# Please read this vet's article before feeding RAW/BARF



## letitbe (Nov 15, 2008)

_We just have to stop thinking of dogs as either an extension of ourselves and our preferences, or as experimental systems, where we try new things on them just to see what will happen._

http://www.showdogsupersite.com/kenlclub/breedvet/dogdiets.html


----------



## RonE (Feb 3, 2007)

One vet's opinion and worth no more or less than any others.


----------



## Darkmoon (Mar 12, 2007)

That Vet is an idiot:


> the grocery store food comes from huge companies with superb quality control and research programs


Oh yeah.. I mean They have SUPERB quality contol... No dogs or cats have ever been harmed...
http://www.thepetguardian.com/html/diamond_food_recall.html

Remember the 2006/2007 major recall of diamond foods on dog food that killed at LEAST 76 animals and who knows how many others?

I would swich to raw if I had the time and money for it just because of that.

I'm sorry but any vet that starts to push Corn filled food on me has no right to talk to be about what to feed my dog. 

raw is much better for dogs as soon as you find the right stuff for your dog. At least with raw I know where it came from and It's not going to contain metal slivers or dead pets that who knows what they died of.


----------



## txcollies (Oct 23, 2007)

That's insane. That vet is an idiot.


----------



## BoxMeIn21 (Apr 10, 2007)

Oh lordie...I agree. What an idiot.


----------



## briteday (Feb 10, 2007)

Yikes! That article speaks volumes about the lack of nutrition education that vets are given during their education. And she's pretty good at doublespeak too. "Dogs are carnivores" yet "we're opting for illness, pain and early death for our dogs by refusing to feed them appropriately" on a raw food diet...go figure.


Ironically, we had dinner last night with a family that has a son in vet school. He finished his undergrad in animal husbandry last year and is now in a well-respected DVM program. He admitted that to date, he has been trained on how to give vaccinations, pull out stuck animals during birthing, euthanize (I thought it was odd when he told us that was the first task taught on his first day in vet school!?!?)...but not a drop of info about nutrition except for one "we brought you lunch so you will sit here while we talk to you" sponsored by a feed company. His perspective is that he will be able to handle any trainwreck that crosses his doorstep, but as for everyday care of healthy animals...???? not so much. He also has inquired about interpersonal skills to improve his communication with animal owners (didn't see anything in his multi-year planning guide) and was told "you either get it on your own or you don't." And the coup de grace was when he mentioned that he now gets as many free bags of pet food as he wants each month, shipped directly to his home, yes free. So every dog, cat, chicken, and livestock at his home are eating grain-filled food from a company that he preferred not to name. But it's free and it's delivered to his doorstep each month without a thought. I think I can take some educated guesses on that one!

I'm not a nutritionist, but I am a medical biochemist. Since feeding my dogs raw I have run blood and urine on them routinely and find nothing but healthy results. We recently started with a new vet when our old one retired. Although she feels too much liability involved with recommending a raw diet, she doesn't oppose it. She noted that each of our dogs is within lean guidelines for their size and breeds, and quite muscular which pleased her especially with our older animals. She also mentioned how clear their eyes are, no lenticular sclerosis (cloudy eyes due to aging process), which she said is almost inevitable in most animals over 7 years old...two paps and the cat are 9 years old. 

I do believe that there are healthy kibble diets on the market. And if one of my dogs didn't fail to thrive on every commercial product we tried, I probably would not be feeding raw. But the dogs and cat have done so amazingly well on the diet that I can't imagine NOT feeding raw now. There are risks no matter what you feed. Kibble was recently recalled for salmonella contamination and not to mention the food problems a few years ago with melamine. And there is an admitted risk of a dog becoming ill with bacterial infections or a perforated gut from bones on a raw diet. I think we each choose which risks we prefer to take.

Ok, off the soapbox now. I'll try to be nicer now, if she could just try to be smarter...


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

Hehe, this vet has fallen hook line and sinker for the kibble company's marketing bs.    She quotes them almost word for word.


----------



## BentletheYentle (Oct 6, 2008)

I love the part where she asks the owner if they are trained in nutrition....as if she is?? She clearly is NOT. 

I like my vet because medically, he know what he's doing and has good "bedside manner" with me and my pets, but after the first time he tried to force Science Diet on me for my cat's teeth, he knows better than to ever try to teach me about what to feed my animals.


----------



## babysweet (Dec 11, 2008)

Firstly, that article is five years old and nothing new. Also, for the record, the vast majority of vets are against raw feeding... why? Because THEY SELL COMMERCIAL FOOD! Not to mention they know little to nothing about small animal nutrition.

Thanks, but I'll take the hundreds of quality, reputable breeders who have been feeding raw for over 30+ years, and the thousands who have been doing it for more than a decade, against the word of one veterinary FERTILITY SPECIALIST.

And for the record... all these supposed "problems" and "dangers" that come with feeding raw. Any raw feeders here experienced any? Personally, I've had one cracked tooth (although Dr. Looney Tunes recommends raw bones), a molar, and said dog no longer receives large bones other than knuckles any more. She still gets backs, wings, necks, etc with no problems. 

Oh, did I mention that my retriever almost died due to anti-epileptic drugs at just over two years of age and we had to take him off his meds? We got his seizures down to every 6-8 weeks by diet change ALONE. From Hill's C/D to RAW a la Kymythy Schultze.

Briteday, I don't think smart has anything to do with it... I truly believe these vets are just plain ignorant. And really, how many of these problem cystitis dogs is she treating at her fertility clinic?? Come on people....


----------



## Great Dane (Nov 18, 2008)

Yet the idiot prefers food like Purina and Eukanuba.

That says it all.


----------



## novagir18 (Dec 10, 2007)

I don't feed raw but my opinion is that vets have a very limited spectrum of knowledge. They are great for the "horses" (common problems) that walk through the door but throw a "zebra" (uncommon problem) at them and they just don't know what to do. This is obviously a sweeping generalization but when I ask my vet about vaccinations or feeding I get the "protocol" when I ask them why that's the protocol...they have nothing for me. 

I really just don't think that they are educated beyond a certain scope of knowledge. The same thing happens in the medical profession, try asking a cardiologist about gynecology. Yes, there is a lot of information on the internet and the vast majority of it is total bs...that's why people need to really look at the data, see if they are good studies, and make a decision on what is best for their pet.

Also, I find it hard to believe an article without any references and written by a fertility specialist.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

BoxMeIn21 said:


> Oh lordie...I agree. What an idiot.


Vets are generally not trained nutritionists... and often they are 'educated' about commercial dog food by PR reps from the food companies themselves... not the most objective of sources.


----------



## BoxMeIn21 (Apr 10, 2007)

Pai said:


> Vets are generally not trained nutritionists... and often they are 'educated' about commercial dog food by PR reps from the food companies themselves... not the most objective of sources.


Yes, I am fully aware that nutrition is NOT one of the requirements in getting your DVM...


----------



## pattymac (Oct 11, 2008)

I don't discuss what my critters eat with my vet...unless of course one of them decided to eat something not normally edible!!


----------



## MyRescueCrew (May 8, 2008)

What a joke. I'd laugh at this article if it wasn't so annoying.



> We all seem to loathe the idea of feeding 'grocery store' dog food, but consider this; the grocery store food comes from huge companies with superb quality control and research programs.


Oh. My. God.



> It flies off the shelves and doesn't get stale.


Doesn't get stale? Of course it doesn't, thanks to those awesome chemical preservatives, like BHA, BHT and Ethoxyquin. 



> What the grocery store fed dogs generally don't come in with are the perforated intestines, severe bacterial disease from campylobacter or salmonella, exotic parasites, or the way out of wack metabolic changes we see in the dogs being 'cooked for' or being fed 'raw' or 'barf' food.


Severe bacterial disease? EXOTIC parasites? Out of wack metabolic changes? This dude is a duche.



> Thankfully, most of us (dog owners) recognize that a lot of those books are full of bovine excreta. And nearly all of us (Veterinarians) are laughing all the way to the bank after we fix - if possible - the problems caused by some of the alternative diets to the tune of $5,000.00, more or less, per dog. Many of the problems can't be fixed, and the pet dies.


That just made me sick. And he calls himself a vet. So he LAUGHS all the way to the bank after milking dog owners for a ridiculous amount of money, to the "tune" of $5,000 or so, per dog? And I guess he also finds it funny when they die, as he mentioned above. Cold and heartless, just what everyone seeks in a good vet :sarcasm:.



> If your dog has been thriving on grocery store dog food - as most do - the old adage 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' should leap to mind.


*Sigh*

That entire article was nothing more than an aggrivating waste of time.

Most of my guys are on raw and do EXCEPTIONAL. At one time, they were on cheaper food, Purina to be exact, before I started researching foods long ago and switched to higher quality foods, and then eventually to raw. I've watched my allergy dogs grow beautiful coats of hair, and their allergies dissapear. I watched one of my dogs with IBS have all his symptoms dissapeared -- no more vomiting, no more acid reflux, no more constant burping. And I watched my heart problem dog go from slow and sluggish on even the prescription heart diet food, to bouncing and full of energy on his raw diet. Urine results are great for all, as are blood test results. I like knowing what goes in my dog's stomach.

Everyone has a choice as to what to feed their dog, and everyone should do their research before jumping into any new diet. However, it's annoying when a so-called "vet" starts spouting off nonsense like that article and throwing false accusations around about diets that she/he very obviously know nothing about.


----------



## rosemaryninja (Sep 28, 2007)

I didn't even bother reading it.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

BoxMeIn21 said:


> Yes, I am fully aware that nutrition is NOT one of the requirements in getting your DVM...


I was agreeing with you that it was stupid, I wasn't saying you were ignorant.



> Most of my guys are on raw and do EXCEPTIONAL. At one time, they were on cheaper food, Purina to be exact, before I started researching foods long ago and switched to higher quality foods, and then eventually to raw. I've watched my allergy dogs grow beautiful coats of hair, and their allergies dissapear. I watched one of my dogs with IBS have all his symptoms dissapeared -- no more vomiting, no more acid reflux, no more constant burping. And I watched my heart problem dog go from slow and sluggish on even the prescription heart diet food, to bouncing and full of energy on his raw diet. Urine results are great for all, as are blood test results. I like knowing what goes in my dog's stomach.


Its funny when the only widespread event of pets dying from food was because of tainted CHEAPO COMMERCIAL KIBBLE, and as of yet, I have _never_ heard of ANY widepsread diseases/death caused by BARF feeding. =P
I guess they really hope we're too dumb/meek to ever contradict what a vet will tell us, even if it's obvious B.S.


----------



## Katzyn (Mar 22, 2007)

We made many jokes at the vet practice that Science Diet and all those other crappy foods (but mostly SD) were crappy SPECIFICALLY so they would make our pets sick, then they could milk us for even MORE money to buy their Prescription diets.

And yes, it's sad that vets really aren't educated by anyone buy the PRs who visit.


----------



## chul3l3ies1126 (Aug 13, 2007)

HAHA IDIOT!

I would love to feed raw if I had the time and money as well. Hopefully once I get my own house and settle down, I plan on doing so. 
Nessa


----------



## UrbanBeagles (Aug 13, 2007)

> Ironically, we had dinner last night with a family that has a son in vet school. He finished his undergrad in animal husbandry last year and is now in a well-respected DVM program. He admitted that to date, he has been trained on how to give vaccinations, pull out stuck animals during birthing, euthanize (I thought it was odd when he told us that was the first task taught on his first day in vet school!?!?)



Slightly OT, but wanted to chime in on this one ... 

I've been saying for a while now that Vet's are euthanize happy. I know, it's an awful way to word it, but that's been my experience during the past 3-5yrs. It's a lucrative thing, to charge big bucks for not only the euthanizing but disposal of the remains. I do not trust the Veterinary profession at all & feel it is dangerously unregulated. Never will take a Vet's word at face value because the vast majority of the new practicioners coming in are so damned corrupt and/or have a god complex wherein they believe THEY alone have the answers. I could write a book with all the bad Vet experiences I've had spanning numerous Vets. 

Ok, end of Vet rant 

To keep this back on topic, I read that article some years back. It's getting out of date because Eukanuba's Premium Performance as well as their other formulas have been changed (as of '06) and went down the toilet after that. But when this was written, Premium Performance was AWESOME. Quite honestly, I felt that particular brand was the best dry food available, and I got results to prove it. There have been lax, if not negligent food companies that allowed their quality control to suffer or just fly out the window altogether to meet their almoghty bottom line. I have always said the R & D and quality control and the manufacturing plant is equally, if not more important than ingredients. We live in an age where our food is contaminated due to chemicals, but we also have the technology to correct it and prevent more lost lives. Not that I trust any kibble company 100%, but feeding raw has it's risks as well, and a botched home cooked diet is DANGEROUS. This Vet happens to be absolutely dead on about the elsevated BUN of some raw fed dogs. We attributed this to my GSDs homecooked diet after she developed chronic diarrhea, but in actuality, she was in full blown renal failure  I also know SEVERAL breeders who have had whelping problems with raw, and that would also include myself. We had a very painful, drawn out, difficult, unusually messy whelping with a bitch on raw, she had two litters before that and one afterwards and never had another problem. RESULTS makes a food. Her pups on Eukanuba came out normally, but WOW, the recent batch she had on Purina was litter #4 and just slid right out like she was passing a stool. Was like she put "have puppies" on her afternoon "Things to Do" list! All six were perfect weights (the raw fed ones were too thin @ birth) and she milked like a cow. That's what is important, and I have not yet seen results like that with the holistic companies even thought I stupidly keep trying them ... 

Kibble is ALL processed, so you can't claim that feeding Purina and Euk is like feeding McDonalds while Innova or Merrick or Timberwolf are like eating fresh foods! The chicken meal in Timberwolf is the chicken meal in Purina. It's all the same as a chicken nugget. I place more credence in feeding trials, and that is something that one of the big companies like Purina has. Quality control and research behing their feeds. Every fly by night company is coming out on the market with a new holistic feed practically every month! At least one I've used in the past is already out of business. 

So while I'm the LAST person to ever defend the Veterianry profession, there needs to be a modicum of common sense applied to feeding dogs, and this article was written during a time where raw diets were being recommended by owners who had less than zero clue. Everyone was jumping into them and yes, causing lots of problems. Again, I'll refer to the whelping problems. In '02, my first real mentor was feeding raw and had a bitch who was the epitome of easy whelper develop pre eclampsia, much earlier on in the pregnancy than is usual, about 10 days before whelping! The birth was a MESS, and the poor bitch was so worn out. The littermate sister to one of my males is fed raw. She's had 3 litters and required a c-sec for all threee. Now, the breeder of my male feeds Pro Plan, and most of the dogs in that line eat Pro Plan as well. And the breeder has had an extremely low incidence of c-secs, even with her 13" bitches. So I would think that the need for the c-sec would not be genetic if you have other small bitches of that line whelping au naturale. So it's on this basis I do agree to an extent with that Vet. And I also agree that if one is going to feed a kibble, the best ones to go with are the ones that have some research behind them, not jsut some numbers run on a computer to give a digital readout of what should be in the vitamin premix. I want to know that the food has been tested, and that no matter how nice the ingredient list looks, that my dogs are not being used as Mom&Pop's proverbial guinea pig.

Anyway, JMHO


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

UrbanBeagles said:


> Kibble is ALL processed, so you can't claim that feeding Purina and Euk is like feeding McDonalds while Innova or Merrick or Timberwolf are like eating fresh foods! The chicken meal in Timberwolf is the chicken meal in Purina. It's all the same as a chicken nugget. I place more credence in feeding trials, and that is something that one of the big companies like Purina has. Quality control and research behing their feeds. Every fly by night company is coming out on the market with a new holistic feed practically every month! At least one I've used in the past is already out of business.


I personally am not of the type to demonize a food just because it uses processed meat meal... I ask only that ingredients be whole, nutritious (i.e., not 'corn gluten' or 'brewers rice' which is basically just husks/waste product, and no 'by-product meal') and to have most of its protein from named meat sources instead of grains. And yet, that still rules out the majority of foods... So I stick with Nature's Variety Prairie, (their grain-free type did not agree at all with Icesis, even though it was my first choice). Ice was raised on ProPlan with no issues, but after the petfood recall, I wanted to be safer. I don't feel like I can trust the other companies' quality as much, which may not even be a justified feeling, but I still go along with it all the same. 

I think that as long as a brand gives you good results, there is no guilt in using it.


----------



## Azu (Nov 22, 2008)

the amount of "bovine excreta" she is preaching in this article is amazing!!
she clearly only reads the brochures her gracious friends at Purina give her.. the fact that she's being uber condescending is hilarious


----------



## lovemygreys (Jan 20, 2007)

My own personal theory is that domestic dogs are mostly scavengers...wild animals that became domesticated in part because of their ability to thrive on scraps and 'garbage' from humans. They aren't obligate carnivores that MUST eat meat in order to survive. I think it's pretty hard to kill a dog on diet alone and over time, if given a variety of foods, raw can work perfectly fine...as can a home cooked meal...as can all levels of kibble. Ol Roy must not be evil if dogs are living to 15+ eating it. Heck, my Grandma used to feed her ol' yard dogs , basically, whatever was left over from dinner including cooked chicken bones if they had meat on them and they all lived well into double digits.

Of course, I'm probably completely wrong.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

my theory is really very simple.

Dogs adapt...give a family of dogs certain foods over a sufficient period of time and keep breeding the healthiest specimens and you will end up with a family of dogs that thrives off those certain foods...

but that is still speculation..


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

My hypothesis is even simpler...canines in the wild eat what they need to survive, and they survive only to reproduce...my dog is spayed.


----------



## Bearjing (Oct 24, 2008)

The dogs bred in our current canine population are not necessarily the fittest and healthiest specimins. I'm pretty sure my pound mutts are examples bred because of the stupidity of their owners, not the fitness of the animals.


----------



## UrbanBeagles (Aug 13, 2007)

> Ol Roy must not be evil if dogs are living to 15+ eating it. Heck, my Grandma used to feed her ol' yard dogs , basically, whatever was left over from dinner including cooked chicken bones if they had meat on them and they all lived well into double digits.
> 
> Of course, I'm probably completely wrong.




LOL! See, that's what makes me roll my eyes at the theory that dogs cannot/should not have any grains in their diet. 
My great aunt bred GSDs, and the family owned dogs from little terrier mixes to Shepherds, Huskies going back to the time they immigrated here in the mid 1920s up until the early 1980s. 
Before the advent of mass produced kibble (because if you do the research, commercial dry food was available to kennels as far back as the early 1880s) my aunt fed the dogs mostly what the family ate ... being Italian and dirt poor, it was pasta several nights a week. They were lucky to have fresh meats in their own diet, much less give it to the dogs! The ONLY part of leftover animal products the dogs got were chicken bones. If they got fresh meat, it was few and far between. Her GSDs did not roam, btw. They were aggro and tied when outside, so that deflates the "dogs hunted for themselves" theory. 
Anyway, the dogs were not just her pets. She bred several litters of Shepherd in her life, and that bloodline was in my family for a good 60+ years, because we have a cousin that bred from her old dogs up until recently ... They had LARGE healthy litters and those dogs never died before 14-18 years old. On a steady diet of pasta. 
I do know that in the late 60's early 70's she fed her dogs Science Diet from the Vet along with the scraps. And that was pretty much it. So I can't believe that her baeutiful dogs (I have the pics to prove how nice her dogs were, lol  ) were obligate carnivores who needed raw meats to thrive, not just survive. JMHO.


----------



## BarclaysMom (Aug 24, 2008)

I think that article is spot on in agreeing with everything I have been told about barf diets from any vet I have asked. I do not subscribe to the theory that vets are idiots who are schills for kibble companies, or are evil people who want to keep your pets ill. I agree with the article's assertion that people who subscribe to raw fed diets do so with a cult-like devotion, even to the point of subscribing to conspiracy theories to explain why vets are against it. 

Every vet I have asked has recommended strongly against it, and do not feed raw to their own pets. That's all I need to know.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

BarclaysMom said:


> I think that article is spot on in agreeing with everything I have been told about barf diets from any vet I have asked.


In that case, you are either naive or need to do some research on your own. There was absolutley nothing about a raw diet that the vet who wrote the article or most other vets get right. None of them have every fed a raw diet or have the slightest clue about it. The believe stories told them by dog food companies.



> I do not subscribe to the theory that vets are idiots who are schills for kibble companies, or are evil people who want to keep your pets ill.


When it comes to nutrition and diets, the average vet knows pretty much what the average person on the street knows. Most have no training in nutrition. They know what the dog food companies want them to know.

First and foremost vets are business people. The #1 force driving business people is to maximize profits. One method of doing that is selling you dog food they sell.



> I agree with the article's assertion that people who subscribe to raw fed diets do so with a cult-like devotion, even to the point of subscribing to conspiracy theories to explain why vets are against it.


Again, you need to research. Read the book Raw Meaty Bones Promote Health by Dr. Tom Lonsdale. You will never think the same about vets again and this book was written by a vet. You can order the book from amazon.com.



> Every vet I have asked has recommended strongly against it, and do not feed raw to their own pets. That's all I need to know.


I'm sure. The vets have won you over with their God complex. The fact that they have never fed a dog a raw diet is enough information to tell you they know nothing about it. I personally know vets who feed raw and they are all singing it's praises to all their clients.

If commercial dog food is so great and vets who sell you kibble so smart and so honest, how do you explain the fact that dogs fed non-commercial food live an average of 32 months longer than dogs fed a commercial food? Commercial dog food is kibble and canned ... non-commercial is raw, cooked or leftovers from the human table.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

BarclaysMom said:


> I do not subscribe to the theory that vets are idiots who are schills for kibble companies, or are evil people who want to keep your pets ill.


I don't think most of us believe that either... just that many vets do not know best about this topic because they are educated by biased sources about dog food quality.



> I agree with the article's assertion that people who subscribe to raw fed diets do so with a cult-like devotion


I agree with that too, but thinking certain people are annoying does not mean that everything they say is wrong. Going to sites like The Dog Food Project, which is not a pro or anti RAW site, but simply explains what each ingredient in common dog food is, and learning how to make an informed decision of how you want to feed your dog, is something everyone should do. But don't disregard an idea just because the people who subscribe to it tend to be a bit obsessed. I mean, most Americans ARE kind of obsessed with their dogs in general... and I speak from personal experience. I'm sure there are just as many cult-like people on Baby boards that go on about certain parenting techniques, too. =P


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

RawFedDogs said:


> In that case, you are either naive or need to do some research on your own. There was absolutley nothing about a raw diet that the vet who wrote the article or most other vets get right. None of them have every fed a raw diet or have the slightest clue about it. The believe stories told them by dog food companies.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




lmao...you just proved Barclay's Mom's point...


----------



## 4dogs3cats (Dec 21, 2007)

I feed raw but my parents feed kibble. I know people who feed a KNOWN crappy kibble...with bits...but their dogs are healthy, not overweight, have nice teeth and nice coats.

It WORKS for them.

Now i did suggest getting SO's moms dogs off pedigree. all 3 dogs are FAT, they all have BROWN teeth, and they all STINK and SHED like crazy. I told her to just step it up to kirkland since she is always at costco, and shes looking into it.

Dont fix what isnt broken IMO


----------



## UrbanBeagles (Aug 13, 2007)

> If commercial dog food is so great and vets who sell you kibble so smart and so honest, how do you explain the fact that dogs fed non-commercial food live an average of 32 months longer than dogs fed a commercial food? Commercial dog food is kibble and canned ... non-commercial is raw, cooked or leftovers from the human table.



Can you please post your sources for this information? As far as I am aware, there have been no studies on raw/homecooked diets and longevity. There has, however been one conducted by Purina that concluded lean fed dogs lived an average of 2yrs longer than their littermates who were then considered to be @ ideal weight. 
I know numerous raw fed dogs, and they are not consistantly living longer than their littermates or average lifespan for their breed. In fact, they're dying at normal ages, when you compare pedigrees and determine average age of death.


----------



## Great Dane (Nov 18, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> lmao...you just proved Barclay's Mom's point...


Actually, he shot it down.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

UrbanBeagles said:


> Can you please post your sources for this information?


Yes I can. I can post the actual study.

Long Life Study Summary
http://www.ukrmb.co.uk/images/LippertSapySummary.pdf

Actual Study
http://www.ukrmb.co.uk/images/LippertSapyFullReport.pdf


----------



## BoxMeIn21 (Apr 10, 2007)

Great Dane said:


> Actually, he shot it down.


That's what I was thinking.


----------



## UrbanBeagles (Aug 13, 2007)

RawFedDogs said:


> Yes I can. I can post the actual study.
> 
> Long Life Study Summary
> http://www.ukrmb.co.uk/images/LippertSapySummary.pdf
> ...




LOL. That study is bogus on so many levels.

First of all, not all dog foods are equal. For instance, Purina makes many feeds but we can't compare Pro Plan to Beneful or Mainstay. So telling me that a dog is on an "industrial tinned" food is less than helpful. SO many variables such as breed, breeding, body weight, vaccinations, exercise will contribute to longevity. Since the dogs were all on canned food, I'd also like to know the state of their oral health. This study also sites that altered animals lived longer than intact ones ... I am highly suspect of that considering this is a UK study and they lean towards extreme animal rights. Funny, because we have studies linking prostate problems to be of higher incidence in altered males, osteosarcoma risk increases in animals altered before the first heat/puberty, increases the risk of obesity (a factor we know shortens lives), increases risk of hypothyroidism, increases risk of certain cardiac cancers and cancer of the urinary tract. The benefits of altering are mainly to cut down the risk of mammary tumors, eliminate risk of pyo in females, and obviously eliminate risk of testicular cancer. Altering dogs does not make them healthier just because they're altered so in that respect, the "study" lost a fair bit of credibility with me. Early altering can even be very detrimental to health in some cases, so no, that study does not seem credible. Speaking from experience my healthiest, longest lived dogs have been left intact while two who were neutered early both have immune related problems. We also lost a 7yo 30lb Beagle to osteosarcoma. It is a cancer unheard of in the breed, her ONLY risk factor was being spayed before a her first heat. 
http://www.caninesports.com/SpayNeuter.html

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=risks+of+early+spay/neuter&aq=f&oq=

With the Purina study, results were more accurate because they were studying littermates. So there was a great deal of genetic similarity and less overall variables. All dogs were on the same diet, getting the same meds, exercise. Their lean fed dogs lived to be 13-14yrs on average, 2yrs longer than the dogs slightly heavier. THis was with Dog Chow, and those lean fed dogs lived to be the exact age as the ones fed homecooked in that UK study. Albeit, that study was on a larger level than Purinas, and I don't doubt that a cooked for dog would live longer than one fed cheap garbage "tinned" foods. Were all the dogs who ate commercial also on the same brand? What did they weigh? It's an interesting study but still seems flawed.

As for my dogs, they are doin' just fine on their "crap in a sack". 

5yo male who ate nothing but Purina his entire life up until recently ... now eats SD, lol. Doesn't have a grey hair on him, and his Purina fed family living with the breeder live to an average age of 16


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

UrbanBeagles said:


> LOL. That study is bogus on so many levels.


hehe Of course it is. It conflicts with your belief system. It can't possibly be a valid study. 



> First of all, not all dog foods are equal. For instance, Purina makes many feeds but we can't compare Pro Plan to Beneful or Mainstay. So telling me that a dog is on an "industrial tinned" food is less than helpful. SO many variables such as breed, breeding, body weight, vaccinations, exercise will contribute to longevity.


Don't try to make it more complicated than it is. You tend to do that with many things, you know. All it proves is that dogs who eat a non-commercial diet live an average of 32 months longer than dogs fed a commercial diet. It doesn't go into what commercial brands, breeds, physical condition, size or anything. Just commercial food and non-commercial food. No more.



> This study also sites that altered animals lived longer than intact ones ... I am highly suspect of that considering this is a UK study and they lean towards extreme animal rights.


This is not a UK study. It was done in Belgium. I'm not an expert and it's not really an area I have a lot of interest in but I think I've read several other studies that said altered animals live longer than intact ones. I think that is pretty accepted knowledge. Just as it's pretty accepted that whole foods would cause a human or animal to live longer than one eating exclusively proeceesd foods.



> With the Purina study, results were more accurate because they were studying littermates. So there was a great deal of genetic similarity and less overall variables.


How many dogs for how long? In the Belgium study, the more variables had no bearling on anything. All the numbers were crunched seperately. No one thing influenced another. All the dogs were random over 5 years. I would think all the variables would average out over that time. But what do I know? It matches my belief system. 



> THis was with Dog Chow, and those lean fed dogs lived to be the exact age as the ones fed homecooked in that UK study.


And would have lived 32 months longer if fed a non-commercial diet as per the BELGIUM study. Of course Purina will NEVER make that comparison. All the purina study was about was fat vs. thin.



> As for my dogs, they are doin' just fine on their "crap in a sack".


Try feeding the crapinabag without supplements for 6 months and see how good they do.


----------



## UrbanBeagles (Aug 13, 2007)

> hehe Of course it is. It conflicts with your belief system. It can't possibly be a valid study.



Pray tell, what is my belief system? That I want to see RESULTS? LOL.
I am actually a believer in feeding raw or cooked/leftover meats to dog diets, although I do not believe all raw, grain free diets cover all the bases - that is based on personal experience, not ideaology. I believe that supplementing with raw will fill in nutritional gaps with an all kibble diet, and vice versa. I don't believe there is one right way to feed dogs. Would love to have a well prepared study that showed one way or the other that there were certain environmental factors that could improve or lenghten life.




> Don't try to make it more complicated than it is. You tend to do that with many things, you know. All it proves is that dogs who eat a non-commercial diet live an average of 32 months longer than dogs fed a commercial diet. It doesn't go into what commercial brands, breeds, physical condition, size or anything. Just commercial food and non-commercial food. No more.



Not trying to make ANYTHING more complicated, I'm simply asking scientific questions that can and will affect the outcome of this study. I want to know about breeds, because therein you can gauge how long the homecooked for dogs lived past their breed's average. If we find they are living longer than the breed life expectancy, that gives the study more credability. If they are dying sooner, it gives less credibility. I want to know what type of canned food were they eating - was it all the same brand, or different ones, with some being considered higher end and others low quality that skimped on vitamins. It's not as you say, commercial vs non commercial! The dogs could have been eating the equivalent of Mainstay! Do you really think a food like Mainstay or Ol Roy is equal to something like Pro Plan? COME ON. Peddle youtr BS to someone else because I am not buying it! That's a vitally improtant detail. 
I also want to know how the dogs were kept. Were the ones on tinned food overweight? Did they have oral disease from eating nothing but moist food? Those are two factors we already know can shorten lifespan. Such questions are not overthinking, you seem to throw that phrase out when someone asks a question you have no answer to. Don't think about it .... right, I'll just forget asking questions that could potentially prove or disprove the study. Uh huh. 




> How many dogs for how long? In the Belgium study, the more variables had no bearling on anything. All the numbers were crunched seperately. No one thing influenced another. All the dogs were random over 5 years. I would think all the variables would average out over that time. But what do I know? It matches my belief system.



How would you know the variables had no bearing on the outcome of the study if you don't even know what the variable are?????  
The Purina study, as I have mentioned, was on a much smaller scale BUT was conducted with a scientific approach. All the dogs used for the study were littermates, so we know right from the get go that their genetic makeup is quite similar. Therefore, we can rule out genetic predisposition to die earlier or later when collecting the data, because their predisposition for death should already be within in a similar time frame. It's called credibility. Something Dr. Lonsdale does not have, being kicked out of the Aussie Veterinarian Association, and all 
Anyhow, half the littermates would be fed to their current ideal feeding guidelines - these dogs were NOT overweight or obese, just eating what was then considered to be normal amounts. The other half had their portions cut back to keep them constantly at a much thinner body weight. The dogs were all mentally stimulated and exercised by the employees @ Purina. EVERYTHING was identical - vaccines, playtime, stimulation - EXCEPT for the amount of food being fed. This was done so that we can definitively say that decreasing the feed does/does not play a role in increasing/decreasing longevity. They were raised on Puppy Chow to Dog Chow. The results were that the lean fed dogs not only lived 3ish years longer thatn their littermates on average, but the onset of disease was slowed down. It followed them from birth to death, so another critical factor we don't know might have been in play in the study you cited. Yes, smaller study, but more scientifically carried out. Only 48 dogs, but almost no variables that could potentially throw off the reaults. You can read more about the study here:
http://www.longliveyourdog.com/twoplus/Methodology.aspx




> And would have lived 32 months longer if fed a non-commercial diet as per the BELGIUM study. Of course Purina will NEVER make that comparison. All the purina study was about was fat vs. thin.



Dogs in the Purina study were eating 100% Dog Chow, no supplements whatsoever. The lean fed dogs lived an agerage of 13yrs, which is the same average the homecooked for dogs lived to be in the other study. I don't see how the Purina fed dogs would have lived past that age if fed cooked/raw, when not even the dogs in the homecooking study lived past that age. The dogs used in the Purina study were Labradors, btw, and average lifespan for that breed, if I'm not mistaken, is 11-12 yrs. So the Purina study also proved that the lean fed dogs outlived their breed's average, as well. 





> Try feeding the crapinabag without supplements for 6 months and see how good they do.



You really think I haven't fed kibble for several months at a time with no supplements? lol Can't afford to supplement them all on a regular basis. Also, while we have a bitch in whelp, I religiously do not supplement save for folic acid - 400mcg daily, and they would get that no matter what they ate. Raw, cooked, kibble, I will nto leave out the folic acid. They get absolutely no vitamins, meats, etc during pregnancy. Nothing. Somehow I manage to have strong, healthy pups nonetheless ...


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

UrbanBeagles said:


> I am actually a believer in feeding raw or cooked/leftover meats to dog diets, although I do not believe all raw, grain free diets cover all the bases - that is based on personal experience, not ideaology.


Based on a million years of evolution I think it has been more than proven that a raw diet covers all bases. What in the world did people do before kibble come along? How did those poor dogs survive?



> I believe that supplementing with raw will fill in nutritional gaps with an all kibble diet, and vice versa. I don't believe there is one right way to feed dogs.


I know for a fact that there is a BEST way. There is alway a best way to do anything. There is never a time in any dog's life that a grain, or starch based highly processed cereal with very little meat that is very low quality is a better way to feed any dog than whole meats, bones, and organs.



> Would love to have a well prepared study that showed one way or the other that there were certain environmental factors that could improve or lenghten life.


What about a million years of evolution? I don't know of any man made study no matter how well it's put together can top that.



> Not trying to make ANYTHING more complicated, I'm simply asking scientific questions that can and will affect the outcome of this study. I want to know about breeds, because therein you can gauge how long the homecooked for dogs lived past their breed's average.


I don't see why you can't accept the fact that if you randomly pick 522 dogs, the results of any study will be much different from the average dog. After all, the kibble companies only use 8 dogs in their "complete and balanced" research.



> If we find they are living longer than the breed life expectancy, that gives the study more credability.


See, this is where I say you are overthinking. You are overly concerned about breeds. This study is not. This study is about dogs in general. The average dog, if you will.



> It's not as you say, commercial vs non commercial! The dogs could have been eating the equivalent of Mainstay! Do you really think a food like Mainstay or Ol Roy is equal to something like Pro Plan? COME ON.


I never heard of Mainstay. With the other two it's mearly a choice of which is less bad. BUT ... if you actually read the whole study, you saw a part where the researchers were concerned about the possiblilty that the dogs in the study were raised better and were more highly thought of by the owner than many dogs are, thus skewing the results. It had to do with the way the body was being disposed of. The dogs weren't just thrown in a hole and covered up or taken to the dump or the dog food factory. 



> I also want to know how the dogs were kept.


Again if you read the whole study, you would have seen that the researchers were concerned that the study dogs were better kept than the population as a whole.



> Were the ones on tinned food overweight? Did they have oral disease from eating nothing but moist food?


I'm not sure but I'm thinking that "tinned food" in Belgium is a term used differently than it is in the US. Dogs were not rejected from this study because they were fed kibble. They didn't just select can fed dogs. I strongly suspect this is a translation quirk. Maybe someone from Belgium could jump in and tell us. I would be interested in knowing.



> Those are two factors we already know can shorten lifespan. Such questions are not overthinking, you seem to throw that phrase out when someone asks a question you have no answer to.


Hehe, I don't think there has ever been a question asked that I don't have the answer to. LOL When I say you are overthinking, this research is not concerned only about beagles but dogs in general. Its not concerned about brands of dog foods just commercial food in general. It's not concerned about types of home made diets just that stuff that is commonly known as "people food".



> Don't think about it .... right, I'll just forget asking questions that could potentially prove or disprove the study. Uh huh.


No, you are trying to make the study something it's not. You are trying to make it what you want it to be. People who disagree with a study try to turn it into something it's not so it can be disregarded as meaningless.



> How would you know the variables had no bearing on the outcome of the study if you don't even know what the variable are?????


Because it's 522 randomly selected dogs that possibly lived a better life that a lot of dogs do.



> The Purina study, as I have mentioned, was on a much smaller scale BUT was conducted with a scientific approach.


Oh yes, Pruina ... isn't that the company that makes Mainstay?



> All the dogs used for the study were littermates, so we know right from the get go that their genetic makeup is quite similar.


ITs a different study with different goals studying something completely unrelated to the Lippert/Sapy study. I don't have a clue why you can't understand that. It has no bearing whatsoever on this discussion. It has to do with fat/thin and Fat/thin only. Nothing else.



> You really think I haven't fed kibble for several months at a time with no supplements?


Going by your past posts, yes, thats what I really believe.



> I will nto leave out the folic acid. They get absolutely no vitamins, meats, etc during pregnancy. Nothing. Somehow I manage to have strong, healthy pups nonetheless ...


Yeah, its amazing that wild wolves/dogs could ever possibly have a litter that survived past a week or even survive a trip through the birth canal.


----------



## Love's_Sophie (Sep 23, 2007)

I love how he totally 'condemns' raw diet, but still is enthusiastic about raw bones...hello...he totally blew his own arguements out of the water...raw bones still can carry everything he was complaining about.


----------



## myminpins (Dec 20, 2008)

rosemaryninja said:


> I didn't even bother reading it.


Ah, so it wasn't only me!!


----------



## Canadian Dog (Nov 3, 2007)

There isn't a diet for humans that can be agreed upon by all. We all do what we believe is best, within our budgets and circumstances for ourselves and our family members. I don't believe that _one_ diet would suit every single dog in the world - it would be impossible.

I switched to raw and believe it is the best for Molly with the knowledge I have now. Who knows, maybe in the future there will be something I think is better and will make a decision to switch. I don't have to justify to anyone what I feed my dog if *I believe* it to be the best.


----------



## flipgirl (Oct 5, 2007)

I was amazed at his comment about dogs on Purina or Iams not going to the vet only for vaccines and nothing else. I've only worked at an animal hospital for a week and a half, and granted, that is far from enough experience to claim anything of significance but it seems that the dogs with food related issues are being fed grocery store brands. I have fed my dog homecooked food and raw food and have not had any problems and have not taken her to the vet for any food related issues. I'd like to see a study of dogs fed cheaper food, premium foods, homecooked foods and raw diets and correlate them to the number of vet visits in a year (for food related issues). I'm wondering if there would be a significant result and if so, which diet is correlated to the least or most vet visits? Such a study would be difficult as there are so many factors but this seems to be a big part of this vet's reasoning. It's common sense that processed food would not be as healthy as natural, unprocessed food. To me, raw would provide more biologically available nutrients than homecooked which would provide more than processed foods. Mind you, he does have a point when he spoke of the trendy ingredients that are purported to do something good for humans so companies add it to pet food, assuming that it will do the same for dogs. Are there any studies which validate the inclusion of these ingredients? Is there any proof that these ingredients benefit humans, let alone dogs? I'm asking, not making a comment, per se.


----------

