
This is a placeholder text
Group text

by snajper69 on 08 December 2009 - 18:12
One more thing, my trainer imported a dog SCHIII from germany, nice dog, but looked like shit, he switched him over to raw after 4 weeks, he was 9 years old!!! the dog within 4 weeks lookd like young dog, full of energy, he changed so much that most people though he got a new dog lol. How can you explain that?
by VomMarischal on 08 December 2009 - 18:12
I have to say, Keith, I am seriously looking forward to some honestly peer-reviewed research. But I don't think it's ever going to happen for the same reason all our cars don't get 200 mpg. The data is there, but special interests don't want it out in public.

by snajper69 on 08 December 2009 - 18:12

by Keith Grossman on 08 December 2009 - 18:12
On the flip side, there are documented cases of perforated bowels and chokings from bones, yes, even raw ones and all commercially available meat is a cesspool of bacteria and parasites from the slaughtering plants. That's why we cook it before we eat it...to kill those things. It can and does affect our dogs...a good friend had a bitch spontaneously abort a litter because of an E. coli infection she got from raw hamburger he gave to her.
On to the wolves and coyotes myth...
When a wild canid kills another animal for food, the first part of that animal that gets eaten are the organs. In the stomach and intestines of those animals is vegetative matter which then becomes part f the wolf or coyotes diet. Feeding dogs only protein does not satisfy all of their dietary requirements but it does increase their blood urea nitrogen and/or creatinine...sometimes to unhealthy levels.
Additionally, wild canids do not have nearly the life expectancy of domestic dogs. While it's true that this may not directly be a product of what they eat (or don't), most of the health benefits claimed by raw food advocates address long-term problems associated with aging...most wolves and coyotes simply don't live long enough to experience them.
Feed your dogs whatever makes you happy. I tried the raw food approach maybe 15 years or so ago and my results mirrored those of the veterinary community; I saw no benefit to doing so. Call me pragmatic but if its potentially harmful and there is no real benefit, I don't see the point.

by snajper69 on 08 December 2009 - 18:12
really that's why the shake the stomach content out or is this just a myth as well? lol
You did raw 15 years or so ago, for how long?
I guess people that been feeding raw for as long as they can remember are just lucky huh? lol
"made from human food ingredients" did you went and inspect their plant on your own or is this just a pure assumption based on their own claim?
"Additionally, wild canids do not have nearly the life expectancy of domestic dogs. " why do they choke on bone, or die of e-coil? or is it due to the risk of leaving in wild enviroment?
Once again name at least 5 dog food manufacturer that did reserch that show what positive "long term" effects has their food over raw feeding. As far as I am aware not a single studie they made above 5 years. So their claims are not supported as well.
No finally when was dry dog food introduced? And what did the dog eat before that? How did dogs survive for so long without commerciall food?

by snajper69 on 08 December 2009 - 18:12
one more how about kickbacks that the vets get from selling commercial food?
and why do vets education on nutrition is based on commercial food manufacturer research? (this would be very one sided)
How come we see more and more vet recomending Raw over commercial is this a fluke as well?

by snajper69 on 08 December 2009 - 18:12
As well how many times a week you eat your dog kibbles? Since is made out of human grade ingridients why don't you eat it yourself?
Vet comunitie already was wrong about over vactination, so maybe they are wrong about nutrition as well?
Now you said you feed high quality kibble "human grade ingridients" can you show me ingridient list of the food you feed 20 years ago? As far as I am aware it was all garbage.

by Keith Grossman on 08 December 2009 - 18:12
Lots of people like feeding a raw diet and perceive a value in doing so. I consider many of the health benefits I've heard and read about anecdotal (the ear infections, for example, are most likely caused by corn or wheat in the food) but your experience may very well be different from mine and I would never begrudge any of you doing what you think is best for your animals. My experience does not support there being a perceptible difference between raw food and a good quality kibble so I feed the latter, often with whatever healthy food I am eating mixed in.
One final note: I seem to remember someone on here saying a few weeks ago that he/she gives his/her dogs grapes as part of a raw diet. Stop it! Grapes and raisins are poisonous to dogs and can cause renal failure.
by VomMarischal on 08 December 2009 - 19:12
UCDavis vet school likes to talk about perforated innards on raw fed dogs, too. Well, a friend of mine went to that school, and the truth is out...THERE WAS ONE, count 'em ONE, documented case, upon which they based their anti raw opinion. Well, there are a heck of a lot more dogs suffering from "allergies" (meaning inappropriate grain intake) and tooth decay (from eating carbs) than from perforated innards. I had a bitch with a perforated gut once, from eating a towel. Meat and bone never did get to her.
I need data that more dogs are dying from raw than from kibble. Can't find it anywhere.
A few years ago there was an interesting study in England. It was small, though, only about 120 dogs. The dogs who were fed table scraps lived an average of nearly 3 years longer than the ones fed commercial food--of course, the commercial food was all over the board from good to garbage. Wish I had saved that.

by snajper69 on 08 December 2009 - 19:12
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top