
This is a placeholder text
Group text

by ggturner on 18 April 2011 - 16:04

by Keith Grossman on 18 April 2011 - 16:04
That's quite a claim!

by isachev on 18 April 2011 - 17:04
by HighDesertGSD on 18 April 2011 - 19:04

by Jenni78 on 18 April 2011 - 20:04
by HighDesertGSD on 18 April 2011 - 20:04
by jamesfountain98 on 18 April 2011 - 21:04
I have yet to hear anybody state any source of facts stating raw food is nutritonally more beneficial than cooked food. I'm not comparing raw to kibble. I'm just wondering why "raw feeders" don't cook the food first to reduce the risk. I do know and understand that dogs have stronger digestive enzymes than people. I am not sure that dogs recieve any helpful bacteria from eating raw food. pretty sure many of those helpful bacteria are passed from the mother to offspring through collustrum and milk. If that was the case dogs eating kibble would not have any of those helpful bacterium.
One poster stated because his dogs like the taste of raw food versus cooked food better. My little girl likes candy over peas. That's the least of my concerns.
by HighDesertGSD on 18 April 2011 - 23:04

by TingiesandTails on 19 April 2011 - 00:04
The idea of eating products that are stored forever is maybe not such a good idea.If you only prepare fresh food, you have to worry less about bacteria, depending on which climate zone you live. However humanity wouldn't have survived if food preparation was indeed that dangerous. Obviously for many people healthy life style choices and nutritional education seem forgotten amongst the mass of preserved packaged food available.
I have worked for different veterinary hospitals and all "my" vets recommended and still do recommend raw food. They have not seen a dog/wild dog/wolf that cooked their food yet.

by uvw on 19 April 2011 - 13:04
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top