by GK1 on 10 February 2018 - 17:02
I am quite clearly not a full-on supporter of feeding raw; but if it is done properly I reckon it is better for dogs than SOME of the shite they often get fed, whether that is canned food, a cheaper mass-produced kibble, or over-boiled brussel sprouts. It does take quite a lot of effort and practical knowledge to do it RIGHT though; I have some doubts about the quality & content of some of the chub foods etc that are sold as 'raw food' for dogs, as many scams seem to be perpetrated against consumers with those as with a percentage of 'complete' kibbles. Very difficult for the individual purchaser to know if the balance of ingredients is correct. That is why a decent quality & easily traceable kibble from a manufacturer who is open about content is almost always a better bet, provided that (as Swarn says ^) your dog is doing fine on it.
I’ve watched these canine nutrition debates for several years. The above quote from a previous post is sensible. Personally I’ve had consistently good results with raw, home cooked, and spendy high animal protein grain-free kibble. My otherwise vigorous dogs are still rather young. Curious if anyone has consistently brought their GSDs along for 12, 14, 16 active and healthy years? If so, nutrition related at some level in your opinion/s?
by Centurian on 10 February 2018 - 17:02
Now the conversation is being twisted. Chicken is chicken doesn't matter if a dog or a human eat it .It os the same chicken . Ditto for beef. beef is beef. Maybe different parts of a chicken and cow can be eaten , but that is also a slight differentiation. And yes ..many humans eat like crap .. but that is not the gist of the conversation. When I refer to people cooking their ,meals and at the same time cook for the dog.. for the record I am refering to people that eat healthy .
Yes there is differences in amino acids and also protein . Some realize , some people don't that even not all protein is digestible and has metabolic value ! But I am not talking about little nuances .. I am saying , interesting .. you feed a dog raw chicken , meats etc , and again to emphasize, that is by no means is even close to a wild animal , yet you cook your own food .. BTW , person , dog ... foods get contaminated and Contaminated food is contaminated food. Most you have no idea what goes on in the chicken and beef industries . Simply put , if you were half way educated and knowledgable about those industries , your own stomach would get so sick , you , figuratively might not even choose to eat those products yourself.
by Dawulf on 10 February 2018 - 19:02
OP, check out the documentary "Pet Fooled" on Netflix or Youtube.
Also, this group on Facebook is spectacular. https://www.facebook.com/groups/451782265003776/?fref=nf
by Jamrock on 10 February 2018 - 20:02
The choice of what to feed is the owner’s choice. There is an increase risk of bacterial contamination of raw meat. Feeding contaminated meat can lead to serious illnesses and death of the animal and potentially the owner. Parasites are also a concerns. There are parasites found in some meat sources than can lead to serious illness and death. The aforementioned are factual, however, occurs rarely. Getting the meat from a good source and handling the meat correctly is of utmost importance. The risk of illness, especially from Salmonella also exist with kibbles, hence, wash your hands and clean areas you prepare meats appropriately.
The next issue that must be considered is feeding a balanced diet. Meat alone does not make a balanced diet. It must be supplemented with additional nutrients. Many commercial diets too are not balanced. It is true you get what you pay for in most cases.
Feed a balanced diet you are comfortable feeding. You are the accountable party. If you or the animal gets sick you are responsible.
by Hundmutter on 10 February 2018 - 22:02
GK1, thanks. You ask about feeding and longevity - my contribution to this is as follows: I have had the daily care and feeding, for various owners and various lengths of time, of approx. 100 GSDs over a timespan of 50 years, plus, one at a time, my own Shepherd house dogs. They have almost all been fed on (differing brands of) kibble, almost all of the time. Dogs in my care have, more often than not, all lived into the double figures about which you asked. I lost none before the age of 8 years to cancers or other fatal diseases, IIRC. My current house dog, the only one I am left with these days, is 13.
So I can only conclude, on that basis, that feeding prepared dog food kibbles do no great damage to dogs. Experience is subjective, of course; and Jamrock is correct in that it is our responsibility what they are given to eat. If one is unhappy about the results, one should change, or ask to have changed, the food. I have never seen a need to do so (except in the above mentioned case of using Eukenuba until the wheat content increase was thoroughly rejected by e.g. the husky fanciers, and gave good cause for a rethink). Have certainly never seen evidence of a need to switch to raw, whether I thought that would have been practical or not.
by Centurian on 11 February 2018 - 13:02
I am a amazed at the lack of simple common sense about raw fed meals for dogs : Aside from this article or that article , this position or that position. Just use common sense and consider " . How many restaurants even put a warning about eating certain foods raw ?
When considering the food bought by human consumption , how many times have there been serious recalls on food from contamination ? How many food franchises have had contaminated food from sources ?
Are we not ourselves advised to cook this item at this temperature , that item at that temperature . Are we constantly advised how to ' properly ' handle food before preparation as well as how to specifically prepare the food . This is just pure common knowledge and common sense. For the record , the issue is not what type of food to feed , but rather the issue is about the food being ' RAW ". I suggest , to simply cook the food . Amazing the blow back on cooking the food , rather than giving the food raw ! There are enough recalled foods for people.. your food is not 100% without blemish , how fool hardy you are to think that your dog's raw food is not ! Raw food , you people just amaze me ... your food is not even safe yet you think your dog's food somehow is safer and at no risk . You think your dog food raw diets are better handled than your own bought food . Somehow you put your faith rather than your common sense in an industry that claims raw diet food is untouchable, when your own food has risks. .. Wonderful logic you have , in that you are willing to take the risk , rather than taking food ; raw food and cooking eat .
BTW , when you bring 'kibble into the conversation , you are talking about a completely different topic. A discussion of raw food vs. kibble food , is not the same conversation about raw/ uncooked food vs. cooked food . Those are two separate issues. The point I make : rather than feeding something raw.. just take the time and cook it to make sure the food is as safe as if you are eating it. Kibble : that is a whole topic in itself and you pollute the topic by introducing something altogether different.
by Hundmutter on 11 February 2018 - 14:02
Last time I considered the question, Centurian, there were apparently just as many cases of food poisoning from restaurants related to cooked food, as ever were ascribed to the raw ingredients, or to dishes eaten raw. Sorry; your argument just does not stand up. Same is true of non-restaurant cookery; a lot of people get food poisoning or just gastric upsets from home cooking. It isn't just about rawness of ingredients, its about storage, and temperatures, and handling of all sorts. After purchase. And unfortunately 'common sense' is not always in evidence.
Few people in this world have gotten mad keen on the current fad for eating everything raw; that is a minority position if ever I saw one. It does not negate the irrefutable fact that a majority of people's diet in the developed world contains far too much processed food for our own good. Not every raw ingredient reaches the consumer having been badly stored and handled, either. I am quite happy to eat raw things if they have just been dug up from my garden or my neighbours. I feel most things are pretty safe when I purchase them, too; I cook meat because its more digestible (for humans) and tastes better, but I do not cremate everything - I like steak really 'rare' for example - and for every chlorinated chicken, there are commercial sources that are not indulging in such tricks. And regulations vary from nation to nation.
Nor, as far as I can see, do those who feed raw diets to their dogs make claims that their dogs will never suffer any problems. They just believe it is more natural and has better results in general than a diet of smushed together almost unidentifiable proteins and vegetable matter, as evidenced to some extent or another in most processed dog foods. I have no quarrel with that view; if they want to tie themselves to storing and preparing and balancing it properly, because they think their dogs' coats are shinier, their teeth cleaner, and their intestinal health etc improved due to a raw diet, I would not argue with their right to do it, or question their intelligence / knowledge.
by GK1 on 11 February 2018 - 20:02
Quite a bit of common sense has been applied to this debate so far. Hundmutter offered a balanced, sensible (even global) perspective as well as a helpful anecdote based on five decades of first hand experience.
The more I read about this issue the more I realize there is no simple answer, beyond - “if the [___] diet works for dog and you, then continue”... However, the feeding of corn and grain based feeds with high concentrations of additives, preservatives and chemicals imo is not defensible. Not all 2018 kibbles are created equal. Most commercial products of course are produced by rendering/creamating, so I believe there is some degree of overlap with the raw meat vs. cooked meat nutritional value debate.
Have in fact modern dogs’ digestive tracts evolved significantly from wild ancestors?
by benzi on 11 February 2018 - 22:02
by Hundmutter on 11 February 2018 - 22:02
Depends on how you define "significantly", I believe. Not to an extent that they are now completely different, for sure. I expect some university somewhere has researched this; I 'll try to take the time to google what is available.
I wasn't kidding when i asked Centurian if he'd never seen the sheer enjoyment with which some of our dogs catch and devour wild raw food additions to the diet we feed them. Where I worked, we had open fields and lots of rabbits and pheasants, and it was not uncommon for these to be caught and eaten whole, as a 'fun snack' (the dogs were more than adequately fed !). We had one dog in particular who was skilled at catching bunnies, and when he did so always ate every scrap, ears and all, except the lower intestine. It never made him particularly ill - perhaps his stool was a little loose occasionally, but that could just mean he was getting too much food in total.
An interesting aside: I heard today about a domestic herd of cattle who are unusually pastured in woodland for a large part of the year. It shows that the ordinary cow is still not at such an evolutionary distance from the ancient aurochs that these cows make use of the browse; they eat everything they can reach, even though also fed cattle cake and silage like most herds are. We just don't think of cattle eating like their wild ancestors because we are so used to seeing them on grass. It does not mean they can't.
You must be logged in to reply to posts