# Why don't dogs get sick from eating RAW?



## spotted nikes (Feb 7, 2008)

Just curious, but isn't feeding RAW dangerous, when it comes to things like Salmonella (which a huge percentage of chickens have) or E-Coli from uncooked beef, or Tapeworm/Trich from pork, or internal parasites from raw fish?? 

Just something I've wondered about...

Links to food disease-

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/...hicken-safety-1-07/overview/0107_chick_ov.htm

http://foodpoisoning.pritzkerlaw.co...-rises-again-in-ground-beef-sample-tests.html

http://www.nutrition4health.org/NOHAnews/NNSp88FoodborneDiseaseHunter.htm


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

Why would they get sick. 

Stomach Acid in dogs stomach kills Salmonella. Actually most healthy adult humans probably don't have to worry if they ingest Salmonella either although there are different strains so I'd imagine some would be more harmful then others, some have better chance of surviving, some have better chance of making us sick, especially if immunity is lower. Ground beef is where you are most likely to find e coli, I feed some ground beef but just add a little here or there. Otherwise they get cuts of beef or parts of cow and I don't have to worry about e. coli contanimation. I like to eat my bison or beef rare myself and haven't been sick from e. coli. I know someone who almost died from e. coli though, was a child, she became very sick, it made her as if she had a stroke that is how damaging it was. I used to not feed pork to my dogs, because I don't like pork. Now I do and I freeze it before feeding it. Wild caught I will cook as there is a chance of carrying blood born illnesses of which dogs can contract. 

Anyway dogs can and do get parasites from eating animals that are carrying them. I keep tapeworm meds on hand JIC because mine catch and eat rabbits or mice.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Yes, there are risks to feeding raw. There are documented cases of dogs and cats getting sick from eating raw meat. The reasons why we don't hear about it more is because a family pet presented to a local veterinarian for intermittent episodes of vomiting or diarrhea would initially treat the case symptomatically and not send samples for bacterial culture and identification. Hence, in most, if not all, cases of food poisoning in the family pet are not diagnosed and go unreported due to a low level of suspicion and financial restraints. Even upon the death of a pet, rarely is an attempt to isolate the causative agent made although it is more likely when the owner suspects a malicious poisoning. Polymerase chain reaction amplification and identification of a pathogenic organism is not within the reach of veterinary practitioners or owners financial commitments. Hence, it is highly unlikely that local veterinary practitioners are going to make a specific diagnosis of food poisoning, identify the organism and then the source.

However, Salmonella, E. coli and Campylobacter infections in people are notifiable diseases, i.e., physicians and health laboratories are required to report cases (even an individual case) to local health departments in accordance with procedures established by each State. Veterinarians who recommend the feeding of raw meat or eggs without giving full disclosure of the risks and precautions may face serious legal ramifications. The risks, no matter how small they are, are still risks that should be weighed when considering an unconventional diet.


----------



## DJsMom (Jun 6, 2008)

I'm very glad this question was asked, as I've really wondered the same thing. And thanks for the info CP & Spicy. 
It sounds to me as if it's just as risky for our dogs to eat raw meat as it is for us to? Is that right?


----------



## Dad2labs (Jan 25, 2009)

We are conditioned by the media and medical community to be germ phobic. The phobia gets passed around from person to person and via the internet. We are constantly told to wash our hands, clean our eating utensils, clean our bathrooms, etc. We are bombarded with information telling us that we are going to become real sick if we don't wash this, that, and the other thing.

Dogs don't get sick from eating bacteria contaminated food. They are well equiped to handle bacteria. Remember they lick their own butts as well as the butts of other dogs. They pick up dirty sticks and carry them around. Many dogs eat poop. They eat dead squirrels and other dead animals they can find. They eat dirt. They eat worms and bugs. Bacteria is not a problem for dogs and it doesn't make them sick. Vets don't report it because they never see it. I have never known of a dog with a confirmed case of salmonelly or e-coli poisoning. Dogs have been eating rotton stuff for at least 14,000 years. 

As for the risks, there are risks walking out the door.

Adding: The only people I know who worry about bacteria and bones with a raw diet are people who have never fed raw.


----------



## DJsMom (Jun 6, 2008)

Dad2labs said:


> We are conditioned by the media and medical community to be germ phobic. The phobia gets passed around from person to person and via the internet. We are constantly told to wash our hands, clean our eating utensils, clean our bathrooms, etc. We are bombarded with information telling us that we are going to become real sick if we don't wash this, that, and the other thing.
> 
> Dogs don't get sick from eating bacteria contaminated food. They are well equiped to handle bacteria. Remember they lick their own butts as well as the butts of other dogs. They pick up dirty sticks and carry them around. Many dogs eat poop. They eat dead squirrels and other dead animals they can find. They eat dirt. They eat worms and bugs. Bacteria is not a problem for dogs and it doesn't make them sick. Vets don't report it because they never see it. I have never known of a dog with a confirmed case of salmonelly or e-coli poisoning. Dogs have been eating rotton stuff for at least 14,000 years.
> 
> As for the risks, there are risks walking out the door.


This all makes sense, & I DO understand what you're saying, but I basically HAVE to walk out my door some times, I don't have to eat raw.
I have considered eventually feeding my dog raw, or at least doing more serious research on it, & this is the biggest worry I have about it. I would love to feed my dog raw, IF there wasn't the safety issue - it's obviously the most natural, healthy way to feed him. ...but there's that safety issue that holds me back.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

DJsMom said:


> It sounds to me as if it's just as risky for our dogs to eat raw meat as it is for us to? Is that right?


I believe it's debatable whether the risks are comparable for the reason I described previously regarding documentation. What I read from raw meat advocates is that they don't deny the risks but they tend to downplay the risks. That's all well and good if it's not your dog that gets sick, but I believe the prudent thing to do is balance the risk to benefit ratio.


----------



## briteday (Feb 10, 2007)

Canine stomachs have a much higher acidity than do humans. Also, their intestinal tract is much shorter. Those two things combined decrease the odds of dogs contracting many bacterial infections. If the acidity doesn't kill it, they pass it through too quickly for much to take hold.

Also, having worked in medical labs most of my life, humans do contract things like salmonella and E. coli. However, a lot depends on on the bacterial load in the food eaten (how many bacterial particles in the food, bacteria multiplies rapidly at certain temps... so, how long did Aunt Jane leave that mayo salad out on the counter?), whether the person is immuno-compromised in any way (HIV, very young, very old, otherwise previously ill, already on antibiotics that have destroyed the protective normal flora in our bodies), and the strain of bacteria present. 

Personally, I am much more afraid of catching hepatitis from restaurant-prepared food than a bacterial infection. Bacteria are rarely fatal (see exceptions above) and can be treated with antibiotics. Viral hepatitis is indigenous in certain cultures and there is no real treatment beyond a liver transplant. I avoid eating in public restaurants / fast food because many food service workers come up positive for hepatitis when tested after an illness outbreak. Also, I worry about proper handwashing after bathroom use. That is how most human caused foodborne illness is contracted...food worker doesn't wash hands after toileting, touches your food, you eat contaminated food and get sick.

Back to dogs...raw food for dogs is no more dangerous than raw food for humans. Some people eat sushi, yes? And I like my beef rare. It's all in how you handle your dog's food. Same as humans...freeze if not using immediately, defrost under refrigeration, use proper sanitary technique for serving (I sanitize cutting boards and surfaces before and after contact with raw food, bowls get put in dishwasher after each meal, never prepare raw dog meal while family food is out on counter...), freeze pork for one month before using (trich is very rare in US, but...), I only serve human grade fish or fish that I have caught / gutted / cleaned / inspected, serve wild game only from known and trusted sources and frozen for one month.

I've never seen worms contracted from human grade meat. Freezing would take care of most of that anyway though. Most human parasite infections are caused by the oral-fecal route (hands to mouth after being contaminated), picking it up from infected animals, soil contact, ... Bacteria, viruses, and parasites are all over our environment. The marketing of "anti-bacterial" soap is a bunch of propaganda. Proper handwashing depends on the friction of rubbing the hands and fingers with any soap and water for at least 20 seconds (sing Happy Birthday or Yankee Doodle twice through while lathering and rubbing) and then rinse in a downward direction. Do not touch the faucet handles and try to hit the paper towel dispenser button or air dryer with your elbow. Then use the paper towel to turn off the faucet. When exiting the bathroom use the paper towel to open the door to the outside, then dispose of the paper towel.

Alcohol based (60%) waterless hand sanitizers are an even better alternative to soap and water washing. I keep them in all of our cars, backpacks, purses as well as at the door where we enter / exit to our cars. I sanitize my hands frequently throughout the day...after touching shopping carts, dirty door knobs, after touching things in the meat case at the grocery, and when I enter / leave the house. None of us have had colds for a few years now. And need I say that most people should have flu shots yearly, pneumonia shots if you are at risk.

Here's a good site on handwashing...

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hand-washing/HQ00407

Oh, and an excellent moisturizer is critical if you properly wash your hands as frequently as is suggested by most health practitioners. Even rubbing a bit of petroleum jelly into your hands before bed can keep your hands from becoming dried out.


----------



## babysweet (Dec 11, 2008)

I've fed raw to dozens of dogs for over a decade, without a single illness. 

While I can't tell you that an immune compromised dog won't get sick from bacterial contamination, what I can tell you is that a healthy dog with a properly functioning digestive tract will have no issues handling even "ripe" meat (one of my guys favourite's is old chicken - not that I'm advocating it).

The FDA will tell you that salmonella recalls on pet foods are done to protect the humans who handle the food/treats, not the pets who eat them. 

Handle the meat properly, wash bowls after use, and if you're really concerned purchase pre-made raw food from a reputable source that tests for contaminants and has sterilization programs in place.

And finally, given that many raw feeders I know have been feeding raw for 20+ years, some kennels simply never started feeded kibble at all, I would hesitate to call raw "unconventional." I had a client the other day who commented that she recently moved to a new house, and when she met her neighbour and her neighbour's dog, her new neighbour was ecstatic to hear that she was a raw feeder. "I thought I was going to have to give you the raw speech!" she said. Later that afternoon, while walking her dog, she met the dog three doors down - also a raw fed pooch. We're not THAT rare...


----------



## DJsMom (Jun 6, 2008)

babysweet said:


> Handle the meat properly, wash bowls after use, and if you're really concerned purchase pre-made raw food from a reputable source that tests for contaminants and has sterilization programs in place.


Like Nature's Variety? They sell raw I think. Maybe that's where I should start, if I decide to. Or can someone tell me any other brands that might be better?


----------



## babysweet (Dec 11, 2008)

I'm a big fan of Nature's Variety raw products, although it is rather expensive. It can be helpful to at least start with a commercial product before moving on to doing it yourself, or supplementing one with the other.

We use Mountain Dog, Urban Carnivore, Paw-itively Raw and Nature's Variety - although only NV is available in the US, I believe.


----------



## rosemaryninja (Sep 28, 2007)

I'm not going to lie and say there are no risks when it comes to feeding raw. But I'm being completely honest when I say I barely think about them at all anymore. Many of the posts above have already detailed the facts as to why there's not as great a need to worry about salmonella and etc as some may think, so I'm not going to get into that now. The thing is really to practise common sense when it comes to feeding raw. Wash your hands with hot water and soap before and after, clean countertops and bowls, use a separate chopping board, don't feed meat that's been sitting out for too long (though some assert that dogs can eat meat that's been sitting out for days).

Nature's Variety does make good prepackaged raw. I think Addiction does as well, but both are rather pricey.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

The misconception that dogs are somehow immune to the clinical effects of these organisms has been sadly demonstrated to be false throughout the veterinary clinics and hospitals in this country. Young animals infected with these organisms have died. Most adult animals survive the episodes of vomiting and diarrhea with IV fluid and antibiotic therapies, although some, too, have died. I just don't think it's good practice to downplay the risks, regardless of how many anecdotes we can come up with to the contrary.


A few excerpts from the FDA Bad Bug Book: 


> Salmonella; has long been isolated from the outside of eggshells. The present situation with Salmonella is complicated by the presence of the organism inside the egg, in the yolk. Foods other than eggs have also caused outbreaks of the disease. It is estimated that from 2 to 4 million cases of salmonellosis occur in people in the U.S. annually, and that the incidence of salmonellosis appears to be rising both in the U.S. and in other industrialized nations.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Additionally, there is no nutritional advantage to feeding meat or egg ingredients raw, only the risk of contracting a mild to severe and potentially deadly gastrointestinal disease. The best recommendation is to cook all surfaces of the meat and not to feed raw ground meat. The pathogens are usually on the surface of the meat, but will be mixed throughout the meat in the grinding process. Feeding rare is safer than feeding raw. Many of the eggs in the USA are infected with Salmonella, and therefore eggs should never be fed raw to dogs IMO.

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ANSWERS/2002/ANS01183.html


----------



## BoxMeIn21 (Apr 10, 2007)

briteday said:


> Canine stomachs have a much higher acidity than do humans. Also, their intestinal tract is much shorter. Those two things combined decrease the odds of dogs contracting many bacterial infections. If the acidity doesn't kill it, they pass it through too quickly for much to take hold.
> 
> Also, having worked in medical labs most of my life, humans do contract things like salmonella and E. coli. However, a lot depends on on the bacterial load in the food eaten (how many bacterial particles in the food, bacteria multiplies rapidly at certain temps... so, how long did Aunt Jane leave that mayo salad out on the counter?), whether the person is immuno-compromised in any way (HIV, very young, very old, otherwise previously ill, already on antibiotics that have destroyed the protective normal flora in our bodies), and the strain of bacteria present.
> 
> ...


Excellent post.


----------



## Binkalette (Dec 16, 2008)

Wouldn't the bacteria also stay on your dogs face and in it's mouth? I would think that alone would be a problem. I wouldn't want her to be licking anybody then.. especially young children.


----------



## Kyllobernese (Feb 5, 2008)

I can get pork bones with lots of meat on them from the Grocery store at a lot cheaper price than the beef bones that have no meat on them. Is it alright to feed them without freezing them for a certain length of time first? They come frozen but I have no way of knowing how long they were frozen before I got them.


----------



## Dad2labs (Jan 25, 2009)

It never ceases to amaze me how uninformed fear mongers come on the the discussion groups spouting the dangers of feeding raw to dogs. They have never fed raw to a dog and have no evidence to back up what they say. They say things like, "dogs die from salmonella and e-coli" and don't even offer any back up even so much as, "I know a dog who died of these things". 

I can't say it never happened but in all my years of owning dogs and feeding raw, I never personally knew a dog who died such a way. In many years on internet dog discussion groups I have never heard a raw feeder say "my dog died from salmonella". I have heard of many dogs dying from eating kibble. What about all the recalls? Doesn't that worry you? Do you folks actually think that kibble is completely sanitary? Even after it sits in your house for several weeks, has been on the store shelves for a month or more, been in the warehouse for another few months? Folks, there is salmonella in your dogs kibble. Don't you remember the recent recall for salmonella? Did you hear of any dogs dying from that? No.

The above mentioned FDA book is talking about bacteria and humans, not dogs. Yes, there is bacteria on and in raw eggs. Yes, there is bacteria on raw chicken. Yes there is bacteria on all meats. There have been several actually experienced raw feeders her telling you that it doesn't matter. It doesn't make dogs sick. Using minimal sanitary habits, it doesn't make humans sick. There is bacteria everywhere. You can't get away from it.

Somewhere in my Favorites list of hundreds of dog links on this computer I have information about how cooking destroys nutrients. I don't have time to find it right now. Enzymes are destroyed by cooking. I have one article that tells us at what temperature each of the vitamins are destroyed during cooking. Raw meat and even raw veggies are much healthier than cooked. Most any nutritionist will tell you that.

Cooking meat surfaces for dogs actually makes "raw feeding" dangerous. Just a tiny bit too much heat on a bone and all of a sudden that bone is brittle and can splinter into sharp little razor blades. Even defrosting frozen meat briefly in the microwave is dangerous. Don't even think about searing meat containing bones.

I think it would be best for people considering switching their dog or newbie raw feeders to listen to the people who have been feeding raw for many years instead of the fear mongers who have never fed one meal of raw meat or bones. These uninformed people are becoming a real problem.


----------



## DJsMom (Jun 6, 2008)

Curbside Prophet, do you not feed raw?
Please excuse all my questions, but this has been on my mind since getting DJ & joining this forum & 1st hearing about feeding raw.



babysweet said:


> I'm a big fan of Nature's Variety raw products, although it is rather expensive. It can be helpful to at least start with a commercial product before moving on to doing it yourself, or supplementing one with the other.
> 
> We use Mountain Dog, Urban Carnivore, Paw-itively Raw and Nature's Variety - although only NV is available in the US, I believe.


Nature's Variety would work really well for me, as NV Prairie is the only dog food we carry in our store & what I currently feed my dogs, so I would probably trust them most, to begin with anyway. And we can get it at wholesale cost, but that's not a big difference at all in the cost, as that's 1 thing we just can't mark up much & still be able to sell it!


----------



## Dad2labs (Jan 25, 2009)

Binkalette said:


> Wouldn't the bacteria also stay on your dogs face and in it's mouth? I would think that alone would be a problem. I wouldn't want her to be licking anybody then.. especially young children.


Kibble fed dogs have much more bacteria in their mouths than raw fed dogs. You can tell that by looking at the plaque on kibble fed dog's teeth and smelling the breath of a kibble fed dog. Plaque is bacteria. The sugars in kibble make the mouth a great place for bacteria to thrive.

The mouth of a raw fed dog is many times more sanitary even immediately after he finishes eating than the cleanest mouth of a kibble fed dog.



Kyllobernese said:


> I can get pork bones with lots of meat on them from the Grocery store at a lot cheaper price than the beef bones that have no meat on them. Is it alright to feed them without freezing them for a certain length of time first? They come frozen but I have no way of knowing how long they were frozen before I got them.


If you buy them in a grocery store in the US, Canada, Australia and most of western Europe, definately yes, it's ok to feed them immediately.


----------



## DJsMom (Jun 6, 2008)

Oh, I think it's great to hear both sides of this! Both the positives & even the remotely possible negatives, so that we can make an informed decision.
I KNOW there are risks no matter what we feed, but people like myself, who have ALWAYS fed kibbles but am seriously considering switching to raw, it's a big switch & I do want to know both sides. And, like I said, the safety issue is what has been holding me back.
So I really do appreciate all the info from both sides of the fence!


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Dad2labs said:


> It never ceases to amaze me how uninformed fear mongers come on the the discussion groups spouting the dangers of feeding raw to dogs.


I believe you're more interested in feeling right that interested in discussion the subject prudently. If you feel that you need to call anyone a "fear monger" I kindly ask that you not participate in our forum. 



> They have never fed raw to a dog and have no evidence to back up what they say.


There are documented cases of dogs becoming ill from eating raw fed meat. Not even a well versed raw advocate would deny this. Why you're choosing to overlook the facts is beyond the interest of this discussion. 



> I can't say it never happened but in all my years of owning dogs and feeding raw, I never personally knew a dog who died such a way.


And I think it's safe to say your experience is not all encompassing. 



> In many years on internet dog discussion groups I have never heard a raw feeder say "my dog died from salmonella".


Did you not read my post on how salmonella poising in dogs is documented. If it is not documented very well how can you conclude the magnitude of the problem from your raw feeding circle? 



> I have heard of many dogs dying from eating kibble. What about all the recalls?


If you read my posts as an advocacy for feeding any kind of diet you are more interested in your propaganda than what I'm really saying. I'm only interested in the facts as we know them, I'm not interested in advocating any particular diet. 



> The above mentioned FDA book is talking about bacteria and humans, not dogs. Yes, there is bacteria on and in raw eggs. Yes, there is bacteria on raw chicken. Yes there is bacteria on all meats. There have been several actually experienced raw feeders her telling you that it doesn't matter. It doesn't make dogs sick. Using minimal sanitary habits, it doesn't make humans sick. There is bacteria everywhere. You can't get away from it.


The excerpts were meant to illustrate the potential of the problem. A few stories from raw feeding "experts" is nothing more than anecdotal evidence. It is not prudent to use anecdotes as the basis of your conclusion. 



> Somewhere in my Favorites list of hundreds of dog links on this computer I have information about how cooking destroys nutrients.


Yes, cooking destroys nutrients, but if we're talking about properly cooked food, the destruction is negligible. There is less risk from feeding a dog a diet that is negligibly deficient in nutrients than feeding a dog raw meat without taking some precaution. If you deny this, show me the documented proof that dogs have died from nutritional deficiencies in seared meat. 



> I think it would be best for people considering switching their dog or newbie raw feeders to listen to the people who have been feeding raw for many years instead of the fear mongers who have never fed one meal of raw meat or bones. These uninformed people are becoming a real problem.


And I think it's prudent for those considering raw feeding know the proven facts.



DJsMom said:


> Curbside Prophet, do you not feed raw?


I do not. I've concluded through my own research and analysis that there is no nutritional benefit to feeding raw. This statement won't make me popular in raw feeding circles, but I'm not interested in being popular among them, above the concern for what I feed my dog.


----------



## DJsMom (Jun 6, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> I do not. I've concluded through my own research and analysis that there is no nutritional benefit to feeding raw. This statement won't make me popular in raw feeding circles, but I'm not interested in being popular among them, above the concern for what I feed my dog.


I very much appreciate you putting your honesty before your popularity!


----------



## briteday (Feb 10, 2007)

All of us who prepare meat meals for our human families expose ourselves to deadly bacteria each day. You can't prepare the meal without touching the meat. So whatever precautions ou use for the human meal, it makes sense to use those precautions when preparing the dog raw meal.

Eggs...salmonella...my daughter recently started raising chickens for an eggs. Hmmm...had to do some anatomy brush up on fowl when we were trying to figure out which hens were laying / not laying. That led me to the finding that the oviduct (egg pathway) merges with the end of the intestinal tract (yes the poop/urine end of it!) in a common opening known as the cloaca or vent. Yes, folks, that's right...eggs come out of the same opening as the waste. And we're wondering why there's salmonella in eggs? Well, in commercial laying facilities the eggs are washed soon after they are layed. (consumers don't want any debris on their eggs) The washing dissolves the protective coating that the egg forms as it passes through the oviduct, to protect the inner contents of the egg from contamination. Remember, the object of laying the egg is to produce a chick from the inner contents of the egg. So nature would not want bacteria to pass through the shell and kill the chick. But humans have decided that they know better...and wash their eggs before consumption. My take is that unless those washed eggs are kept in a sterile environment...you'd better cook them thoroughly before eating. Maybe we shouldn't handle or eat eggs either...unless of course you can raise them yourself or obtain from a reliable source that does not wash them.

If the incidence of bacteria causing illness in raw fed dogs is so high, why don't we hear about it in our raw forums or hundreds of people that I personally know who feed raw? One of my dogs got sick while eating raw. And because I worked at the lab I requested that the vet send a specimen out for culture. Turns out the bacteria came from wild birds who frequent my bird feeder. And what dog can resist a sunflower seed or two. That is the one and only case of my dogs getting sick. And two of my dogs can be considered elderly at over 9 years old. Our cat is even older and is raw fed. My youngest dog routinely buries and digs her food up later to consume. That dog has never been sick.

salmonella in dogs...there are many studies out there that have taken healthy dogs, cultured their feces, and published the findings. The findings? Dogs that are both kibble-fed and raw-fed have salmonella in their feces. I have cutured enough human poo in my career to know that almost everyone has salmonella in their feces. And every human has E. coli in their feces. E. coli is the bacteria that breaks down food in our intestines. However, only certain strains (not normally found in humn intestinal tracts) of E. coli will make a healthy human sick. And only people who are already compromised would get ill from the normal load of bacteria and viruses ina normal environment. Remember to wash your hands after toileting and be sure to keep toothbrushes in a drawer or covered in the bathroom. Every time you flush, millions of bacteria are aerosolized into the air in the bathroom. They did a study where they cultured toothbrushes within 10' of an uncovered toilet that they flushed at normal intervals..with normal human waste....keep those toothbrushes covered...ewww. And you're worried about raw meat?!!

Humans underestimate foodborne illness. Many people assume that if they have a bit of the runs or a day of vomiting...it must be the flu. The flu is a respiratory illness, not a gi illness. GI distress in humans is generally caused by a foodborne pathogen. I find it interesting that my family (who remember, rarely eats outside the home...and this mom is a medical biochemist so we use universal precautions with anything containing body fluids including raw meat....universal precautions = assume anything you touch is contaminated, therefore use proper sanitary technique at ALL times) is rarely ill, even for a day, not much hershey squirts going on here. Handle all food carefully (even those vegans eating salad know that salad fixin's are well known to carry E. coli) and don't eat out unless you have access to the most recent health department inspections of restaurants in your area...then choose wisely.

Ok, now we've eliminated meat, vegetables, and eggs from the diet. What else can we do without... Remember wash your hands, clean up thoroughly any prep areas, and freeze meat before consumption. Freezing followed by proper defrosting almost eliminates the largest load of bacterial contaminants.


----------



## Dad2labs (Jan 25, 2009)

Curbside Prophet said:


> I believe you're more interested in feeling right that interested in discussion the subject prudently. If you feel that you need to call anyone a "fear monger" I kindly ask that you not participate in our forum.


Don't take it personally. I wasn't referring to you in particular. Just the whole group of raw bashers in general.



> There are documented cases of dogs becoming ill from eating raw fed meat. Not even a well versed raw advocate would deny this. Why you're choosing to overlook the facts is beyond the interest of this discussion.


Show us some of these documented cases.



> And I think it's safe to say your experience is not all encompassing.


Really, it pretty much is. I am very experienced and know many other people who are also including vets and vet techs.



> Did you not read my post on how salmonella poising in dogs is documented. If it is not documented very well how can you conclude the magnitude of the problem from your raw feeding circle?


Honeslty I haven't seen any such post. My conclusions are based on many years of experience with many dogs as well as the experience of many others including vets and vet techs.



> If you read my posts as an advocacy for feeding any kind of diet you are more interested in your propaganda than what I'm really saying. I'm only interested in the facts as we know them, I'm not interested in advocating any particular diet.


Problem is, you don't know facts. You know what you've read somewhere. You have never experienced it. It would be like me trying to fly a 747 by reading a few articles on the internet.



> The excerpts were meant to illustrate the potential of the problem. A few stories from raw feeding "experts" is nothing more than anecdotal evidence. It is not prudent to use anecdotes as the basis of your conclusion.


Well you are talking about "Potential of problems" that don't exist. Yes, the potential may be there but it never happens. Anecdotes from years of research AND experience of many people is very reliable in my book. Fear based articles that appear to document something that doesn't exist are the ones to avoid.



> There is less risk from feeding a dog a diet that is negligibly deficient in nutrients than feeding a dog raw meat without taking some precaution.


What do you base that on? Show us some evidence. 



> If you deny this, show me the documented proof that dogs have died from nutritional deficiencies in seared meat.


I can show you evidence of dogs who died from eating cooked bones. Most any vet who has been in practice very long can document that. How long do you have to sear before the bones become brittle? I don't know so I never recommend a dangerous act like this.



> And I think it's prudent for those considering raw feeding know the proven facts.


So far I haven't seen a proven fact that raw diet is bad for a dog.



> I do not. I've concluded through my own research and analysis that there is no nutritional benefit to feeding raw. This statement won't make me popular in raw feeding circles, but I'm not interested in being popular among them, above the concern for what I feed my dog.


Since you don't feed raw, never have, and don't really care to, why on earth do you make uninformed wild baseless statements bashing raw almost every day? Are you just trying to cause controversy? Are you trying to cause raw feeders to switch back to very inferior kibble? Are you trying to stop the wave of kibble feeders from switching to raw? I just don't understand your motivations.


----------



## BoxMeIn21 (Apr 10, 2007)

Curbside Prophet said:


> I do not. I've concluded through my own research and analysis that there is no nutritional benefit to feeding raw. This statement won't make me popular in raw feeding circles, but I'm not interested in being popular among them, above the concern for what I feed my dog.


So you're saying there is no difference in REAL food vs. Kibble nutrionally? I'd be interested in hearing how you concluded this, Curb.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Dad2labs said:


> Don't take it personally. I wasn't referring to you in particular. Just the whole group of raw bashers in general.


There are no raw bashers on this thread, what is the point in including them if they are not being discussed? I wouldn't find this discussion fruitful, nevertheless. 



> Show us some of these documented cases.


I'll be happy to point you to some references once I get home. I'm not prepared to do that now. 



> Really, it pretty much is. I am very experienced and know many other people who are also including vets and vet techs.
> 
> Honeslty I haven't seen any such post. My conclusions are based on many years of experience with many dogs as well as the experience of many others including vets and vet techs.


Let's say your experience is with 10, 20, 30 raw-feeding vet advocates. I usually hear from raw-feeding advocates that vets are not very knowledgeable in dog nutrition, so I'm surprised to see that you're interested in using these references. Nevertheless, do you think this sample is adequate for all veterinary experiences? It is not. You can only generally conclude what your experience is, you can not conclude your experience is safe for all. 



> Problem is, you don't know facts. You know what you've read somewhere. You have never experienced it. It would be like me trying to fly a 747 by reading a few articles on the internet.


You're generalizing my experience from the little that you know. If you do this again I'll assume you're being personal. 



> Well you are talking about "Potential of problems" that don't exist. Yes, the potential may be there but it never happens.


It's interesting that you would say the problem doesn't exist and then follow it up with it "may be there". Either it exists or it doesn't, either you know for sure or you don't. If you're saying it doesn't exist, you're flat out wrong, and any advise rendered from you should be deemed potentially harmful. 



> Anecdotes from years of research AND experience of many people is very reliable in my book. Fear based articles that appear to document something that doesn't exist are the ones to avoid.


I don't rely on anecdotes like you presume. This is your failure, and frankly you're not presenting yourself well with such assertions. 



> What do you base that on? Show us some evidence.


Evidence to what? That food negligibly deficient in nutrients is less risky than not taking precautions when feeding raw? How can I provide evidence that food negligibly deficient in nutrients is a risk if there are no documented cases of such? So what if I have to feed a fraction of an ounce to make up the difference. There are, however, documented cases of dogs dying from eating raw meet. The evidence you require is no more than a bit of common sense. 



> I can show you evidence of dogs who died from eating cooked bones.


I have not argued that feeding cooked bones is preferred. I've only argued that feeding raw meat comes with risks. You should not deduce that I'm advocating cooked bones for dogs. You should not deduce that I'm advocating any diet. 



> Since you don't feed raw, never have, and don't really care to, why on earth do you make uninformed wild baseless statements bashing raw almost every day? Are you just trying to cause controversy? Are you trying to cause raw feeders to switch back to very inferior kibble? Are you trying to stop the wave of kibble feeders from switching to raw? I just don't understand your motivations.


You're just being silly and I really don't appreciate it. I have no problem feeding my dog raw vegetables. So you're wrong, I have fed raw. Please point out via PM where I've bashed raw feeders. If you continue to practice this act of foolery, your time here on our forum will be short. I'm not threatening you, but I will enforce our forum rules if you make it necessary.



BoxMeIn21 said:


> So you're saying there is no difference in REAL food vs. Kibble nutrionally?


That's not what I said at all. I haven't mentioned kibble once in this thread. In fact I've gone so far as to say rare food is preferred over raw when considering the risks. How one concludes that I'm comparing raw to kibble is beyond me.


----------



## T.J.K. (Jul 5, 2008)

I would definitely like to see some unbiased factual evidence of a dog dying from eating raw meat. I have never seen it.


----------



## BoxMeIn21 (Apr 10, 2007)

Curbside Prophet said:


> That's not what I said at all. I haven't mentioned kibble once in this thread. In fact I've gone so far as to say rare food is preferred over raw when considering the risks. How one concludes that I'm comparing raw to kibble is beyond me.


You're right, I read your statement wrong. So let me re-phrase...how have you concluded that there is no nutritional benefit to feeding raw?


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

BoxMeIn21 said:


> You're right, I read your statement wrong. So let me re-phrase...how have you concluded that there is no nutritional benefit to feeding raw?


By the absence of universally accepted scientific methods demonstrating that there is a benefit. I would be most willing to review the data and reconsider my position when such becomes available.


----------



## Dad2labs (Jan 25, 2009)

Curbside Prophet said:


> By the absence of universally accepted scientific methods demonstrating that there is a benefit. I would be most willing to review the data and reconsider my position when such becomes available.


There is no univerially accepted scientific research domonstrating that kibble is as nutritious as raw meat, etc. Canines have been eating raw meat for millions of years. Kibble has been fed to dogs for only about 50 years but yet you don't ask for scientific proof that cereal is as nutritous as whole meat. How does that make sense?


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Dad2labs said:


> There is no univerially accepted scientific research domonstrating that kibble is as nutritious as raw meat, etc. Canines have been eating raw meat for millions of years. Kibble has been fed to dogs for only about 50 years but yet you don't ask for scientific proof that cereal is as nutritous as whole meat. How does that make sense?


You're just going to read what you want to read, aren't you? I have not mentioned kibble one time in this thread. Kibble is not being discussed in this thread. If you want to discuss the viability of feeding kibble I suggest you not continue to break our forum rules in doing so.



T.J.K. said:


> I would definitely like to see some unbiased factual evidence of a dog dying from eating raw meat. I have never seen it.


I know one of my references discusses a death related to raw feeding in cats. But the mere survival of a species is poor testimonial to the fitness of the diet. Not all imbalances kill, some just impair, mar, and maim. I hope this is acceptable evidence too.


----------



## Dad2labs (Jan 25, 2009)

Curbside Prophet said:


> There are no raw bashers on this thread, what is the point in including them if they are not being discussed? I wouldn't find this discussion fruitful, nevertheless.


With almost every thread discussiong a raw diet, there are people who enter the conversation proclaiming how dangerous raw is. They point to bacteria, bones, balanced diet, must do A LOT of research, dogs die. They proclaim that there is scientific evidence that these things happen but they never produce it. These people have never fed raw and poo poo the positive statements made by very experienced knowledgable raw feeders. Every statement an experienced raw feeder says is dismissed an anticdotal and baseless but all their statements are factual and proven even if they can't produce the proof. To me, that is bashing. What is your definition? 



> Let's say your experience is with 10, 20, 30 raw-feeding vet advocates. I usually hear from raw-feeding advocates that vets are not very knowledgeable in dog nutrition, so I'm surprised to see that you're interested in using these references. Nevertheless, do you think this sample is adequate for all veterinary experiences? It is not. You can only generally conclude what your experience is, you can not conclude your experience is safe for all.


Not raw feeding advocates but people who actually feed raw every day and have for years. 

The average vet knows no more about nutrition than the average person on the street. They know what the pet food sales reps have told them, "if a dog has this problem recommend our "X" kibble. If a dog has that problem recommend our "Y" kibble." 

Because kibble feeders think that vets know everything about dogs, I just pointed that some of my raw feeding friends are actually vets. 

Yes I feel my sample is more than adequate to make my statements for the reason that I know many raw feeders, many of whom feed as many as 20 dogs and many have fed raw for as many as 30 years. If some of these little problems that the anti-raw people cry about so much were actually problems, you would think that I would know of one dog who has been made ill from the bacteria. I would have heard of at least one owner who has gotten sick or had a family member gotten sick but I know of none. We are talking about many more than 30. Probably closer to 300 people and 1,000 dogs. We are talking about people that actually feed raw, not people who read about it. SO yes, I consider my sample to be adequate. If I had known even one or two dogs that got sick, then I would be agreeing with you.



> It's interesting that you would say the problem doesn't exist and then follow it up with it "may be there". Either it exists or it doesn't, either you know for sure or you don't. If you're saying it doesn't exist, you're flat out wrong, and any advise rendered from you should be deemed potentially harmful.


What I said is that the "potential" exist but that the "Problem" doesn't. To state it another way, It may be possible for a dog to contract salmonella poisoning and die. Thats a pontential ..... It never happens. That means that it isn't a problem.



> I don't rely on anecdotes like you presume. This is your failure, and frankly you're not presenting yourself well with such assertions.


If you rely solely on univerially accepted scientific research I haven't seen you produce it.



> Evidence to what? That food negligibly deficient in nutrients is less risky than not taking precautions when feeding raw? How can I provide evidence that food negligibly deficient in nutrients is a risk if there are no documented cases of such?


Hehe, there are literally hundreds of cases of dog dying from eating kibble. You keep forgetting that. Virtually every brand of kibble has killed dogs. And that doesn't count the dogs that just die from plain old malnutrition. It's much more than "negligbly deficient". It's grossly defiient and that doesn't even count all the dangerous chemicals present in kibble.



> So what if I have to feed a fraction of an ounce to make up the difference. There are, however, documented cases of dogs dying from eating raw meet. The evidence you require is no more than a bit of common sense.


Yeah 



> I have not argued that feeding cooked bones is preferred. I've only argued that feeding raw meat comes with risks. You should not deduce that I'm advocating cooked bones for dogs. You should not deduce that I'm advocating any diet.


Oh, maybe I am mistaken. I thought I saw in another post in this thread that you said people should sear the meat before they feed it. Maybe it was someone else. That person didn't recommend how long to sear it or advise how much searing will cause bones to become brittle, therefore dangerous to eat.



> You're just being silly and I really don't appreciate it. I have no problem feeding my dog raw vegetables. So you're wrong, I have fed raw.


Feeding a few vegetables occasionally does not a raw feeder make. It's analogous as a person claiming to be an olympic champion if they've only swam in the bath tub. 



> Please point out via PM where I've bashed raw feeders.


I'll do it shortly.



Curbside Prophet said:


> You're just going to read what you want to read, aren't you? I have not mentioned kibble one time in this thread. Kibble is not being discussed in this thread.


Yes you are correct. I just can't get kibble out of my mind when I'm discussing raw. hehe


----------



## T.J.K. (Jul 5, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> I know one of my references discusses a death related to raw feeding in cats. But the mere survival of a species is poor testimonial to the fitness of the diet. Not all imbalances kill, some just impair, mar, and maim. I hope this is acceptable evidence too.


Of course it will however, you did state that dogs were dying from RAW. I just like reading about the stuff. I am not calling you out in any shape or form. I am a RAW feeder and think it is the best, that's why I do it, but am always open to read other people's opinions.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Dad2labs said:


> With almost every thread discussiong a raw diet, there are people who enter the conversation proclaiming how dangerous raw is. They point to bacteria, bones, balanced diet, must do A LOT of research, dogs die. They proclaim that there is scientific evidence that these things happen but they never produce it. These people have never fed raw and poo poo the positive statements made by very experienced knowledgable raw feeders. Every statement an experienced raw feeder says is dismissed an anticdotal and baseless but all their statements are factual and proven even if they can't produce the proof. To me, that is bashing. What is your definition?


My definition of what you've just written is an example of someone's logic. If we're balancing risks with benefits one would have to employ some logic. You may not care to read the logic one employs, I still don't see why I should consider your anecdotes when so many other things, not necessary for raw feeding, could explain your successes. That's why it is important to use scientific evidence, so we can better understand the actual occurrences, and not need to rely on someone's amateur perception of the occurrence. 



> Because kibble feeders think that vets know everything about dogs, I just pointed that some of my raw feeding friends are actually vets.


You're generalizing again. I know many owners, some on this forum, who do not feed what their vets have recommended, and they've chosen otherwise through their own research. 



> Yes I feel my sample is more than adequate to make my statements for the reason that I know many raw feeders, many of whom feed as many as 20 dogs and many have fed raw for as many as 30 years. If some of these little problems that the anti-raw people cry about so much were actually problems, you would think that I would know of one dog who has been made ill from the bacteria.


Again, you have to use a bit of common sense before making a full judgment. If a dog becomes ill from raw meat and is taken to a vet and treated symptomatically, without documentation determining the cause (common practice), how can you say the problems would be more pronounced when the problem is rarely documented, if at all? 

Besides, what difference does knowing the true incident rate have if it's your dog? Would it help the grieving pet owner any if they said "only one in 100, or one in 1,000 or one in 10,000 dogs" fed raw food get this sick or have to go to surgery or die. After having only one such case to treat most vets will be prompted to warn. We do know that the incidence is much higher than you perceive, and clearly you have not had to treat one. If it were your dog, I think the true incident rate would be irrelevant to you. 



> I would have heard of at least one owner who has gotten sick or had a family member gotten sick but I know of none. We are talking about many more than 30. Probably closer to 300 people and 1,000 dogs.


I was talking about 30 certifiable vets, not 30 raw feeders. I think it's safe to qualify your statement by emphasizing that YOU know of none. This does not mean it doesn't exist, as you so assert. Why on Earth do you propose the FDA regulates raw-feed products? It certainly isn't because the documentation is non-existent. 



> If I had known even one or two dogs that got sick, then I would be agreeing with you.


How do you like your crow served? I should have known better...you prefer raw. 



> What I said is that the "potential" exist but that the "Problem" doesn't. To state it another way, It may be possible for a dog to contract salmonella poisoning and die. Thats a pontential ..... It never happens. That means that it isn't a problem.


Then why do raw food advocates go to such great lengths to freeze their food, and find the highest quality meat available? 



> If you rely solely on univerially accepted scientific research I haven't seen you produce it.


You didn't ask until after your knee-jerk reaction. I assure you my references are valid and verifiable. I don't trust you can say the same about yours. 



> Hehe, there are literally hundreds of cases of dog dying from eating kibble. You keep forgetting that. Virtually every brand of kibble has killed dogs. And that doesn't count the dogs that just die from plain old malnutrition. It's much more than "negligbly deficient". It's grossly defiient and that doesn't even count all the dangerous chemicals present in kibble.


There is not one documented case of a dog dying from the nutritional deficiency of kibble in the modern era. Not a one. There are cases of dogs dying from kibble that is contaminated, there are cases of dogs dying from poor feeding practices, there are dogs who were harmed by ingredients in the food...but there is not one case of a dog dying because the kibble he ate was nutritionally deficient under current law. In fact, that food is not produced or sold in this country under current law. 



> Oh, maybe I am mistaken. I thought I saw in another post in this thread that you said people should sear the meat before they feed it. Maybe it was someone else. That person didn't recommend how long to sear it or advise how much searing will cause bones to become brittle, therefore dangerous to eat.


Why do you presume I'm including bone in the discussion of searing MEAT? Do you have a knife? Use it. I did say quite specifically to sear until rare. If you know anything about cooking, "rare" is dependent on the type of meat in question, it's size, how it is cut, how much fat it contains, etc. So if you're looking for a number, sorry, I can't show you that on the internet, I don't even know what or where we're searing it. I just know I'm not buying. 



> Feeding a few vegetables occasionally does not a raw feeder make. It's analogous as a person claiming to be an olympic champion if they've only swam in the bath tub.


I'm not surprised. Most, if not all, of your arguments are merely rhetorical devises...not actual arguments.


----------



## Dad2labs (Jan 25, 2009)

I'll make this post and you can make a rebuttal and lets continue at another time on anther thread. Our posts have grown with each one and they are way too big now.



Curbside Prophet said:


> You may not care to read the logic one employs, I still don't see why I should consider your anecdotes when so many other things, not necessary for raw feeding, could explain your successes.


If I were the only one, I would agree with you. Countless other raw feeders have the same results with no other changes in their dog's lives.



> That's why it is important to use scientific evidence, so we can better understand the actual occurrences, and not need to rely on someone's amateur perception of the occurrence.


That would be cool if there was any scientific evidence. We have what we have and we make decisions based on what we know through experience and talking to other experienced people.



> You're generalizing again. I know many owners, some on this forum, who do not feed what their vets have recommended, and they've chosen otherwise through their own research.


Yes, that was a generalization. I should have used the word "most".



> Again, you have to use a bit of common sense before making a full judgment. If a dog becomes ill from raw meat and is taken to a vet and treated symptomatically, without documentation determining the cause (common practice), how can you say the problems would be more pronounced when the problem is rarely documented, if at all?


Yes, that would be a very good point except for the fact that one thing that most raw feeders are amazed at once they switch is that their dogs don't have to go to the vet for illnesses anymore. None of my dogs have been to a vet other than wellness checks that always come out perfect since I began feeding raw. In the kibble days, I would see the vet at least every other month for one dog or the other. Digestive problems are particularly rare in raw fed dogs.



> We do know that the incidence is much higher than you perceive, and clearly you have not had to treat one. If it were your dog, I think the true incident rate would be irrelevant to you.


No we don't know that. That's an assumption made by you with no basis at all. If my dog died from a digestive problem or poison or bacterial problem I definately would want to know the cause.



> Why on Earth do you propose the FDA regulates raw-feed products? It certainly isn't because the documentation is non-existent.


I'm not sure they do regulate raw dogfood products.. I don't feed that stuff so I can't say for sure.



> How do you like your crow served? I should have known better...you prefer raw.


I don't have a clue what that statement means.



> Then why do raw food advocates go to such great lengths to freeze their food, and find the highest quality meat available?


Most don't ... some freeze some foods. Salmon from the pacific north west needs to be frozen for a few weeks because of a particular parasite that can be deadly to dogs. Some people freeze pork (I don't) because they are afraid of trich. Some people freeze wild game (I dont') because they are afraid of parasites. No one freezes because of bacteria. Freezing doesn't kill bacteria.

You didn't ask until after your knee-jerk reaction. I assure you my references are valid and verifiable. I don't trust you can say the same about yours. 

If I accused you of knee-jerk reactions you would take great offense and write a diatribe about it. I haven't seen any of your undeniable absolute unbiased scientific references you talk about.



> There is not one documented case of a dog dying from the nutritional deficiency of kibble in the modern era. Not a one. There are cases of dogs dying from kibble that is contaminated,


Hehe, if you use that logic, you have not claimed that any dog has died from eating absoultely clean sterile meat.  Why do you compare only what you call clean kibble to what you call dirty meat? Don't you think it would be more fare to compare dirty kibble to dirty meat or clean kibble to clean meat?



> there are cases of dogs dying from poor feeding practices, there are dogs who were harmed by ingredients in the food...but there is not one case of a dog dying because the kibble he ate was nutritionally deficient under current law. In fact, that food is not produced or sold in this country under current law.


This paragraph doesn't make sense to me.



> Why do you presume I'm including bone in the discussion of searing MEAT?


Because a very large percentage of meat that raw feeders feed contains bone. If you are only saying sear boneless meat (which you didn't), then I don't have a problem with it except it accomplishes nothi;g.



> Do you have a knife? Use it. I did say quite specifically to sear until rare. If you know anything about cooking, "rare" is dependent on the type of meat in question, it's size, how it is cut, how much fat it contains, etc. So if you're looking for a number, sorry, I can't show you that on the internet, I don't even know what or where we're searing it. I just know I'm not buying.


I'm a very good cook and I eat my meat rare, but what we are talking about is how much do you have to cook meat to make bone brittle and you're right. THere is no answer for that. Thats why I can searing can be dangerous to your dog. 



> I'm not surprised. Most, if not all, of your arguments are merely rhetorical devises...not actual arguments.


Of course you would say that because my arguments are sound and there is no disproving them. I have the experience and you don't. I have done it and you haven't. It's the only "out" you have.

Talk to you soon.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

I have looked all over the internet time after time for cases, case studies, anything of substance, that shows dogs get salmonella or E Coli. 

I have yet to find much of anything. 

The only thing I found in the way of case studies was this.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=339295

I talked to my vets about this. Neither will endorse my feeding raw. But neither has ever treated a confirmed case of salmonella or e coli. 

Bottom line is this.... Is there a risk in feeding raw? Maybe. But the fact is, if you let your dog outside out of your site, he is going to eat what he finds. 

Let Rover out to play in the back yard and he comes across a squirrel that has been lying there dead for three days. He is probably going to eat it. Leave the garbage can open while you take a shower, Rex is likely to help himself to Last nights supper leftovers. 


Me personally, I am much more terrified of feeding commercial foods than raw.


----------



## babysweet (Dec 11, 2008)

I'm still waiting for CP to produce these peer-reviewed studies showing the dangers of evil raw meat.

In the meantime, I'm happy to feed my dog chicken that has even turned in the fridge without any concerns. 

Poop = salmonella. Dogs eat poop. After all, it's what they evolved to do. Do they die from it? Nope.

Meat = FOOD. Dogs eat food. After all, it's what they evolved to do. Do they die from it? Nope.

I'm so sick of this "people food" and "dog food" argument. There is only one kind of food - and it's just FOOD people!

The makers of Mountain Dog Food put bacterial claims to rest by placing a large amount of chicken in their kennels in the summer. When the stench became unbearable, they fed it to the dogs. Not a runny poop in the bunch.

They produce over 1,000,000 lbs of raw food every year, and have had only a few suspected (I have no validation that any were actually confirmed) cases of bacterial issues in dogs fed their product. EVERY case involved dogs eating raw and kibble combined (raw takes approximately 4 hours to digest, kibble up to 12).

And no, not all raw feeders go out of their way to freeze their meat or purchase the best quality possible. I purchase 40lb boxes of chicken carcasses for $5 from a meat packing plant nearby. They are human grade, but they have been frozen and thawed. No biggie, we just pack them in individual bags, re-freeze them for future use and feed away.

My dogs have actually dragged rotting animal corpses out of the woods, complete with maggots, and gorged themselves before I managed to get back there to stop them. The first few times, we buried the offending carcass, but the dogs would just dig it up a few days later when it was REALLY rotten and continue their feast under cloudy sky. Eventually we learned we had to take them to the dump or burn them to keep the dogs from eating them. It was more of a me being grossed out thing than it was an issue of bacterial concern.

Incidentally, there are some schools of thought that believe that the bacteria present on raw meat actually contain compounds not found anywhere else and provide their own source of nutrients to carnivores that we are not yet even aware of. 

How can you call a packaged food 100% nutritionally complete when we don't even know a tiny portion of what there is to learn about nutrition in general? Hell, we're still discovering vitamins!

And CP, I do realize that you are a moderator, but I have to say that I find your condescending tone insulting - particularly while you yell for studies - all the while quoting ones you can't produce yourself.

There's nothing wrong with explaining the potential for danger in feeding raw, but one has to be fair and explain the potential danger in feeding any diet. Kibbles can contain vitamins banned in human supplements, preservatives known for their cancer-causing abilities, wide varieties of compounds not found on their labels, aflatoxins and vomitoxins in their grains, rancid fats, toxic chemicals like sodium pentobarbital, and meats from sources that would make your hair curl.

Thanks, but I'll take my chances with the one thing that my dog actually evolved to handle naturally - bacteria.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Dad2labs said:


> I'll make this post and you can make a rebuttal and lets continue at another time on anther thread.


I don't care to do that, I'm not the one stuck on kibble. 



> If I accused you of knee-jerk reactions you would take great offense and write a diatribe about it.


No, you didn't call anyone "fear mongers". No, you didn't state that those who rely on their vet for nutritional advise weren't thinking. You've only left us with a perfect example of the kind of people we should be taking raw feeding advise from. Kudos to you. 



> Hehe, if you use that logic, you have not claimed that any dog has died from eating absoultely clean sterile meat.  Why do you compare only what you call clean kibble to what you call dirty meat?


Because kibble is cooked, rendering any live organisms in the food dead. You can't say that about raw. If kibble is contaminated, it's contaminated after the cooking process. I don't set them up, I just knock them down. 



> Don't you think it would be more fare to compare dirty kibble to dirty meat or clean kibble to clean meat?


Absolutely, if this were the actual occurrence. It is not. 



> This paragraph doesn't make sense to me.


You stated as much when you said you didn't know how the kibble industry is regulated. 



> Because a very large percentage of meat that raw feeders feed contains bone. If you are only saying sear boneless meat (which you didn't), then I don't have a problem with it except it accomplishes nothi;g.


Nothing? How about heat kills the organisms. 



> Of course you would say that because my arguments are sound and there is no disproving them. I have the experience and you don't. I have done it and you haven't. It's the only "out" you have.


This is so childish I don't even know why I bother responding to you. I guess it's true, I care more about dogs than I do people.

 Here are the references you asked for with my notes. I don’t care to entertain your cynicism any further. I apologize that these aren’t conveniently available on the net, but this shouldn't prevent you from doing your due diligence in researching them yourself. You see, some of us like to dig a little deeper than the net for our sources. Some of us get the information from those who deal with these issues. 

Raw meat diets prepared by pet owners fed to dogs and cats have been documented to contain pathogenic Yersinia enterocolotica, Salmonella, and E.Coli in:
Letter in Applied Microbiology. Frediksson-Anomaa , Korte , Korkeala – _Transmission of Yersinia entercicilitica 4/O:3 to pets via contaminated pork. _2001

The Canadian Veterinary Journal. Joffe , Schleinger – _Preliminary assessment of the risk of Salmonella infection in dogs fed raw chicken diets. _2002

Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. Freeman , Michale – _Evaluation of raw food diets for dogs._ 1991


The presence of Salmonella was isolated from 80% of the BARF diet samples and in 30% of the stool samples from dogs consuming those diets again in:
The Canadian Veterinary Journal. Joffe, Schlesinger – _Preliminary assessment of the risk of Salmonella infection in dogs fed raw chicken diet. _2002


Greyhounds fed raw meat diets have been documented to shed the same subspecies of salmonella in their feces as they found in their diets in:
Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation. Stone, Chengappa, Oberst – _Application of polymerase chain reaction of Salmonella serovars recovered from Greyhound feces with their diet. _1993


Sled dogs have been documented to be subclinical shedders of Salmonella while eating a contaminated raw diet in:
Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investment. Cantor, Nelson, Vanek – _Salmonella shedding in racing dogs. _1997


Two case studies of feline Salmonella gastroenteritis and septicemia in cats from a multi-cat household, which were fed diets containing uncooked beef can be found in:
Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association. Shane, Kendall, Mauel, Eloise – _Septicemic Salmonellosis in two cats fed a raw-meat diet. _2003 



Do what you will with these references, just don't be shocked if I discount your claims that it doesn't happen. 




T.J.K. said:


> Of course it will however, you did state that dogs were dying from RAW.


I did state that there are documented cases of dogs dying from raw. Unfortunately none of my notes are clear enough to direct you to a specific reference. I don't care to be misleading so I won't guess which reference has documented cases. 

Not satisfied with this result I e-mailed my vet (who has worked with raw feeders) had this to say:


> There are well documented canine cases however, few case get written up and "published" - b/c it's not really new information for vets. Most cases these days are found on Vet only web sites to discuss medical management.


I don't have access to a site like this. She went on to add this reference (one I have not reviewed).
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. Morse, Duncan - _Canine salmonellosis: prevalence, epizootiology, signs, and public health significance._ 1975

ETA: Obviously this isn't going to end well for anyone, so I'm ending this discussion here.


----------

