# RAW......honestly



## 4dogs3cats (Dec 21, 2007)

I know there are some of you, I can think of 2 or 3 that are going to jump into this post and SWEAR by raw. I have found a very good food that I am going to switch my dogs to. Artemis. Heres the review:
http://www.dogfoodanalysis.com/dog_food_reviews/showproduct.php/product/57/cat/3

Here is my question. I do eventually want to switch my dogs to raw. I think it would be very interesting, and once I caught the hang of it, I'm sure quite easy.

Is there a DIRE need to switch them now?

Im in a rental house with a tiny freezer. I have a 65 lb GSD, a 33 lb beagle, and a 25 lb beagle. MOST of the food the HUMANS eat, comes from the freezer, (think starving college student lol.)

I know raw is probably a GREAT diet, or there wouldnt be so many dogs doing so awesome on it. Briteday, rbark, boxmein, etc etc etc. I just want to know, from a high quality kibble like artemis, to raw, is there really a SIGNIFICANT benefit that I will be able to see?

Our shelter dog when I was little ate purina her whole life and lived to be 13 years old. She was a black lab mix and she ran around the backyard until the day she died. I KNOW the advantages of raw, nothing added, black and white, plain and simple. I just want to know, from artemis- to raw, what SPECIFICALLY improves?

I know I cant dictate my responses, I will say right now, I know there are tons of dogs doing GREAT on purina-pedigree etc. I KNOW there are dogs doing great on Innova- canidae- artemis. I KNOW there are dogs doing great on raw.

I want to be educated, not debated lol. I just want to know the benefits of raw that I WONT get with artemis. Soo.. rawfeddogs, I know you're probably chomping at the bit right now Lets hear it!


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

1. the vet says her teeth are in the very BEST condition out of ALL the dogs she sees. this is a direct result of diet and the fact that a raw fed dog really has to work the food to be able to eat it. As a result, her breath does not stink AT ALL.

2. this ties in with the above. no need for chew toys. her chewing instinct seems completely satisfied by her meals. this started when raw did. before we were going through 5 or more chews a week.

3. tiny poop. I mean this. it's miniscule. and it calcifies and turns to dust in a day or so. meaning less poopy-scooping in the yard.

4. the biggest benefits may or may not be specific to my situation. those being a marked decrease in aggression the VERY DAY we started raw. also, she has mastocytoma and our new vet is very enthusiastic about the diet we've worked out for her based on this. once we got the diet correct, the reactions of her body to the chemicals produced by mast cell tumors also showed a marked decrease. her particular diet is heavy on the turkey and fish. I'm not claiming these instances as fact though. just my experience.


----------



## poodleholic (Mar 15, 2007)

You're going to run into problems with the tiny freezer you've got in your current living quarters, given the number, and size of your dogs, and the fact that it's filled with food for the humans! Therefore, I'd wait until you have the freezer space.

In the meantime, try switching them over to EVO, or another grain-free, low carb food. Many raw feeders that I know use EVO when they travel with their dogs, because it's the closest thing to raw, plus easier, more convenient when traveling. 

I feed my dogs raw bones for chewing, and will occasionally feed them NV's frozen raw food. On those days, they are not given the EVO (kibble) because mixing kibble and raw messes with the digestive system. 

My dogs are 7 yrs. old, have great teeth and gums, never needed to be professionally cleaned by the vet, who also tells me that he's amazed at how healthy their teeth are, and what great physical shape they're in. Annual blood work confirms they're doing great. 

If I had the time (and freezer space) to feed raw in the way I would choose to prepare and feed raw, I would, even though my male Standard Poodle did not fare well on raw at all. He does ok on chew bones, but cannot handle the NV raw food of any kind without GI distress. So, he gets the EVO when the others are fed NV raw. 

It really depends on each individual dog.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

4dogs3cats said:


> I just want to know, from a high quality kibble like artemis, to raw, is there really a SIGNIFICANT benefit that I will be able to see?


Hehe, you can't avoid seeing the benefits that will come your dog's way after switching to raw. Besides the clean teeth already mentioned, bad breath will go away almost immediately. So will "doggie odor" coming from the dog in general. My two Danes are insdie dogs most of the time but get outside every day. Abby hasn't had a bath in 4 years and Thor has never had a bath in his life. I brush them at least once a week to get "the grit" out of their coats but no bath. They have no odor at all. My house has no odor.

The coats will look much healthier. Muscle tone will be much better. They will have more energy but it won't be a hyper type of energy. If your dogs are hyper they will calm down. If they tend to be lethargic, they will perk up and show more energy. 

If you have any dogs that throw up or have diarrhea, this will pretty much go away. One of my dogs threw up last night. I can't remember the last time that happened. At least 4 or 5 years ago. I can't remember the last time either had diarrhea. BTW: The dog cleaned up his own mess last night.

Vet bills have gone to nothing. My dogs go to the vet once a year for heartworm check and thats it. My vet doesn't know my name nor the names of my dogs. He doesn't see us enough to learn those things. If your vet knows your name and the names of your dogs, your dogs are too sickly. Before switching to raw 6 years ago, my vet and everyone in her office knew my name and all my dogs names very well. This is a benefit that you won't notice for a while because all of a sudden you will notice how long it's been since you went to the vet.

Cleaning up they yard will be MUCH easier. I have 2 Great Danes and almost never do a "poop patrol" The stuff turns into a white powder in a few days and is washed away by the rain.

General overall health will improve and will be noticable in a month or two. The big thing is that you will be getting them off of an inappropriate diet of a grain based, highly processed cereal that is so difficult on the digestive system. Once you see the small stools, you will realize what a disservice you have been doing to them by forcing them to eat that terrible junk food.

I'm sure there are other benefits I can't think of right now that other will give you. I just woke up and haven't cleared the cobwebs out of my brain yet. 



> I know I cant dictate my responses, I will say right now, I know there are tons of dogs doing GREAT on purina-pedigree etc. I KNOW there are dogs doing great on Innova- canidae- artemis. I KNOW there are dogs doing great on raw.


You know dogs that their owners say they are doing great on those artificial foods and sometimes they may actually believe it but that's because they have never fed their dogs a proper raw diet. I can't tell you how many people have told me how they thought their dogs looked healthy on doom nuggets but since switching, they now know what a healthy dog realy looks like.

On the down side. No freezer will make things more difficult with all the dogs you have. You can usually get a used freezer for aroun $100 if you look on craigslist or just keep your eyes open. Maybe there is a place you could put it.


----------



## BoxMeIn21 (Apr 10, 2007)

You know you can pick up a cheap deep freezer for like $25 bucks (welll, I found mine for that price) from craiglist? That would solve your storage issues. hehe!  

I can always tell a difference in my dogs when they get kibble or when they are being fed raw. Even on grainless kibble, their breath is stinky, their is more poo pickup and they smell, more digestive upsets, their teeth get dirty quicker - all that is non-existant when fed raw. One thing to note on the teeth aspect - it's not just the knawing on the bones that helps clean the teeth, it's the ripping and tearing at the meat working together with the bones. So don't expect to get the same results by just throwing your dog a raw bone. 

So there is my input. For me the differences are very measurable. But if you can't simply do raw at this time, I think you'll do alright on Artemis or maybe something grainless.


----------



## CinnamintStick (Jul 25, 2008)

Feeding raw sounds a little like the Weston A. Price Foundation for human nutrition based on teeth and nutrient-dense foods. Dr. Price was a dentist in the 30's. Dr. Price's research demonstrated that humans achieve perfect physical form and perfect health generation after generation only when they consume nutrient-dense whole foods and the vital fat-soluble activators found exclusively in animal fats.
Then came the China Study preformed by Cornell University. This project eventually produced more than 8000 statistically significant associations between various dietary factors and disease. Complete oposit of the Price foundation.The Okinawa Diet Plan, reveals the diet, exercise, and lifestyle practices that make the Okinawans the healthiest and longest-lived population in the world. Yet how many of us are eating that way? How many of you care?


I do have to make one commit about dogs I have had in the past. I have had a poddle mix live 19 years, a Chihuahua mix and Australian Shepherd live to be 17, a Great Dane live to be 12 years old. They all ate Pedegree with no nutritional problems.


----------



## BoxMeIn21 (Apr 10, 2007)

I hear RawFedDogs typing...


----------



## 4dogs3cats (Dec 21, 2007)

Thanks guys! Lots of good information. If I do decide to do the switch, does anyone want to be my mentor for a few weeks to make sure I am feeding a balanced raw diet?



RawFedDogs said:


> You know dogs that their owners say they are doing great on those artificial foods and sometimes they may actually believe it but that's because they have never fed their dogs a proper raw diet. I can't tell you how many people have told me how they thought their dogs looked healthy on doom nuggets but since switching, they now know what a healthy dog realy looks like.
> 
> On the down side. No freezer will make things more difficult with all the dogs you have. You can usually get a used freezer for aroun $100 if you look on craigslist or just keep your eyes open. Maybe there is a place you could put it.


That is true, but these dogs live to be 15 years or so old with no health problems. But then again I know there are many who sadly do not.

I was actually just going to look on CL for a deep freezer. Only my car gets parked in the garage, so this is doable.



BoxMeIn21 said:


> You know you can pick up a cheap deep freezer for like $25 bucks (welll, I found mine for that price) from craiglist? That would solve your storage issues. hehe!
> 
> I can always tell a difference in my dogs when they get kibble or when they are being fed raw. Even on grainless kibble, their breath is stinky, their is more poo pickup and they smell, more digestive upsets, their teeth get dirty quicker - all that is non-existant when fed raw. One thing to note on the teeth aspect - it's not just the knawing on the bones that helps clean the teeth, it's the ripping and tearing at the meat working together with the bones. So don't expect to get the same results by just throwing your dog a raw bone.
> 
> So there is my input. For me the differences are very measurable. But if you can't simply do raw at this time, I think you'll do alright on Artemis or maybe something grainless.


I never thought of the teeth thing. Bailey has horrible teeth. She is only 5 years old, I am thinking it would help them a LOT. My other 2 have great teeth.



BoxMeIn21 said:


> I hear RawFedDogs typing...


hahaha


----------



## briteday (Feb 10, 2007)

I think dog food is a very personal choice. Here are my reasons for feeding raw...

One of our dogs struggled for the first 5 years of life and failed to thrive on any of the dozens of kibbles and wet food we fed her. I believe for her it is something in the processing of commercial food that causes her to be ill. She is also sensitive to every grain product that she's ever eaten. She licked her paws until they bled, needed dentals 2x/year and several extractions, her coat went from black to grey at a young age, joint problems (aches), lack of energy or interest, chronic infections and numerous vet visits...

Other papillon (first one's littermate) came to us with horrible dental disease...

Youngest dog in the household is a rescue dog and came to us around 1 year of age. She would easily pass up a kibble meal for a day or two before taking a bite. Needless to say she lacked energy, her coat was not great, and her disposition/temperment was very nippy. In fact she was on a PTS list at the shelter When we found her because she had bitten an employee.

What I've noticed since feeding raw...perhaps some reasons to consider (and you can even find FREE freezers on craigslist or similar)

My teenager's poop patrol is almost a non-issue. Once per month (and this is with 3 small dogs) and most of it disintegrates into the dirt before we get there, doesn't smell.

$$$...I was feeding Solid Gold Barking at the Moon before switching. That kibble is now almost $2/pound. I can easily feed raw for way less than $1/pound. And I don't have anyone who hunts or has a ranch with livestock. All of my meat finds come from the bargain bin and sales at the local groceries. I haven't looked lately (and it would be Purina One if I was feeding a grocery store brand) but I don't think it is under $1/lb. So as a starving student I would consider the actual cost of the food.

Dentals...completely unnecessary for the last three years since raw...no staining, never any plaque, no daily brushing or special meds. Since two of our dogs are missing teeth they have a difficult time with bones, even chicken. So I feed them whole chickens, bones, guts and all...but I have a local butchering school at the university ag farm grind everything for me. And their other daily meal is boneless meat supplemented appropriately with finely ground eggshells. So it cannot be the gnawing/chewing of bones that prevents the plaque formation. I believe that the lack of carbs (sugars/starches/grains) in their diet reduces the bacteria responsible for forming plaque.

Vet bills in general...I only see the vet for annual exams. He even commented last time that he sees us so infrequently now. Even our cat eats ground raw (she is old and unwilling to do whole meat chunks so she gets the ground chickens too) and her teeth are looking much better, overall health is better.

The pound pup that wouldn't eat never passes up a meal now. All of the dogs' coats are fuller, thicker, glossier. Teeth are great. Clean up is minimal. Vet bills are exams only. Even with the added expense of grinding the chickens my cost is still way under $1/lb. 

You don't have to buy expensive stuff. In fact I have found stuff free on freecycle when people clean out their freezers and have some stuff that is freezer burned. I have made acquaintance with the meat dept staff at my local stores and they let me know about upcoming sales (interestig that you can figure about a 6 week rotation on sales, i.e. I budget to buy whole chickens on sale every six weeks to stock up), what is going to be marked down soon and when I should be there, as well as anything they are offered in case lot that might work for me as well. Organ meat is pretty cheap. And often the independent butchers will give it away. 

If what you are feeding is costing more than $1/lb I would seriously be looking at feeding raw, if that is something you would have considered anyway.

On the down side, raw is not for everyone. Some people who are vegetarians have a difficult time with raw meat around. And dogs cannot easily live on a vegetarian diet. You need to have a place to feed the dogs or at least have them agreeable enough to eat on a vinyl table cloth thrown on the kitchen floor. You need to do the research and get your resources lined up. You will need some sort of additional storage given the sizes of your dogs. 

And I would be the last person to say that a raw diet is right for every dog or every owner. Feeding our pets is a very personal thing.

Sign me up for mentoring!


----------



## 4dogs3cats (Dec 21, 2007)

Thanks so much briteday! I would LOVE to have a few mentors on here!

I have made the decision. raw it is. To try anyways. I just looked on CL and I will EASILY be able to find a freezer.

Can I ask you guys ONE teeny tiny little favor?

Can you post what you guys feed within a week? I need to do more research and figure out how to balance it all out. Thinking about getting them a raw meal tonight to see how it goes over... any suggestions on what to pick up?


----------



## Wimble Woof (Jan 16, 2007)

I just have to ditto all the pro raw advice so far!!!
I have noticed with my raw fed dogs ( I have one who is part time and one on kibble) that maintaining an ideal weight is much easier on raw, the energy level of my 2 raw feds is amazing (stamina) and the TEETH! Like teeth on a puppy, white as white can be, heck I'm considering chewing on some bones to whiten mine better 
Doggy smell is minimal- non existant, and their coats are AMAZING
Karma was weaned directly on to raw by her breeder but Kita ate every kibble you can think of ( pretty much) she had good shine and a healthy coat on Solid Gold Wolf King as well, however she gained weight and did not have the stamina she does now.
Typical meals for them are "*franken animals*" I feed prey model raw, meaning they get as close to what a wolf or coyote would eat. Sometimes we splurge and buy meat rabbits off of a local raiser and feed them whole ( fur and all) obviously these are outside meals.
When we are getting creative and inventing animals based on what we have on hand we just follow a basic formula
60% meat, 20% offal (organs), 20% bone ( its never this exact... some meals have less bone more meat, some have less offal more meat ect ect... not all meals are completely balanced however over time, they do balance out)


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

4dogs3cats said:


> I have made the decision. raw it is. To try anyways. I just looked on CL and I will EASILY be able to find a freezer.
> 
> Can I ask you guys ONE teeny tiny little favor?
> 
> Can you post what you guys feed within a week? I need to do more research and figure out how to balance it all out. Thinking about getting them a raw meal tonight to see how it goes over... any suggestions on what to pick up?


Personally, I would get an idea of what you are doing and what you need (as you said, 'do more research'), and find the freezer, _before _switching them, just to avoid potential problems. It's not like they would be in danger because they'd be on kibble another couple weeks 

Generally, the first week or two is a single protein, to help them adjust, then slowly introducing other proteins as well as organs. The general formula I've seen says the eventual goal is ~80% meat, ~10-15% bone, ~5-10% offal (organs and such), coming from a variety of sources.

I've been planning to switch for a few months now, but waited til post-move...put them on EVO before the switch as I heard it was the closest kibble to raw and was hoping it would ease the transition.

Last night was their first raw meal...tonight their third. I'm starting them on chicken quarters as they are easy to chew, easy to come by, and rather inexpensive for a 10 lb bag. My freezer is being picked up on Thursday, but I ran out of kibble and wasn't going to buy a whole new bag when I was ready to go otherwise.

I've been lucky...both dogs went at the raw with enthusiasm and were great about pulverizing the bones rather than trying to gulp it down. To date we've had no purging and no runny stools...hopefully this trend continues. If they do well I'll start adding in chicken organs in a week, then if that goes well, other animal sources (fish, beef, turkey, deer...whatever I get my hands on) one at a time, and well as yogurt and whatever random veggies I throw in now and then, depending on what's on hand. 

I can keep letting you know how it goes if you'd like, since 'going through it for the first time' is happening right now for me and is fresh on my mind, haha.

I hope this helps...good luck, whatever you do!


----------



## 4dogs3cats (Dec 21, 2007)

Yeah I am waiting till I buy the freezer this weekend to do the switch.

I have to ask one of the stereotypical raw qustions... do you guys worry about salmonella?


----------



## chrisb (Jul 14, 2008)

I've been watching these RAW diet threads. Because honestly before visiting this forum i've never heard of RAW feeding! Are there certain meats that a dog shouldn't have? What about vegetables, any you should avoid? this all is really peaking my interest.

chris


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

CinnamintStick said:


> Feeding raw sounds a little like the Weston A. Price Foundation for human nutrition based on teeth and nutrient-dense foods ... Then came the China Study preformed by Cornell University. This project eventually produced more than 8000 statistically significant associations between various dietary factors and disease ... The Okinawa Diet Plan, reveals the diet, exercise, and lifestyle practices that make the Okinawans the healthiest and longest-lived population in the world.


I have never seen these studies but I don't see them as conflicting. Going by your brief sumary of each, I think they all complement each other. None of them conflict with a prey model raw diet for our dogs.


----------



## BoxMeIn21 (Apr 10, 2007)

4dogs3cats said:


> Yeah I am waiting till I buy the freezer this weekend to do the switch.
> 
> I have to ask one of the stereotypical raw qustions... do you guys worry about salmonella?


Nope, not anymore than I do for myself. Just use the same common sense practices that you do for yourself - washing the meat, washing up after handling it, etc, etc.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

briteday said:


> And I would be the last person to say that a raw diet is right for every dog


I would be the first to say that it is, without a doubt. Healthwise for the dog, there is no downside.



4dogs3cats said:


> Thanks so much briteday! I would LOVE to have a few mentors on here!


Check out http://www.skylarzack.com/rawfeeding.htm It should answer most of your questions. If you have more questions(you will), come back here.



> Can you post what you guys feed within a week?


That web page will give you some answers. For the first 2 weeks feed nothing but chicken. You will know what to add to the diet after that.



> I need to do more research and figure out how to balance it all out.


Feed meat, bones, and organs from a variety of animals. Mostly meat, some bone, and some organs. Feed a variety of animal parts from a variety of animals. Balance is automatically taken care of by nature.



> Thinking about getting them a raw meal tonight to see how it goes over... any suggestions on what to pick up?


I'm betting you have already gone so it's too late to tell you. 



Shaina said:


> If they do well I'll start adding in chicken organs in a week,


To be on the safe side, I suggest you don't add anything to the diet for 2 weeks. Then add one protein source a week after that. Add that protein source in with the chicken and the previous ones. In other words, don't just drop chicken when you start the 2nd protein source. Feed both. You probably already planned it that way but I wanted to make sure. I suggest adding stuff in this order: Turkey next, then pork then fish then beef then anything you want to add. This takes things pretty in order of dificulty of digestion. I wouldn't feed organs for a couple of months. All of these suggestions are for the sole reason of avoiding digestive upset. There is nothing dangerous about adding them in any order you wish. Just less change of digestive problems.



4dogs3cats said:


> do you guys worry about salmonella?


Neither salmonella nor e-coli nor any other bacteria in food is a problem. I have never known a raw fed dog have a problem with them and I know A LOT of raw fed dogs.



chrisb said:


> Are there certain meats that a dog shouldn't have?


Some people don't feed their dogs other carnivores. Others do. Some people freeze wild animals for a month or so before feeding to kill any parasites. My dogs often kill wild animals and eat them immediately so I don't. You don't want to feed WILD CAUGHT salmon from the Pacific north west without freezing for several weeks because of a particular parasite that some carry. Farm raised salmon and wild salmon from other parts of the world are ok.



> What about vegetables, any you should avoid?


Since dogs are carnivores, I avoid all fruits, veggies, and grains. Some people feed them but carnivore's bodies are not capable of digesting them or extracting any nutrients from them. They aren't poison or anything. Most won't hurt your dog if you can't get over the stuff you learned as a child about "eat your veggies for good health". Thats fine for humans but doesn't apply to dogs. There are a few things that should be avoided. Grapes and rasins. Some people say onions and musrooms are bad for dogs but I know people that feed them. Some say garlic is bad but I know A LOT of people that feed garlic for flea control.


----------



## briteday (Feb 10, 2007)

chrisb said:


> I've been watching these RAW diet threads. Because honestly before visiting this forum i've never heard of RAW feeding! Are there certain meats that a dog shouldn't have? What about vegetables, any you should avoid? this all is really peaking my interest.
> 
> chris


Other than the Pacific Northwest salmon and trout I can't think of any meat a dog should not eat.

I don't generally feed vegetables, fruit, or any other plant matter. First a dog does not possess the enzyme necessary to break down plant cell walls. So they derive no nutritional value of anything inside a plant cell. Once in a while I have something starting to go south (an apple, some applesauce, an orange, carrots) and will give them to my dogs as a treat mainly because they like them. But they are not part of their daily diet. And they are only considered as fiber, not nutritional value.

I don't feed grains. Through research and observation I would say that only the hardiest working dogs (sled dogs, active herding of livestock all day) need carbohydrates for quick energy. Most house dogs derive plenty of energy from stored fat that is converted to glucose (sugar) to fuel the brain and body as needed. Also, purely my observation, when my dogs with dental disease ingest carbs their teeth start building tons of plaque. I believe that the sugar in carbs (starches break down to simple sugars) feeds the bacteria that form the plaque.


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

chrisb said:


> I've been watching these RAW diet threads. Because honestly before visiting this forum i've never heard of RAW feeding! Are there certain meats that a dog shouldn't have? What about vegetables, any you should avoid? this all is really peaking my interest.
> 
> chris


Off the top of my head...

- Wild caught salmon from the Pacific (nasty parasite)
- Pork, unless you freeze it for 3-4 weeks (can't remember the exact number) to kill parasites
- Random wild animals - aside from parasite, disease, and potential injury sustained by an animal fighting for its life concerns, your dog has no business hunting wildlife. If you hunt and freeze your kills, that's fine I believe.

I'm rather new to all this as well though  It's a bit overwhelming at first, but it will get better...


----------



## briteday (Feb 10, 2007)

4dogs3cats said:


> I have to ask one of the stereotypical raw qustions... do you guys worry about salmonella?



I've spent many years working in medical labs. I feel that if bleach is good enough for cleaning my bench where I've worked with known positive HIV specimens then it is good enough for cleaning up up kitchen counters and sinks. Remember that we feed our human families meat every day and handle it raw. Just use the same common sense as when preparing human meals. Also, if I bring home a big haul that needs to be divvied into smaller daily portion packages I don't choose to do that on the counter while I'm preparing the human famiy dinner.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

briteday said:


> Most house dogs derive plenty of energy from stored fat that is converted to glucose (sugar) to fuel the brain and body as needed.


I have a question about that because I don't know. It's always been my impression that dogs derive their energy from the fat in the previous few meals. I don't THINK fat gets stored immediately but I don't know where it goes after digestion. I suspect into the blood stream. In other words, I don't think the fat on a dog's body is from his last few meals. What do you think?

I also think working dogs like you mentioned get plenty of energy from fat in the diet. It's just the way they are designed. After all wolves have plenty of energy and stamina to chase deer and caribou for a long way after walking all day long. I don't think any dog has a need for carbs for energy. What are your thoughts on that also?


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

RawFedDogs said:


> I have a question about that because I don't know. It's always been my impression that dogs derive their energy from the fat in the previous few meals. I don't THINK fat gets stored immediately but I don't know where it goes after digestion. I suspect into the blood stream. In other words, I don't think the fat on a dog's body is from his last few meals. What do you think?
> 
> I also think working dogs like you mentioned get plenty of energy from fat in the diet. It's just the way they are designed. After all wolves have plenty of energy and stamina to chase deer and caribou for a long way after walking all day long. I don't think any dog has a need for carbs for energy. What are your thoughts on that also?


A lot of working dogs use far more energy per day than a wolf ever does.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

Shaina said:


> Pork, unless you freeze it for 3-4 weeks (can't remember the exact number) to kill parasites


If you buy your pork in a grocery store or from a source destined for a grocery store in the US, Canada, Australia, or the UK, its safe without freezing. I've been feeding raw unfrozen pork for 6 years with no incidents.

If you feed wild boar or pork from a farmer who doesn't sell his hogs through the normal USDA inspected route, then you want to freeze for a few weeks or a month.


----------



## briteday (Feb 10, 2007)

Pork I freeze for 30 days for both humans and dogs. Although trichinosis in domestic pork is still uncommon in the US it does happen. I'd rather be safe than sorry.

I'm very careful about wildlife. Even my small dogs will try to snatch rodents, squirrels, birds. I wouldn't allow my dogs to kill and eat anything that isn't domestically raised. Wild rabbits are commonly infested with tularemia which is highly contagious to humans and extremely fatal. Rodents carry fleas, plague, and all sorts of other vector borne diseases. I'm also very careful about anything given to me by friends who hunt larger game animals. I always ask them to inspect the organ meat for any abnormalities. If you've gutted your own game long enough you know what normal vs. abnormal looks like. Most sick animals will have cysts, tumors, unusual sponginess/texture in their organs like the liver, kidneys, lungs, brain. I also worry in certain animals about wasting disease that are thought to be caused by organisms known as prions. Many states have wasting disease observed in their wildlife. You can check on the CDC.gov (.org?) website. There have been a few human deaths in the US from ingesting animals infected with wasting disease. I am most cautious about ground meat since it is often ground off the bones and could be taken from near the spinal cord or brain where prions exist in the infected animal. 

To get started...

I would keep the dogs on chickens for the first two weeks, minimum. It is the blandest of meat proteins, most dogs like it, and it is easy to get for a reasonable price. My dogs have fairly cast iron guts but we did have a few days of hershey squirts during the first few weeks as the dogs' guts transitioned the digestive enzymes necessary to handle a raw diet. Be careful and read the labels on the chicken you buy. Some of the stuff I've seen at the grocery has up to 15+% salt added. Yuk! Not good for humans and not good for dogs either. If you can find chicken quarters that's fine. But if you're feeding 3 medium to large dogs I would just go with whatever is cheapest per pound, whole or parts. I just wouldn't do wings unless someone has a small breed dog, under 10-15 pounds.

Once you are smooth sailing for several days after the first two weeks you can start to add in additional species of meat, one species per week max. My dogs always get one poultry meal every day even now. So I would plan on keeping the chicken as one meal per day and intro the new food either with the chicken (in small amounts to start, you will do the same with organ meats later) or one chicken meal and one other species meal per day.

After you have rotated through the various meats then I would still stick with one chicken meal per day (the other meal...whatever you want) and add in some chicken organs, slowly. If you are buying whole chickens to start with then keep a container in the freezer to accumulate the little organs that come inside whole chickens. You can use these when you are ready to intro organs to the diet. As time goes on you can try other species organs such as kidneys, liver, lungs, ... But always do it slowly. 

Once you have estblished what agrees with your dogs and what doesn't (example, one of my dogs can't go near lamb kidneys or she'll have a major explosion within minutes! and none of my dogs will touch turkey, and it's so cheap around the holidays =( !!) then you can plan just about anything to take advantage of what you can fit into the budget.

A typical day at my house is always chicken for one meal of the day. Since my dogs don't have many teeth left I have the butcher grind it and throw in 10-20% organs (figure it out by weight on packages) and I usually throw in some extra liver for vitamins A & D. These are crucial. The other meal can consist of any other muscle meat (since they can't chew bones I supplement calcium in the form of finely ground eggshells - free!- in the proper proportions to the phosphorus in the meats given), a bit of organs and throwing in whatever is around not much longer fit for consumption. That could be a bit of fruits, vegetables, yogurt, cheese...(plant matter cannot be digested so it is only given as a treat, not weighed into the total daily ration, and only because my dogs like eating these items...dogs also don't need dairy and it may cause gi upset in some). This is about a spoonful each 1-2x per week.
1-2x per week I divide one egg between my three small dogs. I also add a bit of Grizzly Salmon Oil drizzled on their food (start slowly if you are going to use fish oil, I learned the hard way on that one too!) for the omega oils found in fish, 1-3x/week...as I remember to do it. Beef heart (any species is fine but I can get beef heart at the grocery cheap) is always at least one meal of the week. Heart is loaded with an amino acid, taurine, that is critical for heart and vision health. And Sunday's muscle meat meal is always a beef long back rib bone (the kind you bbq in slabs) as it gives my semi-toothless girls something to gnaw that they can handle. I just cut the slab into individual ribs. They get those out on the patio and when they have cleaned the meat off they can bring them in the house for recreational chewing the rest of the week. And as mentioned in my post above I don't feed any grains.

Logistics...I went to Walmart and bought a large package of freezer containers and a large box of plastic baggies. Both are great for divvying up my finds into daily portions (buy the freezer containers and baggies that would be the right size for one meal for your dogs) and both can be washed and re-used. I keep a carton on top of the freezer to throw clean containers/bags into for next time. I try to portion out everything as soon as I bring it home. Meat that is short on expiration date should be frozen ASAP anyway, and that is often my major scores. Each evening I pull out the meals for the next day and put it in a plastic shoebox container in the fridge to thaw. The shoebox is labeled so that visitors or family members can identify dog food vs. human food. If I want to feed an egg or oil the next day I put it in the box the night before to remind myself. Anything identified by the family that is a bit too far gone for human eating is put next to the shoebox for me to decide if it is appropriate for the dogs. Mealtime = dump it into the bowls and feed indoors or out, depending on the messiness of the meal. I have an ex-pen set up on my patio for feeding outdoors as our youngest dog prefers to bury her food before she eats it. In the beginning she would run off to the pasture with her "kill" and return to stare at me for more food (which she would again run off and bury, repeat...). So keeping them in the ex-pen keeps the food in one place and that place can also be hosed off as needed. However, as long as your dogs don't run off and bury their food you don't need to confine them. If the weather is inclement and the meal is messy I put a washable, cheap, vinyl table cloth down on the laundry room floor and a gate across the door. 

Weighing food is only important until you learn what a portion looks like. Or you can just estimate from the label weight how much you are feeding, adjusting as time goes by and you observe your dogs' weights. I find with my small breeds it is beneficial to weigh their meals since a little bit too much puts on weight very quickly. But I do the weighing as I am portioning out to put in the freezer. For adult dogs most people start out at 2-3% of their proper weight, per day, divided into two meals. Puppies can get anywhere from 5-10% per day but I'll leave that for someone who has actually raised puppies on raw.

And in my house nothing is written in stone. But we always have chicken in the house.


----------



## briteday (Feb 10, 2007)

RawFedDogs said:


> I have a question about that because I don't know. It's always been my impression that dogs derive their energy from the fat in the previous few meals. I don't THINK fat gets stored immediately but I don't know where it goes after digestion. I suspect into the blood stream. In other words, I don't think the fat on a dog's body is from his last few meals. What do you think?
> 
> I also think working dogs like you mentioned get plenty of energy from fat in the diet. It's just the way they are designed. After all wolves have plenty of energy and stamina to chase deer and caribou for a long way after walking all day long. I don't think any dog has a need for carbs for energy. What are your thoughts on that also?


I can only speak of the blood specimens I have seen at the lab. We work on both human and animals at our lab, so I have seen a variety of animal species' blood specimens. 

When a human or animal gives a blood sample within 6-8 hours after a meal, if the meal has contained suffiecient fat (more than can be used for immediate energy needs) the clear yellow serum portion of the blood (we centrifuge most blood to separate the serum from the cells) will be cloudy and actually look like a milkshake if a high fat meal has been ingested. That's why docotrs ask you to fast for 8-12 hours before testing your blood, same with animals. 

So I would say that most fat is used for energy or put into storage within 6-8 hours, depending on the fat load of the meal, the immediate energy needs, and the health of the animal. 

And I would say that the same is true regarding the ingestion of carbohydrates and the time glucose (simple sugar that has been broken down from the carbs) remains in the blood vs. storage. 

Here is a good basic explanation of carbs in humans. Most everything applies to dogs except the part about plant carbs, which dogs cannot digest.

http://www.drtindall.org/Sugar - Refined Carbs.htm

As far as dogs that are truly working, they do need carbs while working. I have seen my cousin carb load his sled dogs before a big race. He even carries bags of glucose with him on long rides, just in case one of the dogs breaks down. You have to factor in not only the work being done but the operating and ambient temperature of the environment. And a good herding dog might put on 20-30 miles per day while the owner is riding a horse. That's a lot of energy for those little short legs to expend keeping up with a horse. And more energy required in extreme temperatures.


----------



## CinnamintStick (Jul 25, 2008)

RawFedDogs said:


> I have never seen these studies but I don't see them as conflicting. Going by your brief sumary of each, I think they all complement each other.



All three are different. The Price fondation believe in primative foods based on teeth and jaw formations. The diets they preach are full fats and lots of whole milk dairy and meat. 

The China study found that animal protein caused many cancers, obesity and type 1 diabetes linked to milk protien. They even where able to turn off many cancer growths by removing animal proteins. They promote a Vegan diet for good health and lack of disease.

The Okinawa program based on the largest population of people over 100 is not a Vegan Diet but it is very little animal protein. Usualy about 3 times a month.

I am not a vegetarian but I do know I have a nicer stool that does not smell if I don't eat meat. I even smell better and my skin looks better. Does that make it a healthier diet making me live longer? I have even ate a raw diet to. I can't go raw for myself even if they say it will give me a glow. Way to much work and does not fit my life style. There is to much conflict to find the perfect diet. The Harvard School of Public Health that has done more study than anyone can't even be consistant or without criticism. Dean Ornish M.D. and Dr. Caldwell B. Esselstyn, Jr both promote a animal free diet with little or no added fat to reverse and prevent heart disease. Very few can say that they can cure heart disease, but they do.

I am not convinced that the raw diet is the best diet. I don't think there is enough research at this point to really know the best way to feed.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

Hehe, This is a great post and I agree with almost everything you say. There are a few ilttle nits I want to pick with this post. 



briteday said:


> Pork I freeze for 30 days for both humans and dogs. Although trichinosis in domestic pork is still uncommon in the US it does happen. I'd rather be safe than sorry.


According to the information I find, trich in humans come from wild game animals and home raised pigs. None from USDA inspected places which would include all grocery store pork.



> I also worry in certain animals about wasting disease that are thought to be caused by organisms known as prions.


CWD is not transimittable to dogs or humans. There was a report in the press a few years back about a few humans that had eaten some infected deer meat had come down with CWD. However it was found that they had a similar disease that begins with a "J" that I can't remember right now. The CDC could not find a link to these humans and the deer with CWD.

Dogs can't catch CWD. Wolves eat deer all the time and have surely eaten CWD deer but no wolf has ever been found to have CWD.



> Some of the stuff I've seen at the grocery has up to 15+% salt added.


It's not 15% salt added. It's 12% saline solution. That is, 12% of the weight of the meat is saline solution. That is a bit different than pure salt. Saline solution is the same stuff injected into humans and other animals when they are dehydrated. 80% of our body is saline solution. Our blood is saline solution carrying the stuff blood carries. I don't think there is a problem feeding "enhanced" meats to our dogs. I do it all the time. In a few years, all the meat in the grocery stores will be enhanced. It's the direction that the meat industry is headed.

Well, try as hard as I did, thats all the nits I can find. 



briteday said:


> When a human or animal gives a blood sample within 6-8 hours after a meal, if the meal has contained suffiecient fat (more than can be used for immediate energy needs) the clear yellow serum portion of the blood (we centrifuge most blood to separate the serum from the cells) will be cloudy and actually look like a milkshake if a high fat meal has been ingested. That's why docotrs ask you to fast for 8-12 hours before testing your blood, same with animals.
> 
> As far as dogs that are truly working, they do need carbs while working.


Cool, thanks for the great explanation.



CinnamintStick said:


> I am not convinced that the raw diet is the best diet. I don't think there is enough research at this point to really know the best way to feed.


If you are talking about human diets as I assume these studies are, I can't argue with you. However if you are you are speaking of dogs I strongly disagree. A million years of evolution proves that dogs are designed to eat meat, bones and organs. Dogs, because of their jaw structure, dentation, enzyme production, and length of intestines cannot digest plant material. So that makes it pretty obvious that dogs are meant to eat a diet devoid of plant material.

The sames things that make it impossible to digest plant material makes the dog's body ideal to digest meat, bones, and organs.

There will never be the research you are looking for.



briteday said:


> Here is a good basic explanation of carbs in humans. Most everything applies to dogs except the part about plant carbs, which dogs cannot digest.


Wait, wait, wait... We need to discuss this a little.  Does the above quoted sentence say that there are carbs in meat? There aren't. Carbs are a plant product. Perhaps this is a typo?

The explanation in the link you supplied is about humans and does not apply to dogs who are carnivores.


----------



## BoxMeIn21 (Apr 10, 2007)

CinnamintStick said:


> I am not a vegetarian but I do know I have a nicer stool that does not smell if I don't eat meat. I even smell better and my skin looks better. Does that make it a healthier diet making me live longer? I have even ate a raw diet to. I can't go raw for myself even if they say it will give me a glow. Way to much work and does not fit my life style. There is to much conflict to find the perfect diet.


Raw for humans and Raw for dogs is a little different - because we are not the same species.  
When they eat only a diet of meat, organs and bones, there is no smell to their waste. When you add things that their body was not designed to digest, like carbs or plant matter, you get smelly waste.


----------



## CinnamintStick (Jul 25, 2008)

RawFedDogs said:


> If you are talking about human diets as I assume these studies are, I can't argue with you. However if you are you are speaking of dogs I strongly disagree. A million years of evolution proves that dogs are designed to eat meat, bones and organs. Dogs, because of their jaw structure, dentation, enzyme production, and length of intestines cannot digest plant material. So that makes it pretty obvious that dogs are meant to eat a diet devoid of plant material.
> 
> The sames things that make it impossible to digest plant material makes the dog's body ideal to digest meat, bones, and organs.
> 
> There will never be the research you are looking for.


It is not a simple as you would like it to be. Without reseach how can you know what is the Optimum Diet for your dog? It is proven in human nutrition through reseach that eating like cavemen or eating based on our jaw and digestive system is not the healthest diet for disease and longevity. I believe that could also be true for dogs. Sometimes even something that is not natural for a animal to eat can be healthy. It is not natural for a horse to eat fat yet they can eat large amounts of fat and in some cases it is used to treat some problems in horses.



BoxMeIn21 said:


> Raw for humans and Raw for dogs is a little different - because we are not the same species.
> When they eat only a diet of meat, organs and bones, there is no smell to their waste. When you add things that their body was not designed to digest, like carbs or plant matter, you get smelly waste.


I find it strange that the many people have used the smell and size of their dogs waste as proof of a heathier diet yet they do not apply the same principles for there own diet.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

CinnamintStick said:


> It is not a simple as you would like it to be.


It's not as complicated as you are trying to make it.



> Without reseach how can you know what is the Optimum Diet for your dog?


For the reasons I listed in my previous post. Jaw structure, dentation, and the rest of the digestive system right down to the anus all say dogs should eat meat, bones, and organs and also says they can not digest plant material. It's really that simple. Don't try to make it complex. It just isn't.

What nutrient is found in plants that isn't found in the meat, bones, or organs of the prey animals that eat them.



> It is proven in human nutrition through reseach that eating like cavemen or eating based on our jaw and digestive system is not the healthest diet for disease and longevity.


Let's look at that statement. What did cavemen eat? They ate unprocessed whole meat and plant material. It would be different meats and different plant material depending on where in the world they were but still its whole unprocessed foods. What research proves that whole unprocessed foods are not superior to processed foods?



> I believe that could also be true for dogs. Sometimes even something that is not natural for a animal to eat can be healthy. It is not natural for a horse to eat fat yet they can eat large amounts of fat and in some cases it is used to treat some problems in horses.


Are you saying that a horse eating large amounts of fat would be healthier than a horse eating only grass?

It might be possible that some herb would help a particular ailment in a particular dog but we would call this medicine, not a normal ingredient in a normal diet for a healthy dog. 

Again, research on raw diets for dogs isn't going to happen. Who would do the research and who would pay for it? No one stands to gain financially by dogs switching to a raw diet.

Why don't you ask for research on kibble? It's the new kid on the block. It seems many people want research on a diet that has been around for millions of years but don't ask for anything on a diet less than 50 years old.



CinnamintStick said:


> I find it strange that the many people have used the smell and size of their dogs waste as proof of a heathier diet yet they do not apply the same principles for there own diet.


Size of stools in relation to size in food injested are an indication of the absorbtion of the food by the body. The stool is that part of the meal that wasn't absorbed by the body, therefore waste material. Smell has to do with how rotten that waste got before it exited the body. A dog, with it's short intestinal tract is designed to quickly expell waste before it gets rotten. Throwing other items in the diet, slow down this process of quick expulsion.

The same principles of size and smell apply to humans also. Its just that many foods that aren't good for us taste so good.


----------



## Kathyy (Jun 15, 2008)

Dogs can produce amylase in the pancreas they develop the ability at age four weeks or so. It wouldn't make sense to produce it in the saliva as dogs don't chew.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amylase
They do lack the ability to keep symbiotic protozoa or bacteria to help with the breakdown of cellulose like ruminants and termites do. Simple sugars are readily found in animal products. Dairy, egg and some organs and even bone can contain carbohydrates. Animal chitin is the equivalent of plant cellulose and is a carbohydrate. Dogs cannot digest cellulose, humans cannot either. Wonder about chitin?
http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbohydrate

That said, my one dog who can be on raw is thriving. I eased into it slowly, first he was on a homecooked diet which had more and more animal proteins added, I then stopped cooking the meat, I gave him a bone!!!!, I stopped feeding grains and then gave up the veggies. He is calmer, his fur is in better shape and his teeth are sparkling. I use the Monica Segal book 'Optimal Nutrition' as it contains the canine NRC recommended guidelines and found the diet lacking in iodine, iron, zinc and some other minerals. I used the nutritiondata website to analyze the diet. The USDAA website will give the waste percentage on some meats which includes bones so you can see if the bone given is appropriate. Vitamins and all other nutrients were just fine so I have added a multimineral and a tiny amount of kelp to his diet.

I was concerned about storage of large amounts of meat and the amount of food he would be eating. Well, he is an easy keeper. I would like him to weigh 35 pounds and over the past year he has been gaining weight. I have dropped his feed to 10 ounces a day. 70 ounces a week is less than 4.5 pounds of food. I get whole chicken and cut it up and freeze it, organs are easy to cut and freeze and the tiny amounts take up little room in the freezer. Beef and pork chunks take up little room as well. The organs cost the most and he eats a tiny bit. Muscle meat costs a little less than $1.50 a pound and is half his food. Chicken is $.99 or less a pound and is about half his diet. Canned fish is easy to store but I wish I coul locate cheap frozen fish. Eggs and yogurt are in the frig. My main problem is hoarding. I want to buy and buy to make sure the dogs have food. Today I am going to buy $.69 a pound whole chicken but I _am_ down to my last drumstick and have no more boned chicken for the other dog [okay I have no more boned chicken in the freezer, it is in the frig ready to cook for this week's food]. It was hard to let it go down that far!

The base is whole chicken. Pork shoulder, beef chuck are the sources I use for other proteins. I do give the bones in those meats as RMB but watch him chew. Beef ribs are cheap and do have a a lot of meat on them. I am currently only using beef liver but am going to get beef kidney this week and beef heart is an excellent muscle meat. Canned sardines are in the cupboard and I prefer to give hard cooked eggs to raw as my old girl probably is better off without raw food - liver issues. The egg shells are the source of her calcium. I throw out the food wrappers, a little of the fat and some of the hard rib and leg bone on the shoulder cuts. Very little waste feeding raw!

I pull bags out of the freezer and put a bony chicken piece in the bowl on the scale first. Then I put a hunk of liver and add a meat chunk, egg yolk or chicken gizzards to add up to 10 ounces. I use a bit of the meat or the gizzard to hide the multimineral, a tiny bit of kelp is sprinkled on the liver and fish oil is squirted on as well. The hard part, and why he is chunky, is splitting this into three meals so he gets to eat when his sick old sister eats. He always wants more but there haven't been ANY empty stomach erps since going on raw.


----------



## CinnamintStick (Jul 25, 2008)

> Let's look at that statement. What did cavemen eat? They ate unprocessed whole meat and plant material. It would be different meats and different plant material depending on where in the world they were but still its whole unprocessed foods. What research proves that whole unprocessed foods are not superior to processed foods?


I was not comparing processed food to unprocessed food. What I was saying is the caveman diet is not the healthest diet for disease prevention and longevity. The meat and fat alone causes cancer, heart disease and premature aging. Does that sound ideal?



> Are you saying that a horse eating large amounts of fat would be healthier than a horse eating only grass?


 I do beleive there is many benifits to add fat to a horses diet. Feeding fat to horses does treat certain disorders like muscle problem known as equine polysaccharide storage myopathy (EPSM, also called PSSM and EPSSM). There is tons of benifits to feeding growing horses. Feeding fat lowers the glycemic index of a horses diet because fat slows digestion. Slowing digestion is one way to prevent OCD and other bone growth problems. Grass alone contains a large amount of sugar that cause huge peaks in blood sugar. With feeding fat we can control the energy spikes and crash. There is also less chance of grass founder. It is also excellent for older horses that cannot chew grass and need addition calories.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

CinnamintStick said:


> I was not comparing processed food to unprocessed food. What I was saying is the caveman diet is not the healthest diet for disease prevention and longevity. The meat and fat alone causes cancer, heart disease and premature aging. Does that sound ideal?


If you believe that meat and bone alone causes those things AND if you believe that cave men ate only meat and fat, then their diet doesn't sound ideal. However I will say that if their diet was not pretty close to ideal, humans wouldn't be on the earth today because we survived a long time. Cave men obviously flourished enough to populate the earth or at least begin populating the earth..



> I do beleive there is many benifits to add fat to a horses diet.


Unfortunately I don't know enough about horses to discuss them in detail but what you say just doesn't sound right to me. Zebra's in Africa and wild horses in the western US seem to be thriving without eating fat.

Many people try to improve on nature and usually end up complicating the situation more than helping. Nature got it right. I think we would be healthier as a general population if we ate only whole foods just as cave men did. And no, I'm just like everyone else. I don't eat nearly enough whole foods.



Kathyy said:


> It wouldn't make sense to produce it in the saliva as dogs don't chew.


Ahhhhh ... but chewing is a necessary process in order to digest plant material. Thats the reason for flat teeth in herbivores and omnivores. Chewing is not necessary to digest meat, bones, and organs.


----------



## 4dogs3cats (Dec 21, 2007)

briteday said:


> I've spent many years working in medical labs. I feel that if bleach is good enough for cleaning my bench where I've worked with known positive HIV specimens then it is good enough for cleaning up up kitchen counters and sinks. Remember that we feed our human families meat every day and handle it raw. Just use the same common sense as when preparing human meals. Also, if I bring home a big haul that needs to be divvied into smaller daily portion packages I don't choose to do that on the counter while I'm preparing the human famiy dinner.


I was just wondering if the dog could get salmonella or e-coli by EATING the raw meat. Im not worried about it for myself. I did talk with rbark last night who did say that since it only stays in their system for a few hours, they aren't at risk for catching the diseases we can catch from it. Any more info anyone else would like to add as to why the DOGS who eat the raw meat don't catch these diseases that us humans are warned about every day.


----------



## CinnamintStick (Jul 25, 2008)

RawFedDogs said:


> Ahhhhh ... but chewing is a necessary process in order to digest plant material. Thats the reason for flat teeth in herbivores and omnivores. Chewing is not necessary to digest meat, bones, and organs.



Are you saying that cooking does not break down plant material? Even humans can't digest celulose but it does provide a nutritional need. It is called dietary fiber.

From http://www.wonderquest.com/DogSaliva.htm

Q: How do dogs digest starch? Humans have salivary amylase in their saliva to break starch into sugars. Do other mammals (dogs, cats, etc.) also have this enzyme? If not, how do they digest starches that are now part of their diet? Certainly in the deep evolutionary past cats and dogs did not eat starches. (Steve, Albuquerque, New Mexico)

A: "Salivary amylase is not found in carnivores," says Holly Frisby, DVM, of Drs. Foster & Smith, Inc. in Wisconsin. 

Many mammals have salivary amylase but dogs do not and neither do cats, agrees the Waltham Centre for Pet Nutrician in Moscow, Russia. 

Digestion of starch begins in the mouth for species, like humans, whose saliva contains amylase. Many dogs bolt their food and maybe lack amylase for this reason. 

*Dogs and cats digest starches in the small intestine where they use amylase produced in the pancreas. *
Cats, but not dogs, evolved as obligate carnivores: heavy meat eaters that must eat meat to survive and few foods containing carbohydrates. Consequently, dogs can tolerate more starch than cats.* In fact, a dog's pancreas produces three times more amylase. *


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

CinnamintStick said:


> Are you saying that cooking does not break down plant material? Even humans can't digest celulose but it does provide a nutritional need. It is called dietary fiber.


I don't know about cooking. I will say that cooking destroys a lot of nutrients in food. I don't know why anyone would want to feed cooked food to their dog. It's obvious they aren't intended to eat cooked food. Dogs use bone as fiber in their diet. They don't need vegetable fiber.



> Many mammals have salivary amylase but dogs do not and neither do cats, agrees the Waltham Centre for Pet Nutrician in Moscow, Russia.


The animals that do have it are called herbivores and omnivores. Those that don't are called carnivores. Carnivores(dogs) have no need for it because they don't eat plant material.



> *Dogs and cats digest starches in the small intestine where they use amylase produced in the pancreas. *


But the amylase is produced in very small amounts. Too small to digest a lot of plant material. The production of amylase stresses the pancreas in dogs often causing problems like IBS an IBD. Thats one reason IBS and IBD dogs eliminate or greately reduce symptoms when put on a prey model raw diet. Dogs have no dietary need for starches.



> Cats, but not dogs, evolved as obligate carnivores: heavy meat eaters that must eat meat to survive and few foods containing carbohydrates. Consequently, dogs can tolerate more starch than cats.* In fact, a dog's pancreas produces three times more amylase. *


Anytime I see the phrase "obligate carnivores" I know its someone getting ready to say dogs are omnivores and should eat plant material. Both dogs and cats are carnivores. There are not degrees of carnivorism. Either an animal is a carnivore or he is an omnivore. He can't be both. Dogs are carnivores. Neither dogs or cats have any dietary need for carbs. They use fat in the same way that humans use carbs.

The reason that cats MUST eat meat is that they cannot produce taurine in their bodies. Most other animals can. Taurine is only found in meat. So cats MUST have meat. It doesn't mean they are more of a carnivore than a dog is.


----------



## CinnamintStick (Jul 25, 2008)

My favorite carb to feed my dogs is cooked sweet potato. Where else could you get so many vitamins and good fiber? Sweet potatoes contain a high-quality protein, similar to that found in eggs, and are packed with nutrients, including high levels of carotenoids (especially beta-carotene), copper, vitamins C and E, and fiber. What's more, sweet potatoes are much lower on the glycemic index scale than white potatoes. Sweet potatoes are soluable fiber that slows digestion for a slow release of energy.

Here is some facts from The Healthiest Vegetable Around http://www.ncsweetpotatoes.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13&Itemid=139

The Nutrition Action Health Letter rated 58 vegetables by adding up the percentages of USRDA for six nutrients (Vitamins A and C, folate, iron, copper, and calcium), plus fiber. SweetPotatoes topped the list with a whopping 582 points; its nearest competitor, a raw carrot came in at 434. 

The Center for Science in the Public Interest rated the relative nutritional value of common vegetables and once again, the SweetPotato came out on top with a score of 184, compared with a similarly prepared white potato which scored only 83 points. 

Did you know that… 
One cup of cooked SweetPotatoes provides 30 mg (50,000 IU) of beta carotene (Vitamin A).
*It would take 23 cups of broccoli to provide the same amount.*

SweetPotatoes have four times the US Recommended Daily Allowance (USRDA) for beta-carotene when eaten with the skin on. 


SweetPotatoes are a great source of vitamin E, and they are virtually fat-free, which makes them a real Vitamin E standout. Most Vitamin E rich foods, such as vegetable oils, nuts and avocados, contain a hefty dose of fat. Just two thirds of a cup of SweetPotatoes provides 100% of the USRDA for Vitamin E, without the unwanted fat.


SweetPotatoes provide many other essential nutrients including Vitamin B6, potassium and iron. 


*SweetPotatoes are a good source of dietary fiber which helps to promote a healthy digestive tract. SweetPotatoes have more fiber than oatmeal.*

SweetPotatoes are virtually fat-free, cholesterol-free and very low in sodium. A medium SweetPotato has just 118 calories.



> I don't know about cooking. I will say that cooking destroys a lot of nutrients in food. I don't know why anyone would want to feed cooked food to their dog.


It is true that cooking does destroy *some* nutrients but it also makes many nutrients available that you would not get if the food was not cooked. One example of why you should cook some vegetables is cruciferous vegetables (cabbage, kale, Brussels sprouts, broccoli, and cauliflower), contain natural goitrogens, chemicals that cause the thyroid gland to enlarge by interfering with thyroid hormone synthesis. Cooking has been reported to inactivate this effect in Brussels sprouts. Another example... the compound in tomatoes that reduces the risk of prostate cancer is lycopene, which is the carotenoid pigment responsible for their red color. Lycopene is a powerful antioxidant that a number of large studies have shown is particularly good at protecting against prostate, colon and rectal cancer, as well as heart disease. It is true that lycopene is much more available to the body from cooked tomatoes than from raw ones. And since it is fat soluble, you need to eat your cooked tomatoes with some fat to facilitate absorption


----------



## Wimble Woof (Jan 16, 2007)

Cinnamintstick, how do you think canids are surviving in the wild right now? and have been for centuries?
How do you think the modern "dog" survived PRIOR to commercialized kibble?
If you ask me, mother nature is the best study reference out there, I'll take her word over any scientist thanks.
My raw fed dogs are healthy and thriving so there's my study for myself, "proof is in the puddin". No one is making you feed raw, the OP is interested in it and asked for pointers so we are offering them.
I don't really see your constant need to break down every aspect and demand proof. Come over to ANY one of our homes, see our dogs ( especially those who have before and after stories) and see for yourself.
Can't knock something before you try it


----------



## 4dogs3cats (Dec 21, 2007)

Wimble Woof said:


> Cinnamintstick, how do you think canids are surviving in the wild right now? and have been for centuries?
> How do you think the modern "dog" survived PRIOR to commercialized kibble?
> If you ask me, mother nature is the best study reference out there, I'll take her word over any scientist thanks.
> My raw fed dogs are healthy and thriving so there's my study for myself, "proof is in the puddin". No one is making you feed raw, the *OP is interested in it and asked for pointers so we are offering them.*
> ...


And I appreciate it a lot. I am feeling more confidant about raw now than ever.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Wimble Woof said:


> Cinnamintstick, how do you think canids are surviving in the wild right now? and have been for centuries?
> How do you think the modern "dog" survived PRIOR to commercialized kibble?
> If you ask me, mother nature is the best study reference out there, I'll take her word over any scientist thanks.
> My raw fed dogs are healthy and thriving so there's my study for myself, "proof is in the puddin". No one is making you feed raw, the OP is interested in it and asked for pointers so we are offering them.
> ...


Come over to my house and look at Kobe, who eats kibble, and see for yourself Kibble isn't bad!

It's a irrelevant argument. For every one kibble horror story, there's one raw horror story. Of course, certain people have the perfect "defense" against that: If something went wrong with raw, they must have done it wrong. 

Why do people want research? Maybe because there's almost no research for raw, and there's TONS of research for kibble? I'd say that has a LOT to do with it.

I feed prey model raw and I love what it's done for Pris and Ollie, but reading some members posts on raw is like..


"My dog got X disease on kibble"
"RAW is the miracle cure! Raw fixes everything! No smell, no bath, no teeth issue, no anal glands, no blah blah blah blah"
"But my dog got (insert problems) on raw"
"You're doing it wrong, then!"

When that's the best defense raw feeders come up with, then yes, you'd want research. You'd want citations. You'd want scientific studies.

With Kibble feeders it's more like...

"My dog got bad fur and allergies on Kibble"
"The possible issues could be allergy to the meat, and that too much corn is in your current diet, blah blah blah"
*tries different brand/meat*
"Oh my goodness my dog made a total turnaround!"

What's the difference between the two?

What dogs were fed 100 years ago is irrelevant here. There's nothing to say that dogs 100 years ago were healthier than they are now. That's why scientific studies are needed. Are raw fed dogs healthier than high quality kibble fed dogs? Who knows? Until there's a research EVERYTHING, and I mean EVERY SINGLE statement about raw is a opinion, there are ABSOLUTELY no facts whatsoever. No, what they ate 100 years ago is not a fact unless that diet was scientifically researched. No, what wolves ate is not fact unless it's scientifically researched to be the same as dogs. No, their body setup does not tell us anything whatsoever as fact when dogs do have some benefit from things that are not meat. 

That's w hy research is absolutely neccessary. Otherwise everything raw feeders say is just opinion. And it is just opinion, despite what certain zealots think.


----------



## Wimble Woof (Jan 16, 2007)

RBark said:


> Come over to my house and look at Kobe, who eats kibble, and see for yourself Kibble isn't bad!


Curious??? Where did you read that I wrote "kibble is bad"? No where, and thats because I didn't say that



> It's a irrelevant argument. For every one kibble horror story, there's one raw horror story. Of course, certain people have the perfect "defense" against that: If something went wrong with raw, they must have done it wrong.


Perhaps, but in my OPINION your stats there may be a bit off, as far as doing something wrong, well its does seem that often enough there is an error of sorts.... 



> Why do people want research? Maybe because there's almost no research for raw, and there's TONS of research for kibble? I'd say that has a LOT to do with it.


Who funds the kibble research? The kibble companies



> I feed prey model raw and I love what it's done for Pris and Ollie, but reading some members posts on raw is like..
> 
> 
> "My dog got X disease on kibble"
> ...


None of my dogs have ever had any diseases, and the switch to raw was after doing tons of kibble switches for an allergy, the only thing that was working was SGWK and Orijen, but the weight gain was becoming an issue... so I tried raw, so much easier to keep things in check FOR ME




> Until there's a research EVERYTHING, and I mean EVERY SINGLE statement about raw is a opinion, there are ABSOLUTELY no facts whatsoever.


and every kibble statement is again funded by the kibble company



> No, what wolves ate is not fact unless it's scientifically researched to be the same as dogs.


I am feeding based on what a wolf would eat, the basis coming from information from people (scientists and biologists) who have studied wolves 



> No, their body setup does not tell us anything whatsoever as fact when dogs do have some benefit from things that are not meat.


Such as? and says who?



> That's why research is absolutely neccessary. Otherwise everything raw feeders say is just opinion. And it is just opinion, despite what certain zealots think.


I hope you are not referring to me there... as I do not see how you could sit there and type that I am intolerant of opinions that are different from my own. I feed KIBBLE as well 
I have found great success with my dogs eating raw, I am yet to find a tolerable mixture for one of my dogs.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Wimble Woof said:


> Curious??? Where did you read that I wrote "kibble is bad"? No where, and thats because I didn't say that


I posted as a response to the thread itself but quoted you by mistake instead of hitting reply. It's a general statement in the thread, not to anyone in particular unless, I guess, someone feels like it's aimed at them. Then it might be!



> Perhaps, but in my OPINION your stats there may be a bit off, as far as doing something wrong, well its does seem that often enough there is an error of sorts....


What stats? But I'm sure it seems that way when there's heavy bias. Bias does that to us, we're only human after all.




> Who funds the kibble research? The kibble companies


Sure. Better than having absolutely nothing like raw!




> None of my dogs have ever had any diseases, and the switch to raw was after doing tons of kibble switches for an allergy, the only thing that was working was SGWK and Orijen, but the weight gain was becoming an issue... so I tried raw, so much easier to keep things in check FOR ME


Nobody ever said that Kibble was the end-all be-all diet! Unlike some raw feeders  And no, that's not directed at you.

I'm sure I can find far more dog owners whose dogs have never had disease than not, too. But well, without research, it's all opinion. There's absolutely nothing, ancedotal or scientific, to say that it's related to raw diet.






> I am feeding based on what a wolf would eat, the basis coming from information from people (scientists and biologists) who have studied wolves


Yes, and your dog is not a wolf. Could it be true that dogs and wolves have identical systems and thrive on the same diets? Sure. But science has to make the connection first before it's fact.



> Such as? and says who?


Exactly! You have the questions correct! Absolutely 100% correct! Everything has to be proven scientifically to be a fact and cited and quoted!




> I have found great success with my dogs eating raw, I am yet to find a tolerable mixture for one of my dogs.


That's great. Kobe does great on kibble. My other two do great on raw. I see no reason to change either diet!

And one more thing. Another response to the "most kibble research comes from kibble companies." That applies to raw feeders too


----------



## Wimble Woof (Jan 16, 2007)

Thing is... there is no raw company research that I have come across, unless of course Natural Variety (or what ever the company that has the frozen patties is) has recently come out with one?

Anyways... this is going off topic... yet again for the OP :rolleyes

Honestly I would love to sit here and debate this with you, i really do enjoy debate, but this is not the place for it.And we both know if we opened a thread on it, it would be closed pretty quick.
Raw feeding seems to sit right up there with religion and science debates, they never go over well.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Wimble Woof said:


> Thing is... there is no raw company research that I have come across, unless of course Natural Variety has recently come out with one?
> 
> Anyways... this is going off topic... yet again for the OP :rolleyes
> 
> ...


I am not denying there likely will never be a raw food scientific study, my only implication is that facts are facts only when proven in scientific trail, otherwise it's just a hypothesis. So until facts emerge, we only can go on what we think, not what is a fact. We can't say sweeping absolutes like "raw is better!" until it's proven to be a fact. We can't say it cures smell unless it's proven to be a fact. These are all conjectures and hypothesises that have yet to stand the test of trail.

How have dogs survived for thousands of years? What do we know of dogs? One major thing we know of dogs is that they have ceased to have a Hunting instinct like that of a wolf's. Dogs might catch, and kill a animal and eat it, but that does not make it hunting like that of a wolf's. So in absence of this, reliance on humans for food is developed. So we know dogs haven't been hunting animals for hundreds of years. What have, indeed, our forefathers fed dogs? That's indeed a good question.

And was it ideal? That's also a good question. In many indian reservations, dogs eat a "raw" diet. They live and survive, but it is obvious they are not healthy. Did the dogs of the past also get fed a "raw" diet where they merely survived, rather than thrived, due to lack of knowledge of their diets? That's also a likely hypothesis. Until proven otherwise it's just that. So how we have fed them up until now is irrelevant, what is relevant is how we feed them from today on. 

By the way, those indian reservations that feed a "raw" diet are not healthy because it is in fact an improper diet. I do not deny that at all, my only argument being what they ate in the past under domestication is largely an assumption not a fact. We know some groups that fed their dogs were better at it than others, such as Siberian Husky sled teams being fed whole fish and small game prey. But most breeds did not have that luxury.


----------



## CinnamintStick (Jul 25, 2008)

Wimble Woof said:


> Thing is... there is no raw company research that I have come across,



If you do look there is some. This for example http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FKA/is_6_67/ai_n13788104/print?tag=artBody;col1


----------



## Wimble Woof (Jan 16, 2007)

that link was actually against raw feeding. I was talking about studies that a raw pet food company has done PRO raw feeding.


----------



## Shalva (Mar 23, 2007)

CinnamintStick said:


> If you do look there is some. This for example http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FKA/is_6_67/ai_n13788104/print?tag=artBody;col1


the problem with that article is that they are testing raw food as if it were kibble and the basic premise of a raw diet is different.... 

S


----------



## CinnamintStick (Jul 25, 2008)

Shalva said:


> the problem with that article is that they are testing raw food as if it were kibble and the basic premise of a raw diet is different....
> 
> S


In what way was it tested like kibble?


----------



## 4dogs3cats (Dec 21, 2007)

WW and Rbark- dont worry I dont feel hijacked. I LOVE all this information!


----------



## chrisb (Jul 14, 2008)

Ok so we have Pork, venison, and beef in our deep freezer. They've all been in there for a couple of months now. So should those be OK to feed shelby? What about chicken. Are there certain cuts of chicken i should avoid?

chris


----------



## CinnamintStick (Jul 25, 2008)

This is a very good article that also talks about the Drs. Freeman and Michel in the work they published in March 2001 in the AVMA Journal. I am just copying the part on nutritional deficiencies yet the whole article is a must read. http://www.woodhavenlabs.com/barf-myth.html


"All the [BARF] diets tested had nutritional deficiencies or excesses that could cause serious health problems when used in a long-term feeding program. Of equal concern is the health risks associated with bacteria in the raw food diets, especially the homemade diet that yielded E. coli O157:H7. Although owners feeding raw food diets often claim that dogs are more resistant to pathogenic bacteria, we are not aware of evidence to support that claim."31 This from Drs. Freeman and Michel in the work they published in March 2001 in the AVMA Journal.

Barfers' typically concentrate on ingredients and ignore nutrients. This is much akin to not being able to "see the forest because of the trees". Ingredients give the pet owner no clue in regards to an animal's prospective ability to utilize the nutrients the ingredient brings to the animal. An individual pet does not take a molecule of chicken protein and use that molecule to replace damaged muscle tissue. It is the individual amino acids present within that molecule that the animal uses for biological functions. Barfers' often denigrate amino acids, vitamins, minerals and other nutrients derived from one source or another and proclaim some magical value to nutrients from another source. Any nutrient from a grain is presumed by most Barfers' to have lesser benefit than the same nutrient derived from a meat source. Multiple scientific studies have proven this to be a complete fallacy. There is no "traffic cop" in the stomach that refuses entry for some nutrient derived from grain and permits the passage of the same nutrient derived from a meat source. For example a molecule of tryptophan, an important amino acid, whether derived from soy, corn or beef has equal value to the animal. While some nutrients are in greater abundance in some ingredients, the biological value of the given nutrient is not negated simply because of the source.

Barfers' frequently denigrate the value of grains in the diet of domestic dogs. The most commonly used grain in pet foods is corn. About 99% or the starch fraction of the grain is digested in dogs. This holds true of nearly all grains. The starch fraction of any grain contributes carbohydrates which are a source of rapidly available energy that does not require the kidneys to process it before it can be utilized. The protein fraction of corn, which is highly digestible in dogs, contributes valuable amino acid building blocks. Grains like corn also contribute high levels of naturally occurring Omega Fatty acids and the antioxidant lutein, critical for long term health. 100,000 years of genetic mutation and natural selection made it possible for domestic dogs to derive a significant amount of value out of grains.

In the process of proclaiming great value to the BARF diet, the proponents completely ignore one of the most common causes of death in domestic pets - renal (kidney) failure. In most cases the proposed diet recipes are excessive in calcium and phosphorous. While there is no data that shows the feeding of high levels of phosphorous will cause renal failure, there is a mountain of data which clearly shows renal failure can be greatly exacerbated by feeding such a diet. Most veterinary hospitals are unable to detect renal failure until 70% of the kidney is destroyed. Barfers' tend to concern themselves with internet fantasy diseases purported to be caused by artificial antioxidants and totally ignore real disease like renal failure. This is much like standing in the middle of an LA freeway with the cars whizzing by at 70 mph and being worried that you will die as a result of a lightning strike on a sunny California day. Ignoring real disease in favor of internet fantasy diseases is not the best choice for your pet.

Barfers' loudly proclaim the value of "raw" versus cooked. While there is no question that some nutrients are degraded by the cooking process there are also a number of nutrients that are unavailable to the animal unless the given ingredient is cooked. Sometimes there is a trade off. For example, vitamin C is easily destroyed by heat whereas carotenoids are made more available by the softening effects of cooking. Manufacturers can easily add in more vitamin C to increase the levels in the final product. In some cases vegetables must be cooked to be safe to eat. Common starches are a good example of a nutrient that is virtually unusable unless cooked. Cooking tomatoes significantly increases lycopene absorption. Uncooked whole grains are virtually useless to dogs. 18, 19 Digestibility as measured by protein efficiency ratio of raw kidney beans significantly improved when cooked. True digestibility and net protein utilization also showed a significant improvement in the case of cooked kidney beans.32 Trypsin inhibitors isolated from buckwheat seeds are heat stable and can cause poor digestion if they are not suitably cooked before consumption.34

Vitamins were first discovered well over a hundred years ago. The last vitamin discovered was vitamin k in 1946. The rate at which vitamins degrade during any given cooking process is well known and established. Tables of nutrient degradation under various types of cooking, at various temperatures, and various lengths of time have been well known for many years. Commercial pet food producers are well aware of these effects. It is very simple and inexpensive for any commercial manufacturer to add these nutrients into the product mix at a rate high enough to allow for degradation and still contain the needed quantities. In contrast the Barfer has no clue about the digestibility and availability of specific nutrients in the meals they prepare. No controlled feeding trials have been performed, and no testing of micro nutrient levels has been performed for any of the commonly promoted recipes, much less individual alterations to recipes proffered by the Barf crowd 

Barfers' sometimes proclaim that there are "trace" nutrients we are not yet even aware of that are present in raw foods and not present in cooked foods. While the progress of science in determining what trace molecules exist in any given ingredient is increasing at a geometric rate there is no question that we may have some left to discover. What the Barfer fails to recognize is that 100,000 years of natural selection have created a domestic pet that is attuned to the effects of cooking and eating human trash. Further there may be just as many "trace" nutrients discovered to exist only in cooked versions of any given ingredient. We already know that many nutrients are not bio-available to the domestic dog unless they are cooked. Certainly we will discover new trace elements in food and how they impact the animal in the future. We will just as certainly discover trace nutrients in cooked foods that are not biologically available in raw foods. Failing to recognize the impact of 100,000 years of natural selection evolution and mutation on the domestic dog can lead to erroneous assumptions.

Because Barf proponents ignore nutrients in favor of ingredients, all such diets end up unbalanced. Perhaps this is why the vast majority of veterinarians oppose Barf feeding, and why not even a single board certified veterinary nutritionist is a proponent of barf feeding. Very few, if any, Barfers' have the technical skills or the equipment necessary to analyze the meals they develop and administer to their pets. An analysis of any Barf diet recipe illustrates the problems this can entail. A commonly recommended Barf recipe provides the animal with 50% more calcium than is appropriate and 22% more phosphorous than an animal should have. Such excessive levels may lead to a number of long-term health problems. It is not uncommon for veterinarians to encounter puppies like Julie, a young puppy whose owner was determined to feed the BARF diet. After a few months the puppy developed osteoporosis and had several fractures, indicative of rickets. Placing the puppy back on a commercial diet resolved the problems an unbalanced diet created. Veterinary clinic observations of mal-nutrition among Barf diet feeders are hugely more frequent than is appropriate for the small percentage of people experimenting with this latest fad in pet food. If this same percentage of failures was found in any current drug or commercial food, it would be the subject of massive media investigations, TV News Show exposes, and the company involved would be spending the rest of its' life defending the lawsuits.


----------



## Striker2807 (May 27, 2008)

I must say I love all the debate!

In my opinion, there may be no Pro Raw feeding research, but we do though have the proof of all the raw feeders dogs that are completely healthy and have clean teeth, small, odorless stools, and so forth. So that has tell you that raw isn't all that bad. 

As to what is the better diet for a dog that will be debatable no matter what scientific proof we have so I think it is safe to say that neither kibble or raw will kill your dog.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

RBark said:


> Come over to my house and look at Kobe, who eats kibble, and see for yourself Kibble isn't bad!


Look at the ingredients in the bag, learn where they came from and the manufacturing process and you will KNOW that kibble is bad for any animal, and even worse for a carnivore. Most kibbles are 50% grain. Dogs don't eat grain. Humans shouldn't eat grain. How can you say a highly processed grain based cereal isn't bad for a carnivore?



> For every one kibble horror story, there's one raw horror story. Of course, certain people have the perfect "defense" against that: If something went wrong with raw, they must have done it wrong.


It's true. If done even close to right the dog will thrive. That has been proven over millions of years.



> Why do people want research? Maybe because there's almost no research for raw, and there's TONS of research for kibble? I'd say that has a LOT to do with it.


Show us one research on kibble. There is no research on a raw diet because who would pay for it? Studies are expensive. Who would benefit from research proving raw is superior to kibble? Who would benefit from research that proves kibble is superior to raw? Why haven't the pet food companies paid for such research? There has been no research done on the nutritional benefits of kibble. Raw has withstood the test of millions of years. Kibble, the new kid on the block has only been around for about 50 years.



> I feed prey model raw and I love what it's done for Pris and Ollie, but reading some members posts on raw is like..
> 
> "My dog got X disease on kibble"
> "RAW is the miracle cure! Raw fixes everything! No smell, no bath, no teeth issue, no anal glands, no blah blah blah blah"
> ...


Hehe, you're right. Raw will cure MANY problems dogs have. Particularly IBD, IBS, parncreatic problem, some liver problems, most skin problems, most yeast problems, most dental problems and better overall health. There is no denying that. I've seen it happen time after time after time. Other raw feeders have also.

Properly raw fed dogs don't have a smell, teeth problems, or anal gland problems. They rarely have digestive problems after the first couple of months of adjustment.

I can't help it. It's just what happens when you feed your dog a proper diet. Don't get mad at me for saying it. It happens. we've all seen it over and over.



> When that's the best defense raw feeders come up with, then yes, you'd want research. You'd want citations. You'd want scientific studies.


What i've been trying to tell you. There ARE no scientific studies. They just aren't there and they never will be. You just have to look at facts, put 2 and 2 together and come up with 4. Once you look at it in depth you can come to no other conclusion. I don't need any studies to tell me what a prey model raw diet has done for my dogs. Nor the many many other dogs I know who are fed raw.



> With Kibble feeders it's more like...
> "My dog got bad fur and allergies on Kibble"
> "The possible issues could be allergy to the meat, and that too much corn is in your current diet, blah blah blah"
> *tries different brand/meat*
> ...


The difference is the kibble feeder will have the same problems again in a few months and will then restart his search for the elusive perfect kibble. Raw feeding is the ONLY way you can know exactly what your dog is eating.




> What dogs were fed 100 years ago is irrelevant here. There's nothing to say that dogs 100 years ago were healthier than they are now.


I know about dogs 50 years ago and they didn't have nearly the problems they do today. The only skin issue was mange, ear mites were the only ear prolbems. There were no dental problems. There were no IBD/IBS problems. Just about the only real health problem was distemper. Almost no one fed kibble 50 years ago. It was mostly table scraps.



> That's why scientific studies are needed. Are raw fed dogs healthier than high quality kibble fed dogs? Who knows? Until there's a research EVERYTHING, and I mean EVERY SINGLE statement about raw is a opinion, there are ABSOLUTELY no facts whatsoever.


There are no studies. There never will be any studies. You just have to learn to think for yourself and not depend on someone else to prove gravity exists.



> No, what they ate 100 years ago is not a fact unless that diet was scientifically researched. No, what wolves ate is not fact unless it's scientifically researched to be the same as dogs.


The diet of wild wolves is very scientifically researched. A LOT is known about the diet of wild wolves. I can go into a lot of detail about that if you wish. If you want to see research, google David Mech. He is the worlds foremost wild wolf researcher and he has written many books and research papers, all of wich are available on the internet.

You know, I understand you have a hard time with this but there are facts without research. People can figure out things on their own.



> No, their body setup does not tell us anything whatsoever as fact when dogs do have some benefit from things that are not meat.





> That's w hy research is absolutely neccessary. Otherwise everything raw feeders say is just opinion. And it is just opinion, despite what certain zealots think.


Don't be silly. We do exactly the same thing researchers do. We do something to/with/for our dogs and we observe the results. I am on a yahoo list with 11,000 members. Thats 11,000 researchers all coming to basically the same conclusion.

You can say kibble feeders do the same but they don't. You see, most all raw feeders fed kibble at one time. They know the difference. Almost no kibble feeders have ever fed raw. They have no comparison.


----------



## CinnamintStick (Jul 25, 2008)

If you go to the American Veterinary Medical Association and search raw dog food, tons of information comes up. You would think something pro feeding raw would be there. I love reading don't you? 

http://search.avma.org/search?q=raw...vma_index&output=xml_no_dtd&restrict=sitewide


----------



## BoxMeIn21 (Apr 10, 2007)

CinnamintStick said:


> If you do look there is some. This for example http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FKA/is_6_67/ai_n13788104/print?tag=artBody;col1


That is the most biased article if I have ever seen one. 

A little about the author...


> Ann Martin is a leading authority on commercial pet foods and related animal-health concerns


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

CinnamintStick said:


> This is a very good article that also talks about the Drs. Freeman and Michel in the work they published in March 2001 in the AVMA Journal. I am just copying the part on nutritional deficiencies yet the whole article is a must read. http://www.woodhavenlabs.com/barf-myth.html
> 
> 
> "All the [BARF] diets tested had nutritional deficiencies or excesses that could cause serious health problems when used in a long-term feeding program. Of equal concern is the health risks associated with bacteria in the raw food diets, especially the homemade diet that yielded E. coli O157:H7. Although owners feeding raw food diets often claim that dogs are more resistant to pathogenic bacteria, we are not aware of evidence to support that claim."31 This from Drs. Freeman and Michel in the work they published in March 2001 in the AVMA Journal.


I'm not going to defend BARFers here. BARF is as far from prey model raw as kibble is from canned dog food. They have traveled down the wrong path.

The thing I want to comment on is bacteria. Vets have a very difficult time with this but bacteria just isn't a problem with raw fed dogs. Dogs can eat rotten meat with no ill effects. Mine have, several times. I have fed meat that smelled so bad, I had to deoderize the kitchen and eat out that night.  There may on occasion be salmonella, ecoli or any of several other bacteria in the food dogs eat. It doesn't matter. The dogs don't get sick and the humans in the house don't get sick. It's just not a big deal. There have been studies that indicated that it's possible for dogs to shed some of this bacteria in their stools but if you don't eat the stools and wash your hands after handling it, again, it doesn't matter.

One more comment. Dogs are carnivores. Carnivores eat meat, bones, and organs. They do not eat veggies, grains, fruits or nuts. Omnivores eat plant material. Dogs are not omnivores. They do not eat plant material. You can't turn a carnivore into an omnivore by feeding it omnivore food. It is still an carnovore. It won't magically grow flat teeth by feeding plant material. It won't magically learn how to move it's jaw from side while chewing. It won't mysterously grow longer intestines. It will still be a carnivore regardless of what you feed it. It will still be incapable of extracting nutrients from plants.



CinnamintStick said:


> If you go to the American Veterinary Medical Association and search raw dog food, tons of information comes up. You would think something pro feeding raw would be there. I love reading don't you?


OH! no, no, no, a thousand times no. You will NEVER see anything positive about raw feeding from any veterinary orginazation. They get too much money from the kibble companies. If you love reading so much, read the book Raw Meaty Bones Promote Health by Dr. Tom Lonsdale. There is A LOT of documented and referenced information about the relationship between the dog food industry and the vet community. You also might be interesated in Tom's web page at http://rawmeatybones.com There is a lot of the same info there.



CinnamintStick said:


> If you do look there is some. This for example http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FKA/is_6_67/ai_n13788104/print?tag=artBody;col1


Hehe, Ann Martin makes a living writing books about how terrible what ever food you feed your dog is. She wrote a book about kibble. She is the one who started the idea that there are euthinized pets in kibble. She offers some good proof. If you believe what she says about raw, you have to believe what she says about kibble. The title of her kibble book is Food Pets Die For. Your assignment for the week is to read the kibble book and report back to us.


----------



## briteday (Feb 10, 2007)

Working in the field of research, I think there is a "teachable moment" here. One needs to learn how to read studies to verify if they are credible or not. If the "N" (number of subjects in the study is low), the researchers involved have chosen not to file a disclosure statement or their disclosure links them to a biased source, the study has no control group, or is otherwise somehow flawed...garbage in, garbage out.

I am not a raw feeding fanatic. I happen to be a biochemist who has done the nutritional research, figured out what an pound of chicken, ...contains, has easy access to body fluid testing, and routinely monitors my own animals at the biochemical level. 

Also, if I didn't have a dog that failed to thrive for the first five years of life on kibble (for whatever reason, I'm not bashing kibble as I believe it is just something in the processing that she is messed up with) and two dogs whose serious dental issues (losing 2-3 teeth every year due to dental disease) resolved with a raw diet minus carbs...I probably would not be feeding raw. There are tons of good kibble foods out there made by reliable companies that I would trust. I even trust that certain companies acquire their ingredients from trusted sources. Just as I continue to read labels and ask questions of my raw sources (how long were they grass fed before put on the feedlot to fatten, what are you spraying on your pastures, what is your feedlot food source???) I'm sure that there are commercial kibble companies that do the same. Unfortunately for them I can do it cheaper and I have a dog that needs me to do it for her. 

So for all the kibble feeders out there, I know we are all doing the best we can on any given day with the information that we have. I doubt there are many of us out there who intend to harm our dogs with our decisions made on their behalf. And when we know better we do better. I encourage everyone, raw and kibble feeders, to do as much research as you can and make informed choices. And if raw feeders have doubts about nutrient deficiencies I would suggest that you use a good multi-vitamin made for dogs. That should take care of the RDA for all major vitamins and minerals.

But what I find interesting about the study quoted is...if dogs are being fed raw meat that is infected with E. coli and other bacteria, why aren't they getting sick?


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

RawFedDogs said:


> Look at the ingredients in the bag, learn where they came from and the manufacturing process and you will KNOW that kibble is bad for any animal, and even worse for a carnivore. Most kibbles are 50% grain. Dogs don't eat grain. Humans shouldn't eat grain. How can you say a highly processed grain based cereal isn't bad for a carnivore?


I just finished reading my ingredent list. There's no grain. Shocking, I know.




> It's true. If done even close to right the dog will thrive. That has been proven over millions of years.


Where's the evidence that they were fed prey model raw for millions of years? I'm not talking about the wolf, I'm talking about the domesticated dog.




> Show us one research on kibble. There is no research on a raw diet because who would pay for it? Studies are expensive. Who would benefit from research proving raw is superior to kibble? Who would benefit from research that proves kibble is superior to raw? Why haven't the pet food companies paid for such research? There has been no research done on the nutritional benefits of kibble. Raw has withstood the test of millions of years. Kibble, the new kid on the block has only been around for about 50 years.


The new kid on the block has more scientific study than raw diet. That's all that matters here. I don't care about why there's no research, that's just an excuse. Until there is, there are no facts.




> Hehe, you're right. Raw will cure MANY problems dogs have. Particularly IBD, IBS, parncreatic problem, some liver problems, most skin problems, most yeast problems, most dental problems and better overall health. There is no denying that. I've seen it happen time after time after time. Other raw feeders have also.
> 
> Properly raw fed dogs don't have a smell, teeth problems, or anal gland problems. They rarely have digestive problems after the first couple of months of adjustment.
> 
> I can't help it. It's just what happens when you feed your dog a proper diet. Don't get mad at me for saying it. It happens. we've all seen it over and over.


Bet you doctors who give dogs Science Diet prescription diets will say the same thing. Does that make them right? Nope. Does it make you right, nope. That said, cite any sources that prove this. There are none, and therefore everything you said is ancedotal and have no basis in fact.




> What i've been trying to tell you. There ARE no scientific studies. They just aren't there and they never will be. You just have to look at facts, put 2 and 2 together and come up with 4. Once you look at it in depth you can come to no other conclusion. I don't need any studies to tell me what a prey model raw diet has done for my dogs. Nor the many many other dogs I know who are fed raw.


There are NO FACTS unless there's a scientific study. An absence of scientific study does not make something a fact. You are completely and utterly biased, and therefore, everything you read will be biased.




> The difference is the kibble feeder will have the same problems again in a few months and will then restart his search for the elusive perfect kibble. Raw feeding is the ONLY way you can know exactly what your dog is eating.


Nope, that's just your bias showing. You disregard raw problems automatically and note kibble problems automatically. This is human nature.





> I know about dogs 50 years ago and they didn't have nearly the problems they do today. The only skin issue was mange, ear mites were the only ear prolbems. There were no dental problems. There were no IBD/IBS problems. Just about the only real health problem was distemper. Almost no one fed kibble 50 years ago. It was mostly table scraps.


Citations, citations, studies, proof. Otherwise this is garbage.




> There are no studies. There never will be any studies. You just have to learn to think for yourself and not depend on someone else to prove gravity exists.


Yet gravity is just a theory still, not a fact. Going against the wave does not = thinking for yourself. 




> The diet of wild wolves is very scientifically researched. A LOT is known about the diet of wild wolves. I can go into a lot of detail about that if you wish. If you want to see research, google David Mech. He is the worlds foremost wild wolf researcher and he has written many books and research papers, all of wich are available on the internet.


Ask David Mech if he thinks it applies to dogs 




> You know, I understand you have a hard time with this but there are facts without research. People can figure out things on their own.


 Human nature tells us otherwise. We are all subject to our bias.






> Don't be silly. We do exactly the same thing researchers do. We do something to/with/for our dogs and we observe the results. I am on a yahoo list with 11,000 members. Thats 11,000 researchers all coming to basically the same conclusion.


Citations citations let's see those research. I can cite 1 million criminals that say crime is OK! Does that make it right? NOPE! That's why things are subject to scientific testing.



> You can say kibble feeders do the same but they don't. You see, most all raw feeders fed kibble at one time. They know the difference. Almost no kibble feeders have ever fed raw. They have no comparison.


Funny how MY experiences with raw feeders has been otherwise  Bias is funny like that.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

briteday said:


> Also, if I didn't have a dog that failed to thrive for the first five years of life on kibble (for whatever reason, I'm not bashing kibble as I believe it is just something in the processing that she is messed up with)


Hehe, you are just too nice. LOL



> I even trust that certain companies acquire their ingredients from trusted sources.


You have more faith in them than I do. 



> But what I find interesting about the study quoted is...if dogs are being fed raw meat that is infected with E. coli and other bacteria, why aren't they getting sick?


I think you may be refering to the study I spoke about. The one about salmonella being shed in stools of dogs. If so, I can shed some light on it for you. This was a study done by someone at Ohio State University. I was asked to participate in the study but declined after I read the hypothisis. It was obvious they were trying to prove that feeding raw was dangerous because of bacteria in dogs stools. Of course when you set out to prove something it usually gets proved.

The way the research was done is that they got volunteers from across the country. I used to know how many but I have forgotten. Seems like it was several hundred but I may be wrong. The volunteers were to take a stool sample periodically. I don't remember now if it was daily or weekly. You would send the stool sample in with a report stating what the dog had eaten recently. If I remember correctly, 32% of raw fed dogs shed salmonella and/or ecoli and only 15% of kibble fed dogs shed the same thing. I'm not 100% sure of the numbers. It just wasn't important to me so I didn't make a big effort to keep the information. This study was done 4 or 5 years ago. There should be some info in the net.

I did read somewhere several years ago that 80% of chicken in grocery stores contained salmonella. I don't remember where or when I read that.

OH, and to answer your question, they don't get sick because their stomach juices are so acidic that it kills most any living thing that ends up in the stomach. What little bacteria survives the trip through the stomach are expelled from the short intestinal system before they can grow to a size big enough to harm the dog. Thats the reason that carnivores have such short intestines.



RBark said:


> I just finished reading my ingredent list. There's no grain. Shocking, I know.


If there are no grains, there has to be a lot of potatoes. You must have one or the other to stick those little doom nuggets together. Grain or potato, neither very nutritious for a carnivore.



> Where's the evidence that they were fed prey model raw for millions of years? I'm not talking about the wolf, I'm talking about the domesticated dog.


Wolves and dogs are the same thing. There were no domesticated dogs until very recently. Biologically there is no difference between wolves and dogs. The small difference is .02% mDNA. Thats closer than some races of humans. There is no longer any argument that dogs are a subspecies of wolf. Forgive my spelling but wolves are canis lupus and dogs are canis lupus familiaris making them a subspecies.

If you doubt me(which I know you do  ) you can check DNA research and books by Dr. Robert Wayne, a respected leader in the field. Google him for information.



> The new kid on the block has more scientific study than raw diet. That's all that matters here. I don't care about why there's no research, that's just an excuse. Until there is, there are no facts.


But there is no research on kibble either. Why do you believe the hype from the pet food companies and don't believe anyone about raw? To get anywhere, you are just going to have to learn to think for yourself without relying on others to do research for you. You need to stop believing everything you see on a tv commercial.



> Bet you doctors who give dogs Science Diet prescription diets will say the same thing. Does that make them right? Nope. Does it make you right, nope. That said, cite any sources that prove this. There are none, and therefore everything you said is ancedotal and have no basis in fact.


All the doctors know is what the SD sales reps tell them. What I know comes from years of study.



> There are NO FACTS unless there's a scientific study. An absence of scientific study does not make something a fact. You are completely and utterly biased, and therefore, everything you read will be biased.


Hehe, you just don't understand. There was gravity since the earth was formed. The earth was round when it was formed. Those were facts. They weren't proved until millions of years later but they were still facts. I can look and see that 2 and 2 equal 4. I don't need a study to tell me that. I can figure it out all on my own.

Nope, that's just your bias showing. You disregard raw problems automatically and note kibble problems automatically. This is human nature.



> Citations, citations, studies, proof. Otherwise this is garbage.


Hehe, I don't need citations. I WAS THERE!!! I looked, I saw, I observed, I lived it, I had dogs back then. You need to learn to think and reason on your own.



> Yet gravity is just a theory still, not a fact. Going against the wave does not = thinking for yourself.


Hehe, stand under a bridge and let someone drop a rock on your head. Gravity will be proved real fast. LOLOLOL



> Ask David Mech if he thinks it applies to dogs


Actually I have and he does. 



> Human nature tells us otherwise. We are all subject to our bias.


Go back under the bridge again. 



> Citations citations let's see those research. I can cite 1 million criminals that say crime is OK! Does that make it right? NOPE! That's why things are subject to scientific testing.


Do you understand how big a number 11,000 is???



> Funny how MY experiences with raw feeders has been otherwise Bias is funny like that.


Give me some citations. LOL

Listen to me a minute. I have been feeding a prey model raw diet for 6 years. I know what it is. I know how it affects dogs. I know how dogs react to it mentally and physically. I know how to feed it. I know how to switch a dog from kibble to raw. I know how to solve problems that crop up from time to time with new feeders. I know how to keep my dogs healthier on raw than they ever were on kibble. I don't need citations to tell me that.
I have learned to try things, observe the results and make a decision on my own.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

> If there are no grains, there has to be a lot of potatoes. You must have one or the other to stick those little doom nuggets together. Grain or potato, neither very nutritious for a carnivore.


And yet, neither I, or any other raw feeder, can tell the difference between Kobe, Ollie, and Priscilla's diet. I see it for myself and therefore it is fact! 



> All the doctors know is what the SD sales reps tell them. What I know comes from years of study.


Something tells me your "study" is exactly the same as a veterinarian's "study". They change diet, see success, and therefore it must be right. 



> But there is no research on kibble either. Why do you believe the hype from the pet food companies and don't believe anyone about raw? To get anywhere, you are just going to have to learn to think for yourself without relying on others to do research for you. You need to stop believing everything you see on a tv commercial.


I don't believe kibble hype, and I don't believe raw hype. You are raw hype, a zealot as much as Science Diet reps are zealots. The two of you represent the complete bias on both ends of the spectrum. I know the answer lies somewhere in between.



> Hehe, you just don't understand. There was gravity since the earth was formed. The earth was round when it was formed. Those were facts. They weren't proved until millions of years later but they were still facts. I can look and see that 2 and 2 equal 4. I don't need a study to tell me that. I can figure it out all on my own.


I'm glad you said that. Because this is why scientific study is essential. The Theory of Gravity is very shaky. There's a lot of things that scientists can't account for, it's so full of holes it's not funny. In most scientific textbooks, it will explain why Gravity is just a theory. To the everyday person like you, you can do the children's example of dropping an egg, it falls, and smashes to prove gravity exists. But that's because you are only looking at a small part of the whole, because you don't have the neccessary requirements for a true scientific study. And scientific study finds hole after hole in it. 

For so many people, seeing is believing. That's true sometimes, but often you are just seeing a small part of the whole.



> Hehe, I don't need citations. I WAS THERE!!! I looked, I saw, I observed, I lived it, I had dogs back then. You need to learn to think and reason on your own.


Wow, you knew about raw for 50 years and saw all these fantastic raw owners, and only started 6 years ago! Something tells me there's a lie going on 



> Hehe, stand under a bridge and let someone drop a rock on your head. Gravity will be proved real fast. LOLOLOL


Let me tell you what you are saying to me. Go stand under a bridge and let someone drop a balloon on your head. Whoops, gravity is disproved! 

That's why everything you say is opinion and illogical. Until you have scientific studies, it's all opinion.



> Do you understand how big a number 11,000 is???


Do you understand how small a number that is, especially when it's a sample pool for a unscientific study?



> Listen to me a minute. I have been feeding a prey model raw diet for 6 years. I know what it is. I know how it affects dogs. I know how dogs react to it mentally and physically. I know how to feed it. I know how to switch a dog from kibble to raw. I know how to solve problems that crop up from time to time with new feeders. I know how to keep my dogs healthier on raw than they ever were on kibble. I don't need citations to tell me that.
> I have learned to try things, observe the results and make a decision on my own.


And many here have fed raw longer than you, including Shalva. And many kibble feeders can boast 50 years of perfect health feeding Iam's. Does that make them right? Does that represent anything? Not at all.


----------



## CinnamintStick (Jul 25, 2008)

BoxMeIn21 said:


> That is the most biased article if I have ever seen one.
> 
> A little about the author...


Let me tell you about the author

While living in Canada, Ms. Martin's two dogs became ill after eating a dry commercial dog food. She had the food analyzed by two independent labs, as well as a Ministry of Agriculture lab. The independent labs determined there was a toxic level of zinc in the dog food. After nine months of waiting for the government lab to finish its testing, the results indicated there were no toxic mineral levels. She took the pet food manufacturer to court to recover the costs of her veterinary bills and the testing, and subsequently lost the case. This began her seven-year investigation of the pet food industry. 

Ms. Martin claims her investigation uncovered shocking, unknown practices of the pet food industry, including the use of diseased livestock, road kill, and euthanized pets in pet food. These are very strong allegations; however, the author says many communities contract with companies to dispose of road kill and euthanized pets. Pet owners assume their animal will be incinerated/cremated, but sometimes the contract companies sell the animals to a rendering plant, which sends the rendered material on to a pet food manufacturing plant. This is an aesthetic issue, as well as a safety issue, according to the author. Sodium pentobarbital, used widely in euthanasia, is not degraded during rendering, leaving drug residue in the meat. Ms. Martin also suggests levels of other drugs in pet foods, including antibiotics and hormones, as well as molds and fungi, may be high enough to cause harm to pets. 

The parts of beef, sheep, fish, and other animals commonly used in pet food are, according to the author, often "unfit for human consumption," including spinal cords, cartilage, bone, lungs, brains, hooves, hair, intestines, fish heads and viscera. 

Of the states in the U.S. which responded when contacted by the author, none had laws on the books specifically prohibiting the use of companion pets in pet food. These findings led her to investigate who regulates this industry and she found, although there are government agencies in the U.S. and Canada which govern how pet food is labeled, there is no governmental body which oversees and enforces exactly what is allowed to be used in pet foods. 

The bottom line: Ms. Martin suggests pet owners not buy into the pet food industry's claims that pets can receive 100 percent of their necessary nutritional needs by ingesting pre-packaged commercial food. She advocates eschewing commercial foods and opting for a wholesome homemade diet which incorporates the protein, carbohydrates, and fats pets need. She provides recipes and other helpful hints for maintaining optimally healthy pets, and lists sources of necessary vitamins and minerals. 

Ann Martin's book, Foods Pets Die For, provides information rarely seen anywhere else. It is a shocking, sometimes disgusting look into the pet food industry, and should open the reader's eyes regarding the sources of the "nutrition" most Americans trust as their pets' sole food source. 

AND....FOR HER NEW BOOK:

Foreword by Shawn Messonier, DVM
Ann Martin has been investigating the multi-billion-dollar, commercial pet 
food industry since 1990, and is internationally recognized as an 
authority on the dangers of commercial pet foods.
In this new and updated edition of Food Pets Die For, first published by 
NewSage Press in 1997, Martin once again goes behind the scenes of the 
commercial pet food industry. She uncovers the unsavory ingredients that 
can legally be used by commercial pet food companies, including euthanized 
cats and dogs, diseased and contaminated meat, moldy grains, and rancid 
fat. Ann Martin also documents the ongoing animal experimentation funded 
by many major pet food companies in the name of nutritious pet food.

Ann Martin arms consumers with crucial information on how to read labels 
on pet food, and discern for themselves whether or not they want to feed 
their pets commercial food. Martin offers healthy alternatives for feeding 
animal companions with nutritious and easy-to-prepare recipes. For people 
who don't have the time to cook, Martin provides information on several 
pet food companies that produce healthy, human-grade pet food. Ann Martin 
builds a strong case for why our pets will live longer, healthier lives 
without commercial pet food.

Ann Martin's investigative writing on commercial pet food has garnered 
special recognition from Project Censored, sponsored by Sonoma State 
University's School of Journalism, as one of the most important yet 
underreported news stories. Since then, this classic has become a 
grassroots bestseller among health-minded pet owners. Martin's second 
book, Protect Your Pet: More Shocking Facts, also addresses problems of 
commercial pet food as well as other pet-related health concerns such as 
over-vaccination, the raw meat diet, Rimadyl, bloat, and more.

Ann Martin is a pet columnist for Better Nutrition magazine. She is also 
a frequent guest on U.S. and Canadian radio and television shows to 
present her views on the commercial pet food industry.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

RBark said:


> Something tells me your "study" is exactly the same as a veterinarian's "study". They change diet, see success, and therefore it must be right.
> 
> Well, not exactly. I have spent years studying canine nutrition. The vet took one course for one quarter on animal nutrition. Not just dog or carnivore but all the animals on earth. 3 months studying all that. A good bit of that time was spent learning how to read the ingredients list and nutrient analysis on the dog food bag.
> 
> ...


----------

