Aug 12, 2007)

Canadian Dog said:


> I wouldn't feed necks unless they are still attached to the back.


I was just starting to think that too. They will be most likely be too small. 

As for as phosphorus:calcium ratio's, am I supposed feed an the same amount in weight of bone as I do in meat?


----------



## Trainer (Feb 18, 2009)

I wouldn't feed chicken necks either. They are too easily swallowed whole. There is nothing wrong with feeding chicken quarters. I feed them 3 or 4 times a week. I feed backs several times a week also. You might also try bone in breasts.

You are right about watching them for a while. It will help you get comfortable with them eating raw. Just don't hover over them. Stand across the room and watch.



DobManiac said:


> As for as phosphorus:calcium ratio's, am I supposed feed an the same amount in weight of bone as I do in meat?


No. I don't like absolute ratio's so you need to feed somewhere between 10% and 25% bone over time. Thats not necessarily in a meal but over time. If you feed a vareity of animal parts from a variety of animals it will automatically work out for you. In time you will need to feed something like 5% to 15% organs also.

You are just now beginning so feed nothing but chicken parts for a couple of weeks. After than you could add pork, fish, turkey, beef, lamb or whatever you wish. Add them one a week until your dog gets used to digesting real food. 

Get the book Work Wonders by Tom Lonsdale. You may download the book for $9.95 from http://www.ebookmall.com/ebooks-authors/tom-lonsdale-ebooks.htm or order hard copy either at http://www.dogwise.com or at http://www.amazon.com (cheaper).

A few informative web sites are:
http://www.skylarzack.com/rawfeeding.htm 
http://rawfeddogs.net/
http://www.rawlearning.com/rawfaq.html
http://www.rawfed.com/myths/index.html
http://www.rawmeatybones.com

Join the yahoo rawfeeding group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rawfeeding/ You will get more useful practical information here than all the books combined. It's a very active group with over 12,000 members who all feed raw.


----------



## Love's_Sophie (Sep 23, 2007)

DobManiac said:


> Well, I have been researching all day and I'm starting to come around to it. I want them to have variety, and I think it will be ok if I feed the right kinds of pieces. I'v read that the bones in chicken quarters can be too thick and might cause choking. I also think I will spend time with them the first few meals making sure they slow down and chew. Hand feed them if necessary to prevent easy swallowing. I will most likely start with chicken backs or necks and see how it goes.
> 
> I hope to switch one dog this week. That way I can get a feel for it before I switch the other two.


Good luck with them; I bet they will love it!!!  And definitely sit with, and watch them, atleast until you know they know how to chew and break everything down properly. My two love when they get their raw, although I still can't afford to feed it entirely, I know they will be much better for it!


----------



## DJsMom (Jun 6, 2008)

Trainer said:


> A few informative web sites are:
> http://www.skylarzack.com/rawfeeding.htm


I really loved reading that page Trainer, thanks for posting the link! That's 1 of the very few pages/articles pertaining to raw feeding that I haven't read. It's great for beginners becuz it actually outlines a starting menu in the *"How do I begin?"* section, which helps SO immensely for beginners who are scared of doing wrong!


----------



## Trainer (Feb 18, 2009)

I think the Lonsdale book listed above is has some very good informatin also.


----------



## DJsMom (Jun 6, 2008)

Trainer said:


> I think the Lonsdale book listed above is has some very good informatin also.


Work Wonders? Eh ... I have read that & it's good, but what I basically got out of it was the "why" to feed raw, but that other article I think is a really good read for those who have decided feeding raw is the best way to feed, but aren't real confident about actually getting things started - it was a really daunting step for me to take, I just didn't have a lot of confidence in myself as far as "doing it right" I guess.


----------



## Trainer (Feb 18, 2009)

I think you got Lonsdale's two books confused. Work Wonders is a "how to feed raw" book. Raw Meaty Bones Promote Health is a "why feed raw book".

Feeding raw is really very easy. Start slow with appropriate size chicken parts. Add something new every week or so. Over time feed a vareity of animal parts containing meat, bones, and organs. Everything else just falls into place. Don't make a very simple task difficult.


----------



## DJsMom (Jun 6, 2008)

I never read the "Raw Meaty Bones", but I do very much agree that it is easier switching to raw than I made it - WITH the help & patience of people on this forum.


----------



## Trainer (Feb 18, 2009)

Once you have fed raw for a month or 2 and you have your routine set, its no more difficult than feeding kibble.


----------



## andreangil (Apr 4, 2009)

Wow, there are a lot of different opinions here. I won't get my puppy (bichon frise) until June, so I'm reading everyone's opinions on raw and natural feeding to see what will work best for me. I see both points of view--to grind or not to grind. My biggest concern with this subject is the choking factor. For those of you who believe its best not to grind, would my dog still get the dental benefits if I gave him a recreation bone?


----------



## briteday (Feb 10, 2007)

I started my dogs out on ground raw due to a dental issue. After a couple of years I noticed that they did just finew ith chciken wings...and now they get just about anything, size appropriate of course. Now they get everything un-ground.

I part a bit with other raw feeders that the dog need bones to eat to keep the teeth clean. IMO, it is the lack of carbohydrates in the raw diet that helps with the teeth, not the mechanical action of chewig bones. No/low carbs = less sugar = nothing to feed the bacteria that form the plaque.


----------



## DJsMom (Jun 6, 2008)

briteday said:


> I part a bit with other raw feeders that the dog need bones to eat to keep the teeth clean. IMO, it is the lack of carbohydrates in the raw diet that helps with the teeth, not the mechanical action of chewig bones. No/low carbs = less sugar = nothing to feed the bacteria that form the plaque.


That's a very interesting take on it & I'd never looked at it that way before, tho it does make sense. less sugar/less bacteria.
I guess I had just always thought most of the teeth cleaning came from the chewing/crushing bones & tearing the meat away from bones, rendering ground meat & bones pretty much useless for teeth cleaning.


----------

