# Raw Meat and Bone Diets for Dogs: It’s Enough to Make You BARF



## precalc (Jul 4, 2010)

_The argument that dogs are designed by their evolutionary history to eat raw meat based diets is riddled with errors and fallacies and ignores the impact of tens of thousands of years of domestication and cohabitation with humans on the physiology of our canine friends. The accusations that commercial dog foods are nutritionally inadequate or unsafe are not supported by any objective or scientific evidence, only anecdotes, intuition, and conspiracy theories. There is, in contrast, significant evidence that commercial dog foods are nutritious and healthy and that they have contributed to greater longevity and reduced nutritional and infectious disease morbidity of dogs fed these diets._


http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=5315

_The average life expectancy of wolves in the wild is considerably lower than that of captive wolves, and disease, parasitism, and malnutrition are important factors in the mortality of wild populations. Captive wolves live longest and are healthiest when fed — guess what? — commercial dog food! This is the recommendation of the leading specialists in captive wolf husbandry and medicine, and it is largely the result of evidence that the previous practice of feeding raw meat based diets to captive wolves led to poorer quality nutrition and health than the current practices. Certainly, raw meat and bones are often used as enrichment items or bait for husbandry purposes, but always with an awareness of the risks they pose, and never as the primary diet._


----------



## Mr. V (Jan 28, 2010)

You are about to get blasted on this forum


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

precalc said:


> _The argument that dogs are designed by their evolutionary history to eat raw meat based diets is riddled with errors and fallacies and ignores the impact of tens of thousands of years of domestication and cohabitation with humans on the physiology of our canine friends. The accusations that commercial dog foods are nutritionally inadequate or unsafe are not supported by any objective or scientific evidence, only anecdotes, intuition, and conspiracy theories. There is, in contrast, significant evidence that commercial dog foods are nutritious and healthy and that they have contributed to greater longevity and reduced nutritional and infectious disease morbidity of dogs fed these diets._


bull. total bull.



> http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=5315
> 
> _The average life expectancy of wolves in the wild is considerably lower than that of captive wolves, and disease, parasitism, and malnutrition are important factors in the mortality of wild populations. Captive wolves live longest and are healthiest when fed — guess what? — commercial dog food! This is the recommendation of the leading specialists in captive wolf husbandry and medicine, and it is largely the result of evidence that the previous practice of feeding raw meat based diets to captive wolves led to poorer quality nutrition and health than the current practices. Certainly, raw meat and bones are often used as enrichment items or bait for husbandry purposes, but always with an awareness of the risks they pose, and* never as the primary diet.*_


more bull. 

and this second part ill dignify with a comment. the bolded part is the biggest crock ive ever heard in my life. ive worked with wolves. guess what their primary diet is? 

raw meat, bones and fur/hide. 

ive worked with others who have worked with wolves...guess what they fed their wolves? it was in no way shape or form anything remotely resembling kibble. and so on down the line.

that's enough to call into question the rest of your post without going into details because frankly the whole thing reeks of bologna.

and yes Mr.V...lol...of course...


----------



## Mr. V (Jan 28, 2010)

LOL well, there are just things you dont say here unless you want to be stoned to death...

I mean geez, the only thing worse than to bash raw feeding here would be to post up pictures of the lab/pitbull mix puppies that you purposely bred with a bag of Ol' Roy in the background.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Mr. V said:


> LOL well, there are just things you dont say here unless you want to be stoned to death...
> 
> I mean geez, the only thing worse than to bash raw feeding here would be to post up pictures of the lab/pitbull mix puppies that you purposely bred with a bag of Ol' Roy in the background.


i would have no problem with people talking about reasons to not raw feed if they didnt always go to the stupid wolf thing or talk about studies because frankly there just arent enough raw studies to be able to contrast. present me reasons that have practicality in mind...

but in reality, different dogs respond to different diets. my dog's health failed miserably on kibble, and flourished on raw. she's happier, healthier and better looking...do i really need another reason?


----------



## Active Dog (Jan 18, 2010)

*palm to face* geez this just sounds like a thread made to stir people up. This argument is completely a waist of breath. There is no hard evidence that dogs are not meant to eat raw meat and bone! Look at their biological make up, everything about their body says "carnivore"! Besides the fact that the whole wolf thing is probably the worst supporting argument for not feeding raw. 

1: Wolves do not get the same medical attention in the wild as they do in captivity.
2: Wolves in captivity eat more often than in the wild.
3: They are also less likely to run into a life threatening injury.

Why do you think our ancestors didn't live as long? I bet you it wasn't necessarily because of their diet but because they constantly needed medical attention but it didn't exist.


----------



## Entwine (Jan 14, 2009)

Oh boy, oh boy... 

And I second zim's reasoning. Misty looks beautiful on raw. No doggy smell, no skin flakes, no dry paw pads, tiny poops, and spotless teeth. I don't need any study to tell me that she's flourishing.


----------



## precalc (Jul 4, 2010)

Mr. V said:


> You are about to get blasted on this forum


Oops. Sorry. Must be a forum where nobody changes their mind when presented with facts and science? Then this is exactly the kind of forum where I will not get the type of help and information I am seeking. I have no patience for conspiracy theories and people who spread misinformation simply because they think they know better than scientists and veterinarians.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

precalc said:


> Oops. Sorry. Must be a forum where nobody changes their mind when presented with facts and science? Then this is exactly the kind of forum where I will not get the type of help and information I am seeking. I have no patience for conspiracy theories and people who spread misinformation simply because they think they know better than scientists and veterinarians.


umm..sorry to burst your bubble...but you really arent speaking for scientists. 

a. wolves have nothing to do with dog diets even if all captive wolves were fed kibble...except they're not.

b. i could count the creditable studies on raw diets on less than one hand. 


come back with some scientific rigor and ill listen. kthx.


----------



## precalc (Jul 4, 2010)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> umm..sorry to burst your bubble...but you really arent speaking for scientists.
> 
> a. wolves have nothing to do with dog diets even if all captive wolves were fed kibble...except they're not.
> 
> ...


Did you even read the article I posted? All the way through?


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

precalc said:


> Did you even read the article I posted? All the way through?


yep. i did.

to elaborate a little.


that article does nothing but quote the most biased versions and reasons of and for raw feeding and the rebuttals are nothing but the most biased and ridiculous versions of the opposite side's case...when in reality..


there's been barely any effort at all to thoroughly investigate the pros and cons of raw feeding for DOMESTIC canines. none. what little research that has been done is not longitudinal and only focuses on a singular aspect of raw feeding(potential salmonella contamination) with the wide range of raw feeding practices being either unrepresented or poorly represented. 

the end.


----------



## precalc (Jul 4, 2010)

Active Dog said:


> *palm to face* geez this just sounds like a thread made to stir people up. This argument is completely a waist of breath. There is no hard evidence that dogs are not meant to eat raw meat and bone! Look at their biological make up, everything about their body says "carnivore"! Besides the fact that the whole wolf thing is probably the worst supporting argument for not feeding raw.
> 
> 1: Wolves do not get the same medical attention in the wild as they do in captivity.
> 2: Wolves in captivity eat more often than in the wild.
> ...


I don't think anybody here is reading what I posted (or certainly not reading it with an open mind). It doesn't say that wolves live longer in captivity than they do in the wild, it says that wolves in captivity fed _commercial pet food_ live longer and are healthier than wolves in captivity fed a _raw diet_.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

precalc said:


> I don't think anybody here is reading what I posted (or certainly not reading it with an open mind). It doesn't say that wolves live longer in captivity than they do in the wild, it says that wolves in captivity fed _commercial pet food_ live longer and are healthier than wolves in captivity fed a _raw diet_.


and true or not...it has no bearing on the needs of the domestic canine.

and besides...there are too many factors to take into account to make for a creditable study. does the study answer with scientific rigor the question of "why that appears to be the case?'

no. because it cant.

the wolves i worked with couldnt tolerate kibble. literally. believe you me the organization would've LOVED to be able to feed them kibble..budget concerns...but 

they couldnt stomach it. literally. that's not going to be all wolves for sure..but the point is is this a factor...amongst a bajillion others..that needs to be looked at before one can make a scientifically solid case against raw. there is merely not enough data available.


----------



## phoebespeople (May 27, 2009)

Precalc,
I have been feeding my dog a RAW diet since she was 7 weeks old. She is two years old now, and quite possibly the healthiest dog I have ever known. She is living proof that RAW diets are extremely beneficial for a dogs health. All of the dogs that I know of that are on a RAW diet are extremely healthy. They are all living proof of the benefits of a RAW diet. Real, tangible, actual, living proof. Phoebes teeth are like pearls, her coat is soft as silk, she doesn't smell like a wet dog, even when she's wet. She has boundless energy, her stools are small, she drinks less water than kibble fed dogs. Everything about her physical condition and my real-life experience with feeding her RAW prove to me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, with repeatable, quantifiable evidence, that RAW diets are the best thing I can do for my dog.
I challenge you, or Brennen McKenzie to examine my dog and prove me wrong. 
What on Earth would make you think that kibble, made from rendered animal sludge mixed with grain filler that is extruded out of a machine and sprayed with oil, salt, and preservatives is healthier for my dog than fresh RAW meat, bone and organs? 
Give your head a shake.


----------



## DJsMom (Jun 6, 2008)

I guess I can't really say that a raw diet is the BEST diet, but I can certainly say that it's the best diet for my dogs. They're healthy & that's what I'm striving for. Will they live to be so many years old? Who knows? I wont know that until they die, no matter what I feed them.

I definitely agree with this:


phoebespeople said:


> What on Earth would make you think that kibble, made from rendered animal sludge mixed with grain filler that is extruded out of a machine and prayed with oil, salt, and preservatives is healthier for my dog than fresh RAW meat, bone and organs?
> Give your head a shake.


----------



## Entwine (Jan 14, 2009)

precalc said:


> Oops. Sorry. Must be a forum where nobody changes their mind when presented with facts and science? Then this is exactly the kind of forum where I will not get the type of help and information I am seeking. I have no patience for conspiracy theories and people who spread misinformation simply because they think they know better than scientists and veterinarians.


Okay, this statement is completely asinine. You presented ONE article. ONE. The opposing view to this article is not a "conspiracy theory" simply because not enough studies have been done on an exclusively raw diet. Though they are not studies, I have seen for myself what switching from a kibble to a raw diet can do for many different dogs. So should I ignore how well my dog does on raw and begin feeding kibble again because that article throws out completely nonsensical information?

Whether or not you agree on feeding a raw diet has nothing to do with the members of this forum ignoring "science". Perhaps you are ignoring the responses people are giving, because when they have an opposing view, you simply state that they are not reading the article. That is not a exactly compelling argument.

What information are you seeking? You could simply ask questions and get answers that way.


----------



## FlashTheRottwuggle (Dec 28, 2009)

precalc said:


> Oops. Sorry. Must be a forum where nobody changes their mind when presented with facts and science? Then this is exactly the kind of forum where I will not get the type of help and information I am seeking. I have no patience for conspiracy theories and people who spread misinformation simply because they think they know better than scientists and veterinarians.


This is exactly the kind of forum where you WILL get the type of help and information you SHOULD be seeking!

Dogs belonging to people here are the living scientific PROOF that raw diets are excellent for dogs. Our dogs look wonderful and are healthy. Scientists and veterinarians who receive money from commercial dog food companies would be EXPECTED to find commercial dog food better. Not scientific at all...financial is more like it.



precalc said:


> I don't think anybody here is reading what I posted (or certainly not reading it with an open mind). It doesn't say that wolves live longer in captivity than they do in the wild, it says that wolves in captivity fed commercial pet food live longer and are healthier than wolves in captivity fed a raw diet.


If this were true, it is probably because the people feeding the wolves a raw diet had no clue what they were doing. They should ask people here!

Obviously with only 11 posts to your name, you are simply here to inflame and cause problems.


----------



## Mr. V (Jan 28, 2010)

FlashTheRottwuggle said:


> This is exactly the kind of forum where you WILL get the type of help and information you SHOULD be seeking!
> 
> Dogs belonging to people here are the living scientific PROOF that raw diets are excellent for dogs. Our dogs look wonderful and are healthy. Scientists and veterinarians who receive money from commercial dog food companies would be EXPECTED to find commercial dog food better. Not scientific at all...financial is more like it.
> 
> ...


The fact that people on this forum have healthy dogs on the raw diet is not scientific proof. It's just anecdotal evidence. If a particular owner is feeding a particulear dog with raw diet and it's working well for them, that should be enough. As mentioned above, there aren't nearly enough studies done to say one way or the other. I've known and treated more than enough dogs on the raw diet that were not healthy. What does this say to me? Not much. Just tells me that you can not hold one particular feeding style as the gold standard.

As for veterinarians receiving money, sorry, but this is internet veterinary conspiracy theory. If a vet is getting paid by a pet food company it is because he works for them directly and that's where he's receiving his paycheck. There are no unmarked bags of cash, free vacations, etc... If a veterinarian is receiving money on the side to promote a particular food he/she should be reported to the state board immediately as this is ILLEGAL. Making a recommendation because they're recieiving compensation is a big no no and a couple vets have lost their license because of it.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Mr. V said:


> Just tells me that you can not hold one particular feeding style as the gold standard.


Amen to that!


----------



## lovemygreys (Jan 20, 2007)

I wouldn't say that commercial dog food is not nutritious enough for dogs. Obviously a good many generations of dogs have lived long lives on commercial dog food. That said, most commercial dog foods are chock full of foods that are inappropriate for dogs. Inappropriate meaning, dogs are not designed to thrive on them (grains and various, assorted fillers and chemicals for preservation).

Comparing wolves to dogs or even captive wolves to wild wolves is inappropriate. Captive animals have regular food, water, shelter and medical care. All of these things contribute to a longer life. 

Based on reading the available science, plus my own experience I believe a raw diet is most appropriate for dogs. Second behind that is grain free kibble. And behind that is pretty much everything else. Yeah, a dog can live a long life on just about any kind of food - that's one of the reasons they are so successful as a species - but, IMO, there is a difference between surviving and thriving.

Of course, I think the modern diet most humans eats is biologically inappropriate (those pesky grains again! - among other things).


----------



## nekomi (May 21, 2008)

> Captive wolves live longest and are healthiest when fed — guess what? — commercial dog food! This is the recommendation of the leading specialists in captive wolf husbandry and medicine, and it is largely the result of evidence that the previous practice of feeding raw meat based diets to captive wolves led to poorer quality nutrition and health than the current practices. Certainly, raw meat and bones are often used as enrichment items or bait for husbandry purposes, but always with an awareness of the risks they pose, and never as the primary diet.


ROFL!!!! Sorry, but that's the funniest thing I've ever heard!

Clearly the author of that article has never visited Wolf Park, arguably the leading wolf research facility in the USA, and possibly much of the world. 

Guess what they feed the wolves there? Roadkilled deer, and donations of raw beef from nearby farmers! Their oldest wolf is 18 years old this year, and still in good health. They have several wolves creeping up on 15 and 16 years of age, and a few 12 year olds. All of them were in beautiful health for their age when I visited in May. Being fed nothing but raw meat and bones a few times a week. 

I'm not against commercial diets for dogs, by any means. But for wolves? Absolutely laughable! I don't know where you did your research, because I can't think of a single wolf facility I'm aware of that uses raw meat ONLY for enrichment and not for the majority of the diet.


----------



## hub3 (Jul 10, 2010)

I think it is so very very strange that people even argue about this at all. It's simply a matter of ego, in my opinion. I've tried to make the switch, but am too lazy to stick to it. I give it when I can. I'm pretty turned off by any discussions about it though, because people feel the need to put others down that don't do it. 

Even the initial responses here to the OP - "you're about to get blasted" or something to that effect. As if speaking against raw is sacrilege or something. If something works and truly is great - it doesn't need defending. 

I've worked with wolves too, I was a zookeeper in my past life. Yes, we fed kibble and raw.  There simply was not enough raw available to keep them exclusively fed on raw year round.

I find it very interesting that captives live longer fed kibble vs. raw, but have not read the posted article and hope the study was done properly - if so, that is very interesting information.

Am pretty sure all on both sides simply want what is best for their dogs, arguing about it makes no sense to me, however.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

J


hub3 said:


> I think it is so very very strange that people even argue about this at all. It's simply a matter of ego, in my opinion. I've tried to make the switch, but am too lazy to stick to it. I give it when I can. I'm pretty turned off by any discussions about it though, because people feel the need to put others down that don't do it.
> 
> Even the initial responses here to the OP - "you're about to get blasted" or something to that effect. As if speaking against raw is sacrilege or something. If something works and truly is great - it doesn't need defending.
> 
> ...



Here's my issue in a nutshell

There's almost nothing in the way of real, valid scientific research regarding raw. So it really really irks me when people say stuff that implies "raw has been proven to be horrible for a dogs health." Because that's just plain false. That and the wolf and dog comparison doesn't hold much weight. The life of even captive wolves is so highly different than the life of the domestic canine that the comparison is weak at best.

I don't care if people feed kibble. But they need not tell me what to feed based on flawed research and faulty reasoning.


----------



## DJsMom (Jun 6, 2008)

hub3 said:


> I think it is so very very strange that people even argue about this at all. It's simply a matter of ego, in my opinion.


I think it's to be somewhat expected that when somone makes a thread for the seemingly sole purpose of trying to prove 1 specific diet bad, people who feed that specific type of diet will naturally defend it.
Altho I don't really see it as an argument, rather a good discussion, as is absolutely appropriate on a discussion forum.
I'm not sure I understand how it's a matter of ego though. I certainly don't feed my dogs the diet I do as a matter of ego, but rather as feeding what I really do believe is the healthiest diet for my dogs.
BTW, what kind of an argument is it when the OP hasn't been back?

eta: oops, sorry, I see the OP has been back ... please forgive my mistake


----------



## hub3 (Jul 10, 2010)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> J
> 
> 
> Here's my issue in a nutshell
> ...


Of course, blanket statements are silly - such as the "horrible for a dogs health" one. If no valid studies have been done, then there is no argument on either side of this issue aside from each persons personal opinion on the subject. It has not been proven either way to be a better or worse diet for dogs.



DJsMom said:


> I think it's to be somewhat expected that when somone makes a thread for the seemingly sole purpose of trying to prove 1 specific diet bad, people who feed that specific type of diet will naturally defend it.
> Altho I don't really see it as an argument, rather a good discussion, as is absolutely appropriate on a discussion forum.
> I'm not sure I understand how it's a matter of ego though. I certainly don't feed my dogs the diet I do as a matter of ego, but rather as feeding what I really do believe is the healthiest diet for my dogs.
> BTW, what kind of an argument is it when the OP hasn't been back?
> ...


By a matter of ego - I meant that people feel the need to defend or become defensive for no other reason I can think of than having their ego bruised if anyone says anything against it. I didn't see the OP's post as "blasting" or anything other than a cut and paste of someone else's article. OP didn't even say if they agreed or disagreed with what was written, yet a defensive stance was taken against it.

Anyway - that's the last I'll say on the subject, as I've said, "discussions" on this topic bother me because of the lack of actual "discussion" that usually takes place, and usually lead nowhere further than two sides throwing mud at each other.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

hub3 said:


> Of course, blanket statements are silly - such as the "horrible for a dogs health" one. If no valid studies have been done, then there is no argument on either side of this issue aside from each persons personal opinion on the subject. It has not been proven either way to be a better or worse diet for dogs.


so that brings me to what i do have to go on...anecdotal evidence. I tried every kibble under the sun...nothing but bad coat, gastric upset including regular vomiting and diarhea, lethargy, rollercoaster weight gain and loss and dead skunk breath.

when i switched to raw, that all changed. so while raw may not be the best diet period...its the best diet _for MY dog._ 

personally i think there's no such thing as a perfect diet for all dogs. i think that's a very logical stance in that size, activity level, age, and health conditions all play into which nutrients a dog needs to to sustain health. i dont think its possible for a single uniform diet to suffice for all dogs.

like my dog..we've pretty much determined that she cant have grains of any kind and is highly reactive to certain vegetables as well. there's no kibble out there that does not contain something that upsets her system.


----------



## SchnauzerLove (Jul 7, 2010)

precalc said:


> _The argument that dogs are designed by their evolutionary history to eat raw meat based diets is riddled with errors and fallacies and ignores the impact of tens of thousands of years of domestication and cohabitation with humans on the physiology of our canine friends. The accusations that commercial dog foods are nutritionally inadequate or unsafe are not supported by any objective or scientific evidence, only anecdotes, intuition, and conspiracy theories. There is, in contrast, significant evidence that commercial dog foods are nutritious and healthy and that they have contributed to greater longevity and reduced nutritional and infectious disease morbidity of dogs fed these diets._
> 
> 
> http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=5315
> ...


Yes I agree, I feed my dog kibble and hes doing perfect for a 9 year old dog, I only use raw food for enrichment, not specifically for the reasons you posted, but I think it depends from dog to dog, I would never for example feed my dog chicken WITH bone, since my aunt's dog was fed chicken WITH bone and he died because it got stuck inside of him.

And I dont understand raw feeders why they have to be so biased sometimes, Im happy theres millions of diets for our dogs, and we should pick whatever we think is best for our dogs.


----------



## DJsMom (Jun 6, 2008)

SchnauzerLove said:


> I would never for example feed my dog chicken WITH bone, since my aunt's dog was fed chicken WITH bone and he died because it got stuck inside of him.


I do have to ask if it was a raw chicken bone or cooked? If it was raw, that's a new 1 to me - not saying it could NOT happen, just that I haven't heard of it happening.

Maybe in some ways I could see it being called eggocentric, as when you find something that you really feel is best, you stand behind it, even when others who feed differently try to come up with everything wrong with it & try really hard to disprove it. When in reality, it's so much closer to natural than a kibble, & honestly, in most things I've found that nature is best


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

See, I find the "it's natural" argument in support of raw as maddening as I find the "there's no scientific proof" argument against it. Our modern dogs are not very natural. Selective breeding and mucking around with size, color, temperament, form, and function have GOT to muck around with digestion and physiology as well.

I'm not generally anti-raw feeding. I'm firmly in the "feed each dog, as an individual, what works best for him/her" camp. I just find that the "it's natural" argument is a pet peeve of mine.


----------



## DJsMom (Jun 6, 2008)

sassafras said:


> Selective breeding and mucking around with size, color, temperament, form, and function have GOT to muck around with digestion and physiology as well.


And that is exactly what I find maddening, as I don't see how any selective breeding or mucking can take away the benefits of natural - for any animal or human.


----------



## SchnauzerLove (Jul 7, 2010)

DJsMom said:


> I do have to ask if it was a raw chicken bone or cooked? If it was raw, that's a new 1 to me - not saying it could NOT happen, just that I haven't heard of it happening.
> 
> Maybe in some ways I could see it being called eggocentric, as when you find something that you really feel is best, you stand behind it, even when others who feed differently try to come up with everything wrong with it & try really hard to disprove it. When in reality, it's so much closer to natural than a kibble, & honestly, in most things I've found that nature is best


Djsmom: It was raw chicken, my aunt is a veterinary in her country and she was just starting raw diet with her dogs, and one of her dogs died because of it. Im not saying that the raw diet should rot in hell (like some raw feeders say about kibble feeders) but it is certainly not my choice. My dog has eaten kibble since I got him when he was 5 months old and hes now 9 years old and he looks perfect, just like my friend's schnauzer (she feeds raw) so I think that in order to talk about this subject people have to stop being so biased, raw diet is not perfect in the same way that kibble diet is not perfect, all diets have their pros and cons and its pretty dumb to not accept that, I feed kibble and heck, I know its not perfect! But what can I do? My dog has a very delicate stomach and the only food he digests well and does him good is Purina One for Seniors, I have tried many other better kibble but he would vomit and have diarrhea with blood, so I think im a believer that not all diets are made for all dogs, each dog is different and thats a fact.

Forum: I dont really like when people try to impose their ideas above other people's ideas (both raw and kibble feeders) lets just be happy that our dogs are healthy wathever type of diet we feed and think is best for them.


----------



## DJsMom (Jun 6, 2008)

SchnauzerLove said:


> Djsmom: It was raw chicken, my aunt is a veterinary in her country and she was just starting raw diet with her dogs, and one of her dogs died because of it.


I'm very sorry about your aunts dog, that is awful.

Believe me, I think it's silly to argue the same points over & over again too. Too each his or her own. And honestly I really don't like people trying to shove the whole kibble diet down my dogs thoat either, & I really don't _believe_ there are many raw feeders that do try to shove their diet down others thoats, but like everyone else, they are going to defend what the feed & give reasons why.
However ... for each time 1 of these discussions does come up, I believe there is potential for insight to be gained by many people, no matter what they feed.
And if someone were to post something that really would make me believe that any other diet would be better for my dogs than the diet I've chosen to feed them, I would give it a chance


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

DJsMom said:


> And that is exactly what I find maddening, as I don't see how any selective breeding or mucking can take away the benefits of natural - for any animal or human.


My point isn't that natural isn't beneficial, my point is that we don't know what "natural" IS for the dog breeds that we have created, because they aren't natural. I think I've made it pretty clear that I'm not against raw, but personally I don't think the "it's natural" argument is valid.


----------



## SchnauzerLove (Jul 7, 2010)

DJsMom said:


> I'm very sorry about your aunts dog, that is awful.
> 
> Believe me, I think it's silly to argue the same points over & over again too. Too each his or her own. And honestly I really don't like people trying to shove the whole kibble diet down my dogs thoat either, & I really don't _believe_ there are many raw feeders that do try to shove their diet down others thoats, but like everyone else, they are going to defend what the feed & give reasons why.
> However ... for each time 1 of these discussions does come up, I believe there is potential for insight to be gained by many people, no matter what they feed.
> And if someone were to post something that really would make me believe that any other diet would be better for my dogs than the diet I've chosen to feed them, I would give it a chance


Thank you, it was really sad for all of us! And yes thats the same reason I try to not comment on these kind of posts LOL but I also agree we have to learn form other people's experiences and then decide if it works for our dogs or not, Im glad Im not the only one that thinks this way!


----------



## DJsMom (Jun 6, 2008)

sassafras said:


> My point isn't that natural isn't beneficial, my point is that we don't know what "natural" IS for the dog breeds that we have created, because they aren't natural.


Point taken. But I honestly believe that the closer something is to natural, the better it is to feed any living thing, & even tho dogs have changed through the years, they are still living things


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Mr. V said:


> As for veterinarians receiving money, sorry, but this is internet veterinary conspiracy theory. If a vet is getting paid by a pet food company it is because he works for them directly and that's where he's receiving his paycheck. There are no unmarked bags of cash, free vacations, etc... If a veterinarian is receiving money on the side to promote a particular food he/she should be reported to the state board immediately as this is ILLEGAL. Making a recommendation because they're recieiving compensation is a big no no and a couple vets have lost their license because of it.


It's not that the veterinarian directly receives money from the company. However, there is a reason most Vet offices sell Science Diet. It makes good business sense. Vet's aren't there for your sake and yours alone. It is hard enough for a Vet office to make money.

Take my business for instance. I almost exclusively sell American Standard brand furnaces. Is it because I think they are the bestest furnaces ever? No. If the customer asks for more options, I will show other brands. However I make a strong recommendation for the AS furnace. The reason for this is because I have a deal with AS to sell their products in return for a discount.

The Vet office sells Science Diet because they have a deal with them to sell their foods. They do not need to make "extra" money off pushing Science Diet. My salesmen do not make extra money off pushing American Standard. But the money we make from the sales goes to pay their commission and everyone else's paychecks. The vet's sales of Science Diet is no different. The money they make selling the brand pays their paycheck, and the business owner tells them to sell Science Diet. 

In return, the Vet office gets a bigger profit per bag sold compared to say, Petsmart. The reasoning is simple, many owners go by the vet's recommendation, however many owners start buying from local pet stores instead of the vet offices. So it's only good business sense for Science Diet to give vet offices the food at a much lower cost, to encourage them to push their product.

It's not a conspiracy theory. It's simple good business practice.



SchnauzerLove said:


> Djsmom: It was raw chicken, my aunt is a veterinary in her country and she was just starting raw diet with her dogs, and one of her dogs died because of it. Im not saying that the raw diet should rot in hell (like some raw feeders say about kibble feeders) but it is certainly not my choice. My dog has eaten kibble since I got him when he was 5 months old and hes now 9 years old and he looks perfect, just like my friend's schnauzer (she feeds raw) so I think that in order to talk about this subject people have to stop being so biased, raw diet is not perfect in the same way that kibble diet is not perfect, all diets have their pros and cons and its pretty dumb to not accept that, I feed kibble and heck, I know its not perfect! But what can I do? My dog has a very delicate stomach and the only food he digests well and does him good is Purina One for Seniors, I have tried many other better kibble but he would vomit and have diarrhea with blood, so I think im a believer that not all diets are made for all dogs, each dog is different and thats a fact.
> 
> Forum: I dont really like when people try to impose their ideas above other people's ideas (both raw and kibble feeders) lets just be happy that our dogs are healthy wathever type of diet we feed and think is best for them.


The only person I saw imposing their ideas was the OP of this thread. All the people who defended raw diet pointed out that the article is silly, and all of them said that the best diet for your dog is the one your dog does well on.

As for myself, Ollie and Priscilla were fed raw. My current dog, Kobe, is fed kibble. The reasoning is simple, Ollie and Priscilla did well on raw. Kobe picks at his food, so if I try to restrict his feeding to once or twice a day, he eats less than when he has access to his food all day. So kibble is better for him as I can leave it out all day.


----------



## MagicRe (Jan 8, 2010)

precalc said:


> I don't think anybody here is reading what I posted (or certainly not reading it with an open mind). It doesn't say that wolves live longer in captivity than they do in the wild, it says that wolves in captivity fed _commercial pet food_ live longer and are healthier than wolves in captivity fed a _raw diet_.


well, i read it with an open mind....and yes, wolves in captivity do have an average life span that is longer than those in captivity....but isn't that kind of a d'uh? since it's a controlled environment?

in captivity, there are vets and no predators and a daily supply of food..isn't that kind of an obvious?

i bet i'd live longer in captivity, as long as i had my 3D LED TV, my books, my computer, with my treadmill, free weights and a personal chef....

the wolves at the san diego zoo, however, are not fed dog food. they are fed beef heart and hamburger....so, it really depends on the zoo or the habitat....but if one of your statements says 'all', then, for it to be true, it has to include 'all'...


----------



## Mr. V (Jan 28, 2010)

RBark, you know what I was responding to. THAT kind of talk and other talk which goes on here from time to time really is conspiracy theory. Those people aren't talking about business. They're insinuating that vets are being paid extra on the side to push the product.


----------



## Wimble Woof (Jan 16, 2007)

I think i am one of the most pro raw dog owners out there, I switched to it several years ago because of Kitas food issues and my lack of trust in any dog food company and I am always first to suggest trying raw to people with similar concerns.
HOWEVER,
I can definately say it is NOT for every dog, no matter how hard we want it to be as pro raw people.
Take my Border Collie, he has eaten every possible food under the sun and is truely at his best when eating , please hold on to your seats for this one, Pedigree of all god forsaken foods.
Why does he have a luxurious coat, healthy energy level and his EIC is less frequent eating this so called "garbage" (which I do agree it is a poor quality food) who knows? But if thats what makes Meiko the best Meiko he can be, thats what we feed him, everyone else here is pretty much strictly raw fed and doing exceptional on their diets as well.
I dont like seeing people getting all worked up about personal choice online, and trying to defend their point with silly articles and links. And I agree the "its natural" arguement seems like a cop out for finding any facts, however, I personally feel my dogs eating a prey model raw diet is natural for them (except Meiko that is) so in the WW house hold, dogs eating raw is natural for the most part.
If you dont want to feed raw, thats fine by me, just make an educated choice in what you choose to feed, If someone felt that kibbles and bits was the best thing for their pet to eat for what ever reasons they have, then so be it. Who would I be to look down on them for doing the best they could?
Also, I was one for saying that raw feeding was cheaper than kibble, try having 14 dogs on a raw diet... its NOT, especially when you're talking about growing pups and high energy dogs, not to mention the cost of all those freezers running in our house, time involved in it ect. But in the end I feel its the best I can do for my gang with what I am comfortable with and see first hand here.
Kita has never been healthier, and for an 8 year old she is doing the best out of her litter mates, is this solely due to food? No way. She led an extremely active life, on well water, being a dog. I'm sure all those things have helped along with a "Kita specific" diet.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

I don't know about the argument that raw isn't cheaper than kibble. It *can* be more expensive than kibble if you're lazy about it. I had a high energy feeder, and I was going through like, $50 a week feeding him on kibble (Solid Gold Barking at the Moon, the only thing that had more cals was only about 50 more cals per cup) Comparatively I was feeding him raw for about $20 a week by buying cheap meat sources. I.e. I got a 25lb bag of deer scraps for $8. By being resourceful and buying whatever's on sale, getting leftover organs from hunters, and so on.. I was able to feed much cheaper than kibble. 

I imagine it's even easier to be cheap outside of CA.


----------



## Wimble Woof (Jan 16, 2007)

Not just the cost per pound of meat vs kibble, I'm talking about having 4 freezers running, the drive to get the meat and the price of gas in the trucks ( we go quite a distance for deals since we buy so much... like 100lbs of it in one shot is not unheard of) I'm not saying it is more expensive I'm saying when you aren't just shopping for a couple pounds a day to put in one freezer to use that week.


> They're insinuating that vets are being paid extra on the side to push the product.


If they're not, why is it they push Hills so much? Every vet clinic I have gone to has hills products on one whole wall????


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Wimble Woof said:


> Not just the cost per pound of meat vs kibble, I'm talking about having 4 freezers running, the drive to get the meat and the price of gas in the trucks ( we go quite a distance for deals since we buy so much... like 100lbs of it in one shot is not unheard of) I'm not saying it is more expensive I'm saying when you aren't just shopping for a couple pounds a day to put in one freezer to use that week.
> 
> If they're not, why is it they push Hills so much? Every vet clinic I have gone to has hills products on one whole wall????


I think V's point is that the vets themselves do not get paid extra.

The business gets more profit for selling science diet, the owner tells them to market science diet. But the vets themselves do not make profit. The owner does. Which is kinda a argument of sematics but yeah.


----------



## Mr. V (Jan 28, 2010)

This may be a huge surprise to some here, but, those of you who feed raw are definitely the minority, by far. Those of you who feed the higher end kibble are still the minority. Science diet, whiel not as good as most of the food the people around here feed, is just as good if not better than what the average person feeds their dog. I think for clients like those found on here, a vet should have more quality food in mind but if you have to take a utilitarian view, feeding science diet is often a bump up from what we see come through the doors. You could make the argument that he should be recommending better food than science diet anyway, I would. But, payin 40 bucks for a bag of dog food is not something most clients are willing to do. Many, many owners get the old deer-in-headlights look when I tell htem to seek out food as expensive as what people on here feed.

Do I think they should have higher quality in addition to their regular stuff like hill's? Yes. Do I think it's ok that they sell it to clients who want it? Yes. I'll probably stock some on both sides of the feeding fence one day.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Mr. V said:


> This may be a huge surprise to some here, but, those of you who feed raw are definitely the minority, by far. Those of you who feed the higher end kibble are still the minority. Science diet, whiel not as good as most of the food the people around here feed, is just as good if not better than what the average person feeds their dog. I think for clients like those found on here, a vet should have more quality food in mind but if you have to take a utilitarian view, feeding science diet is often a bump up from what we see come through the doors. You could make the argument that he should be recommending better food than science diet anyway, I would. But, payin 40 bucks for a bag of dog food is not something most clients are willing to do. Many, many owners get the old deer-in-headlights look when I tell htem to seek out food as expensive as what people on here feed.
> 
> Do I think they should have higher quality in addition to their regular stuff like hill's? Yes. Do I think it's ok that they sell it to clients who want it? Yes. I'll probably stock some on both sides of the feeding fence one day.


I've never understood the cost argument.

Science Diet Lamb and Rice = $57.00 for 30LB.

Solid Gold Barking at the Moon = $63.00 for 33LB.

Barking at the Moon is 6 star rated food.

Science Diet is 1 star rated food.


----------



## Mr. V (Jan 28, 2010)

My local petsmart sells a 30 lb bag for like close to $40.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Yeah, it would vary store to store. my local Petco sells barking at the moon for $50 for a 33lb bag, and Science diet $48 for a 30lb bag. Doesn't change the fact that Science Diet does not rate among the "cheap" brands of food. It's just as expensive as many preminum brands. I've honestly never heard anyone say that Science Diet was cheap. The same customers that buy SD can buy preminum brand foods. 

Not to mention Barking at the Moon is probably one of the most expensive preminum brands there is. Hund-n-Flocken, 5 star rated, is about $10 cheaper than Barking at the Moon. That's me comparing top-end expensive brands against Science Diet. To really debunk the "cheap" SD myth I could easily pick out a dozen brands that are even cheaper than SD and 4-5 star rated.

So no, SD is far from a cheap brand. It's more expensive than most 4-5 star quality foods, and some 6 star quality foods.

There is just no comparision. Kirkland brand dog food is 4 star rated, $23 for a 40lb bag.


----------



## Mr. V (Jan 28, 2010)

OK, it's not super cheap either, great. Not really why I posted first anyway.


----------



## MagicRe (Jan 8, 2010)

Mr. V said:


> OK, it's not super cheap either, great. Not really why I posted first anyway.


my vet's office sells science diet, and royal canin and some purina products, i believe.....

i agree with mr. v that it makes good business sense for them to do so.....they buy in bulk, which probably gets them better pricing..in the
same way that i buy raw for my dog..sales and bulk buying....

my vet told me, point blank...that nutrition was simply not his forte....he was honest...he wasn't for or against raw...he never tried to push food on me that his office sold and he's one of the owners....

he feeds it to his dog because he gets a discount....and convenient, considering his hours.

when i hear about people feeding their dogs for 60 cents a day and thinking they're really doing great things for the dogs...and often feeding less than the best (raw or otherwise)

i don't understand how people put a price on food? either for humans or dogs...

maybe i won't buy that grass fed/grass finished venison because it's 2.65/lb....but surely i can afford to buy 1.60/lb grass fed/ grass finished beef....

how do i put a price on my dogs?

or my family?

our food bills are the largest expense we have mainly because we try to eat healthy....and, whilst we buy on sale, we still buy the best we can
afford for both ourselves and our dogs.

a vet is a doctor, although Lord knows they aren't treated with the same respect as an MD...and that's unfortunate.

when i went to university, we had a veterinary school, one of the finest in the country....and whilst everyone ooh'd and aah'd over the medical students...others would say, oh, so you're just a vet?

i don't get that...and the notion that vets make boatloads of money? ludicrous....maybe some do...but not most......

and the notion that vets make money off their products? also ludicrous....the business might make a profit but it's not a huge profit....it's a revenue stream...and it's a diversification, which a smart business should do...

while i will hopefully never use their products, simply because i don't like the ingredients, i will never knock them for believing in them...because they do believe in these products, with the same intensity that i believe in raw.


----------



## DJsMom (Jun 6, 2008)

Maybe I'm just not following the chain of thread. Are some saying that some vets sell SD because it's cheaper for them & is that why many vets also recommend people feed their dog SD?
As a retailer, we buy all of our merchandise at wholesale cost. I guess I haven't really checked into how much cheaper it is for us to buy SD at cost, but no matter what, we have a set margin & mark up, so I wouldnt be making anymore by selling SD than a different brand ... that's the way I see it anyway.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

DJsMom said:


> Maybe I'm just not following the chain of thread. Are some saying that some vets sell SD because it's cheaper for them & is that why many vets also recommend people feed their dog SD?
> As a retailer, we buy all of our merchandise at wholesale cost. I guess I haven't really checked into how much cheaper it is for us to buy SD at cost, but no matter what, we have a set margin & mark up, so I wouldnt be making anymore by selling SD than a different brand ... that's the way I see it anyway.


A pet food store wouldn't make more money based on brand. Vet offices are an exception because most people will base what their food choices will be on what the vet says. So while they may sell SD to a pet food store for $30, and the pet food store marks it up to $54. Since most people don't go to their vets to buy food, they may sell SD to a vet office for $10 and the vet office sells it for $54. The profit margin is bigger at the vet than at chain stores. 

Since most vet offices will only keep one brand on site due to limited space, most vet offices will sell only SD.


----------



## DJsMom (Jun 6, 2008)

RBark said:


> they may sell SD to a vet office for $10 and the vet office sells it for $54. The profit margin is bigger at the vet than at chain stores.
> 
> Since most vet offices will only keep one brand on site due to limited space, most vet offices will sell only SD.


WoW! I do have to note that I am very new to business & have only had our store for a year & 1/2. 
And, I hope you don't think I'm just trying to be argumentative, but really trying to understand. We're a very small store too - very - & so far have only sold 1 brand of food, but are going to be branching out a tad bit real soon with at least 1 or 2 others. And here's the way I look at it - I do want to make a profit (we have to to stay in business obviously), BUT I truly do care about each dog & when it comes to food I LOVE to see people feed their dogs healthy - no matter WHAT diet anyone thinks is healthy, so I try to keep the cost of food as low as I can & still make a profit on it, making a healthy diet at least somewhat affordable.


----------



## Angel's_mom (May 26, 2010)

Mr. V said:


> This may be a huge surprise to some here, but, those of you who feed raw are definitely the minority, by far. Those of you who feed the higher end kibble are still the minority. Science diet, whiel not as good as most of the food the people around here feed, is just as good if not better than what the average person feeds their dog. I think for clients like those found on here, a vet should have more quality food in mind but if you have to take a utilitarian view, feeding science diet is often a bump up from what we see come through the doors. You could make the argument that he should be recommending better food than science diet anyway, I would. But, payin 40 bucks for a bag of dog food is not something most clients are willing to do. Many, many owners get the old deer-in-headlights look when I tell htem to seek out food as expensive as what people on here feed.
> 
> Do I think they should have higher quality in addition to their regular stuff like hill's? Yes. Do I think it's ok that they sell it to clients who want it? Yes. I'll probably stock some on both sides of the feeding fence one day.


I will agree with this. I tend not to judge anyone based on what they feed their dog. I will offer suggestions, but I feel like most dog owners mean well even if they're feeding their dog ol' roy. Most people I know love their dogs, and no one I know (in person) feeds their dog anything better than what they can get at Wal Mart or the grocery store. Everyone thinks my dog is super spoiled because I seek out products for her with no bi-products, chemicals, corn, etc. I know people who think Purina Dog Chow is the best food going. I don't put down their choice but if they ask about my choice I mention that my dog is a carnivore so I feel that a meat based food is better than a corn based food, and throw in that you'd be surprised if you read the ingredients on the name brand foods that everyone knows and loves. I don't say, "Purina is crap". or anything to that effect. If their dog is healthy and happy and loved, that's what matters. I'll do what I feel is right for my dog, and they can do what they feel is right for theirs. 

I will say, on here, I have not encountered anyone who feeds raw saying anything to make those who feed kibble feel bad. I have gotten responses on my posts from raw feeders and none of them said anything to me that made me feel they were better than me. I feed kibble and I will agree that raw is probably better but I'm not in a place in my life right now where I feel like making that commitment. I don't really see how anyone can argue that raw is not the most natural diet for a dog. Even with people, natural is better than all the processed stuff so many of us eat. Try eating processed junk for a while, then go on a natural diet of meat (not chicken nuggets), fruits, veggies, whole grains, and then see how you feel if you go back on the processed diet. I've done it. Natural is better, but requires a little more effort than just opening up a box. LOL. In no way am I saying I eat all natural, I do the best I can with what I have to work with, and the same for my dog.

I hope this made sense!


----------



## Mr. V (Jan 28, 2010)

Magic Re, that was a refreshing post and I appreciate you writing it. It kills me when people find out what i'm going to be doing and their next comment is about how much money will be made. I'm just kinda "um no." That is a question that gets asked to most students in their vet school interview "How much money do you think you'll make." They wanna make sure we know there's no million dollar pipe dreams in our heads. It's also good your vet was honest with you. Gotta love that. 

I think some are more comfortable than others with nutrition. It is an irresponsible blanket statement for one to say that "vets don't know anything about nutrition." I see that frequently on the net. It is a subject that is receiving more and more attention in school now. I mean, It's like any general practitioner in any type of medicine - you tend to focus on the stuff you like and that's what youre good at. I know some general practice vets that are fantastic at orthopedics but horrible at derm and vice versa. They just get good at the stuff they enjoy. Personally, I have a gigantic interest in nutrition and internal medicine (not so much for orthopedics) so I tend to read copious amounts of material and am in the process of setting up my senior preceptorship with an internist and a nutrition specialist. Hopefully it will bring good results.

And ya, Angel's Mom, that makes perfect sense to me.


----------



## MagicRe (Jan 8, 2010)

Mr. V said:


> Magic Re, that was a refreshing post and I appreciate you writing it. It kills me when people find out what i'm going to be doing and their next comment is about how much money will be made. I'm just kinda "um no." That is a question that gets asked to most students in their vet school interview "How much money do you think you'll make." They wanna make sure we know there's no million dollar pipe dreams in our heads. It's also good your vet was honest with you. Gotta love that.
> 
> I think some are more comfortable than others with nutrition. It is an irresponsible blanket statement for one to say that "vets don't know anything about nutrition." I see that frequently on the net. It is a subject that is receiving more and more attention in school now. I mean, It's like any general practitioner in any type of medicine - you tend to focus on the stuff you like and that's what youre good at. I know some general practice vets that are fantastic at orthopedics but horrible at derm and vice versa. They just get good at the stuff they enjoy. Personally, I have a gigantic interest in nutrition and internal medicine (not so much for orthopedics) so I tend to read copious amounts of material and am in the process of setting up my senior preceptorship with an internist and a nutrition specialist. Hopefully it will bring good results.
> 
> And ya, Angel's Mom, that makes perfect sense to me.


you're welcome....on the other hand, when i went to med school, neither veterinary doctors or medical doctors knew much about nutrition...neither were taught it to the degree i hope it's being taught now....although i don't see it...with few exceptions...

in both human medicine and veterinary medicine.....i am sad about that...we have a real crisis on our hands, with human and dog obesity and medical issues that are directly correlated with nutrition, so to me, the general practitioner SHOULD know more about nutrition..he's the first line of defence....

not so sure it's an irresponsible statement, even today, that vets and docs both don't know enough about nutrition..it's not that they don't know anything, it's that they don't know enough....and continue to put nutrition in the back burner.

and yes, i know home cooked and raw feeders are in the minority...my vet is honest with me because i command it....and i am honest with him. he knows i feed raw....he knew when i fed home cooked...he knew when i fed wellness and now he knows all about nutro...

even still, it pains me to see my own internist's ignorance about nutrition and he's in his thirties and my dog's vets who do not proclaim knowledge of nutrition....and they are the first to see my dogs...before sending me to a specialist...

the only reason i had to learn about nutrition was in relation to children with psychoses...one in particular who was allergic to the orange juice his mother gave him..made him homicidal....no orange juice, sweet little five year old....orange juice...came at her with a carving knife...

a vet and a doctor....should be business men....and women....the best hospitals and doctors' practises are run like a business...and, yes, profits should be a consideration....it's an angel of mercy perception, but bottom line, mortgages need to be paid...

we are so used to having insurance...we don't realise the cost of things, so most people go into sticker shock when told their precious pooch needs their teeth cleaned, here's your bill for 500....

my vet wanted me to put malia on probiotics at one point, after her triple bout with giardia....good advice? absolutely....but the product offered? fortiflora? blech....

i had to point out to him what was wrong with it...and he was genuinely surprised because for him, efficacy was what counted....a doc's point of view....and the stuff, while inferior.....works.

here's what pains me.

food is the fuel for our bodies. we run on it...and whilst the body tries to adapt to what we put in it....it can only adapt for so long....and this is not an argument about raw vs kibble or home cooked....i wish my vet knew more...

when my vet doesn't know enough about nutrition for my dogs....that has the potential to hurt my dog....just as a human doctor who doesn't know enough about nutrition....

i don't expect my vet who is a general practitioner to know about eyes...i expect him to send me to a specialist....but i'm starting to have a problem with a doc who doesn't continue education when it comes to food, given food is responsible for so much in both humans, dogs, cats, etc...

true dat ---- not every doc makes hundreds of thousands a year....i remember a client who paid me in the best apple pies i ever had LOL


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Mr. V said:


> I think some are more comfortable than others with nutrition. It is an irresponsible blanket statement for one to say that "vets don't know anything about nutrition." I see that frequently on the net. It is a subject that is receiving more and more attention in school now. I mean, It's like any general practitioner in any type of medicine - you tend to focus on the stuff you like and that's what youre good at. I know some general practice vets that are fantastic at orthopedics but horrible at derm and vice versa. They just get good at the stuff they enjoy. Personally, I have a gigantic interest in nutrition and internal medicine (not so much for orthopedics) so I tend to read copious amounts of material and am in the process of setting up my senior preceptorship with an internist and a nutrition specialist. Hopefully it will bring good results.



my issue with vets and raw stems more from a particular attitude...the one where when you tell your vet that you feed raw, they flip out on you and start in trying to convince you that you *definately* going to kill your dog doing it. which is bs. 

if i were to make a plea as a pet owner to all vets and future vets regarding raw..it would go like this:

ok. you have issues with the choice of feeding a raw diet. but before you fly off the handle, consider something..its not your call. as owners it is our right and our perogative to choose the diet that best suits our dogs and our lifestyle. you as the veterinarian are there in an advisory capacity. so...advise. offer the relevant literature supporting your case sure, but even if every single peer reviewed veterinary journal in the world comes out with a statement touting kibble over raw and we still decide to go raw, that is all she wrote. you cant do a damn thing about it and being abrasive about it will change things not one whit. so educate yourselves as veterinarians on how to do raw in the safest and most healthy way and use your capacity as an advisor to guide your clients in feeding the most sanitary and nutritionally balanced raw diet possible. Learn how the best raw feeders do it. Provide nutrient profiles on meat sources and guides to which nutrients suit the client's dog the best. Learn and provide information about sanitary preparation and storage of meats. be open to discussion and ready to help. after all, you went to vet school to learn how to help animals and keep them healthy. alienating and aggravating their owners will get you the EXACT opposite results

that's not directed at you Mr. V specifically...but you'd be doing dogs a huge favor by echoing that sentiment to your fellow vet students. while raw feeders may be a smaller demographic than kibble feeders...our pets need health care too and we do have significant numbers..

just sayin...


----------



## MagicRe (Jan 8, 2010)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> my issue with vets and raw stems more from a particular attitude...the one where when you tell your vet that you feed raw, they flip out on you and start in trying to convince you that you *definately* going to kill your dog doing it. which is bs.
> 
> if i were to make a plea as a pet owner to all vets and future vets regarding raw..it would go like this:
> 
> ...


well said.

and, even though my vet is honest about what he doesn't know...i've been to 'those' vets who flip out....

my statement would be something like this:

before you tell me what and how to feed my dog, perform your due diligence and learn about canine nutrition...spend the time that i have and then we can have a level playing field...

i don't expect anyone to agree...but to disagree because of ignorance? that is unacceptable.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

It is an irresponsible blanket statement for one to say that "vets don't know anything about nutrition." >>>>


agree 100% vet school lays the foundation and gives the basics. If a particular vet is interested in nutrition there is post grad education. Same as med school


----------



## MagicRe (Jan 8, 2010)

jiml said:


> It is an irresponsible blanket statement for one to say that "vets don't know anything about nutrition." >>>>
> 
> 
> agree 100% vet school lays the foundation and gives the basics. If a particular vet is interested in nutrition there is post grad education. Same as med school


isn't it a shame that so many vets don't give nutrition the attention it deserves?

food is everything to us, our dogs....be it kibble, home cooked or raw....


we live in dubious times..nutritionally, we're discovering so much about the relationship between food and our bodies, our dogs' bodies and function....

that the generation after us has lowered expectations of longevity....after an unprecendented increase....for many years...the average life span went up...

that's abominable....for both humans and dogs and cats and horses and all mammals...but for the sake of this forum..for our dogs...

i don't think it's irresponsible to say that neither vets nor docs know ENOUGH about nutrition....and therein lies a huge problem.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

neither vets nor docs know ENOUGH about nutrition>>>> true and thats before you get into the diff philosophies within nutrition even among those that are educated in it.


----------



## MagicRe (Jan 8, 2010)

jiml said:


> neither vets nor docs know ENOUGH about nutrition>>>> true and thats before you get into the diff philosophies within nutrition even among those that are educated in it.


i'll take an educated debate on what's best to feed my dog...any day of the week....i might be passionate about raw....but then again, i was passionate about home cooking....i've been known to be wrong once or twice 

but ignorance...whether it's a doctor or a veterinary doctor....inexcusable....not with the enormous amount of knowledge out there....hell, education is in your home -- computer to university....

i just keeping thinking about a five year old boy who went after his mother with a carving knife....and had the psychiatrist not had this kid tested for physical ailments, like tumours or disease, this kid would either be locked up today or would have killed her....

and this was thirty years ago.


----------



## grab (Sep 26, 2009)

I work at a vet's office and I can say they do NOT get Science Diet for anything close to $10. No, I don't like or feed Science Diet, nor would I recommend it. I actually work with a vet who also does not like Science Diet and she steers clients away from it. She doesn't own the clinic, though, and has no say in what they sell. I do think it has more to do with what they're taught than a monetary thing. Sure, they make money selling food, but not that much. Most of it has to do with their believing it's a good food. They know I don't like that brand, and they know why. They know what I feed, and when a client comes in asking about better foods, the vets that are not SD minded do use my recommendations. But, as was said above, many clients come in feeding things like Ol' Roy. Even Science Diet, gross as it is, is a step up from that


----------



## DJsMom (Jun 6, 2008)

grab said:


> I work at a vet's office and I can say they do NOT get Science Diet for anything close to $10. No, I don't like or feed Science Diet, nor would I recommend it. I actually work with a vet who also does not like Science Diet and she steers clients away from it. She doesn't own the clinic, though, and has no say in what they sell. I do think it has more to do with what they're taught than a monetary thing. Sure, they make money selling food, but not that much. Most of it has to do with their believing it's a good food. They know I don't like that brand, and they know why. They know what I feed, and when a client comes in asking about better foods, the vets that are not SD minded do use my recommendations. But, as was said above, many clients come in feeding things like Ol' Roy. Even Science Diet, gross as it is, is a step up from that


That's very good to hear, & I think that more & more of the younger vets & techs are realizing the difference in quality of different foods. Personally, I just can't put my trust in a vet that recommends SD. I went to 1 vet that sold nothing but SD foods, & guess what she recommended? 
As someone mentioned earlier, you're hard put to find a vet that actually recommends a raw meat & bones diet. BUT, at least the vet I use has given me the name of a holistic vet in town to go to with any questions about my dogs' raw diet & told me that while she's not real familiar with it, she realizes it's place as an alternative to kibble.
Bad thing tho is that the holistic vet charges $60 an hour! Yikes!


----------

