RAW FED PUPS VS. KIBBLE FED PUPS- PICTURES - Page 8

Why is the burden of proof in my hands? You lost me. Because I started the thread someone suggested somebody should start rather than ruin Paula's thread w/bickering? 'Splain, please. 

How can you prove something is "X" amount better? This is where science systematically fails, numbers and statistics can be manipulated to say anything you want, and why I refused to go to veterinary school. 

I talked to Jean on the phone not that long ago about puppy diet, and what she was feeding didn't strike me as that much different than Caleb was eating, back in 2003, at her house. Kirkland's puppy food isn't half bad, for what it is (reasonably priced, easily available in bulk)

Here is an ingredient list. I don't like the grain, but it's waaaaaay better than the "big name" brands.  Add stuff to it, and you've got a relatively decent meal. http://www.dogfoodanalysis.com/dog_food_reviews/showproduct.php?product=1030&cat=5

Veterinary medicine doesn't have the kind of information infrastructure in place to do the level of in-depth analysis you're asking for, mfh27. And what are we as dog owners supposed to do, set up chemistry labs in our basements? ;-) Why are we supposed to be providing the evidence? Veterinary medicine needs to step up its game and quit relying on Iams and Hills to do the thinking for them (speaking generally, not of individual vets). I'd love to see less vets selling Science Crap. My dogs are thriving on raw, they weren't on kibble. My vet supports my raw diet plan. That's going to have to be good enough for me, because kibble certainly wasn't working. I'd love to have more data on the whys and hows, but I just don't see that happening any time soon.

Main reason for that is that they (veterinary/drug companies/Hills/etc.) certainly wouldn't benefit!

yep my dogs are on solid gold and my vet told me Akiva was too underweight and i should feed her royal canin german shepherd blend. i dont know what is in it but i got a sample package and she spit it in my face haha. this girly is the most MOST picky eater OMG there is no way i could get her to eat cheaper kibble. and yes she will starve her self if you dont feed something she likes. gah i love my shepherds XD


P.S. if i could feed raw to my guys i would but its just too much of a hastle currently

I'm asking questions because I'm hoping Jenni and other raw advocates have found evidence of significant benefits of raw.  I supplement high quality kibble with raw because I think thats whats best.  But I'm not sure.  I don't go around advocating one way or the other and don't look down on those who choose to feed their dogs differently.

Jenni you are very passionate about the topic that raw is better and kibble is crap.  There must be something you know that I don't about this topic.  It can't all just be logic of fresh versus process foods.  I want to know what you know about the topic, thats why I'm asking.  The burden of proof is on the person making any unverified claims.  You asked how do you prove something is "X" amount better.  My answer, statistics.  You quantify "better".  Longevity is already quantified.  If raw makes a dog live 2 years on average longer than a dog of the same breed fed kibble, then raw is better.  You can look at disease rates and compare average disease rates in kibble and raw fed dogs.

MollyandJack, dog owners should join forces with chicken and cattle growers to fund research.  You ask "Why are we supposed to be providing the evidence?".  If you (third person) are claiming raw is better and want people to believe or agree with you, its generally good back up the statements.  I agree, I really wish vet community would do more research on the topic.  I want to know for sure what is best for my dogs.

I'm looking for good discussion on the topic and get cranky when anecdotal stories are used to prove a point in a pretty important topic.

Michele, if you read more carefully, perhaps you wouldn't get so cranky. You have a habit of reading things and twisting them into what you want to see or what you want to argue with...very typical of someone heavily reliant on science.  Why the hell does that wink look so damn evil?!

I'm burnt out saying the same thing over and over only to have it skewed and/or misinterpreted by people who cannot wrap their brains around the idea that there are some things that are difficult, if not impossible, to quantify, yet this does not make them untrue. Again, this is the major shortcoming/failure I see in science and statisitics. There are too many variables in animals' lifestyles to definitively say what is "better." A major study would have to be done with a totally controlled group of dogs over a many year time period. Now, who is going to pay for that? And if a private group did, your mainstream science would tear it apart anyway, and we'd be right back here.

Over and out. Gotta go fix some uppity dog. 

Geez folks - just look at all of these wonderful pictures of very healthy, vibrant, shiney-coated healthy puppies!!!!  Eating a nice balanced diet - raw OR kibble - doesn't matter if the puppies are healthy they are healthy, whatever you choose to feed them or the mother.

Get over it, raw-feeding folks!

Even if I did choose to feed raw, I definately wouldn't raise baby puppies on it.  WAY too many things can go wrong. 

molly

Shelley - sure wish I had taken pictures of Tracy's beautiful Jed, covered from head to toe in feces and urine after he spun around in the kennel you insisted on putting him in because you were too lazy to take him for walks or get him out of your dog trailer (also covered in feces) until 10 am in the  morning when you finally decided to get your lazy butt out of bed every morning.  I even had to tell you to clean him off, you weren't going to do it by your own choice.  I was so happy to hear she got Jed back.  Poor dogs in Shelly's care - hope noone else ever sends her a dog for "training".

Thanks for bashing me once again on a public forum Shelley - it has reminded me to get off my behind and get those collections folks started in doing what they do best.  I had almost forgotten about doing that....  oh well thanks for reminding me about it.

molly

Nevermind - misread post

Jenni, what am I twisting?  The OP?  I gave my examples, I'm sorry my dogs defy your logic (evil wink).

You say "I'm burnt out saying the same thing over and over only to have it skewed and/or misinterpreted by people who cannot wrap their brains around the idea that there are some things that are difficult, if not impossible, to quantify, yet this does not make them untrue."  And by people you mean me   lol.  You statement goes both ways though; just because we can't study something right now doesn't necessarily make it true. Predicted logical results and actual results dont always turn out to show the same thing.  You say logically fresh foods are better for our dogs.  I'm saying maybe maybe not.  There are many things that occur in the human body that seem illogical.  There has to be some quantifiable benefit of raw or else raw feeders wouldn't be feeding it to their dogs.  I want to spur on some intelligent discussion on the topic.  I'm not for or against kibble or raw.

Here's an easy cohort study that can be done:

Take a large group of German shepherd owners and place them into 3 groups, A group is kibble feeders, B group is kibble and raw feeders, and C group exclusive raw feeders.  Blind the data collectors to which group feeds what in order to take away bias.  Call every six months to find out what medical problems the dog has if any, if the dog is alive or dead, and any changes in the dogs diet.  Then look at the data after 15 - 20 years.  A large enough data set could show some associations between disease rate or longetivity and diet.  The largest bias in the study is the pet owner who wants to prove kibble is better, or raw is better and reports false information.  But this is all basic public health.  If it can be done for humans, I don't see (other than a little bit of funding) why it cant be done for dogs.