Raw Feeders??

[jorats]

Price is not an issue for me.
Do you guys buy from a butcher or is it a specialty thing that you order from a pet supply kind of place. I've seen a couple of ads on my local kijiji where someone has to go pick up the raw food so that makes me think that we don't have anything like that here in Sudbury.

 

[Dahlas]

I get mine from a local person who sells it......They run Totally Raw Dog food http://www.totallyrawdogfood.com/
....they don't recommend feeding raw and kibble but I have been doing this for a few years and have not had any problems.....

 

[Bamboo]

Bamboo, as for the weather concern, in severely cold weather like that, people will often do more tripe meals, fish based meals, or meat with the bone ground in. All stuff that can be eaten in a dish.

I always figured if I ever were to switch to raw, that's how I would do it...the ground type. But then people tell me that that isn't complete enough and I would have to do the frames and meaty bones. My problem with that is my dog isn't a big chewer. I've tried a whole bunch of things, including a meaty bone once, and she simply doesn't bother chewing on things for longer then a few minutes. When I gave her the meaty bone she didn't even chew it...she took it from me, walked over to her bed, dropped it there, smelled it and then walked away and started playing with one of her toys. She never looked at it again.

Are there any good, legit studies that anybody would recommend? I am intrigued but I would like to get a "big picture". Almost everywhere I look, I can only really find the benefits of raw and almost nothing about drawbacks.

 

[Sorraia]

On the other hand, I do know that kibble was (is?) more for the owner's then the dogs -it's cheap (compared to raw), convenient and there's no "eww! body parts!" factor.

At least for me personally... raw is actually cheaper than the high quality kibbles available, and even cheaper than canned. Prior to making the switch to raw, I was feeding 1 50 pound dog and 3 cats, and easily spending about $100-120 a month in food. After switching to raw, that cost dropped to $2-3 a day for all 4 animals, or about $60-90 a month.

HOWEVER - cost is definitely going to vary, depending on what is available. I am fortunate to have a local co-op that can purchase food in bulk (human grade food I might add! meaning I can "share" with my animals) direct from the source without paying the middle man. Someone who hunts or knows someone who hunts can probably get good quality product for even cheaper.

I do wonder about bacteria -not so much in the sense of making my animals sick but in terms of if, say, my dog was chewing in a meaty bone or chicken frame or something and was holding it with her paws, like they do, and then walked around the house...is that not going to spread bacteria all over the place?(snipped) And what about the cat?

Where do your pets walk on a regular basis? What are the walking through in the process? How is a dog or cat eating raw and getting it on their paws any different from the same animal walking through a yard they have pooped in, or scratching around in the litter box? You don't have to feed a raw diet to be concerned about what might be on your animals' paws... or in their mouth... LONG before I started feeding raw, my cats were tracking dirty litter ALL over my house, including into my bed and on my pillow....

I know there are probably easy answers to things like this but like I said, I'm not totally sold on the 'raw is the answer to all problems' mindset. I admit I have not looked to deeply into it recently but I had trouble finding many answers that didn't originate from a producer of a raw diet. As corporate as kibble companies are, raw companies are trying to push their products too.

I avoid information provided by corporations on purpose for that reason. Instead, I look at it from the standpoint of a biologist. How do our bodies (and our pets' bodies) process nutrition? How do they process the food we feed them to provide that nutrition? What were their bodies designed to process? How nutrient dense are those foods? How bioavailable are the nutrients in that food? What are the holistic benefits to this food versus that food? Etc.

And something that really bothers me is that, almost inevitably, when I talk to people about maybe switching to raw, people will say "You really should! After all, you have a German Shepherd and they're closer to wolves then most other dogs so she needs raw even more then most dogs." I'm sorry but that is simply not the way it works...I don't know where people get the idea that different breeds = different species. Be it the urban legend that pit bulls have a mechanism in their jaws that allow them to 'lock' or people claiming that their GSDs, Huskies or Malamutes are some sort of primeval 'missing link' between dogs and wolves, that sort of talk really irritates me because it's simply not true. No matter how different they may seem they're all canis familiaris. Not to mention that German Shepherd Dogs are actually a relatively new breed, something like 200 years old. A far cry from some ancient connection to wolves...

Anyone who says that doesn't understand dog biology or the raw diet. Ignore those people and what they have to say.

However - one thing to consider in this whole debate - how long as kibble been around? Kibble is actually a fairly modern invention. For thousands of years domesticated dogs and cats have either been eating table scraps (raw and cooked) or hunting for their own food. If it worked for thousands of years, what is so different today that it has to be such a hot button issue? Especially considering we have a lot more scientific and nutritional information available today than what was back then.

 

[Bamboo]

Where do your pets walk on a regular basis? What are the walking through in the process? How is a dog or cat eating raw and getting it on their paws any different from the same animal walking through a yard they have pooped in, or scratching around in the litter box? You don't have to feed a raw diet to be concerned about what might be on your animals' paws... or in their mouth... LONG before I started feeding raw, my cats were tracking dirty litter ALL over my house, including into my bed and on my pillow....

Yeah I guess that's true.

Especially considering we have a lot more scientific and nutritional information available today than what was back then.

But that's my main question...is there any actual proof that raw is better? I agree that it's much more natural then kibble but is it actually proven to be better?

 

[Sorraia]

Where cleanliness is concerned:
My older dog eats in the kitchen, my younger dog eats in her crate, the cats eat in one of the bathrooms. All of these surfaces can be mopped up afterward. Cleaning up after a raw meal is no different than cleaning up after handling raw meat for people. What do you use on your counter tops? What do you clean your utensils and cutting boards with? Use that to clean the floor the pet ate on. I actually have a placemat for my cats, because they like eating on the soft surface, but they don't always use it, sometimes they just drag it onto the floor anyways. For larger bones, my dogs eat outside separated (one in the yard, one on the back deck which I can put a gate up to separate) or one outside and one in her crate. I don't have to worry about weather because it stays pretty mild here year round.

And again with the cleanliness - what do your animals walk through? Especially cats. How do you clean up after that? If you are worried about bacteria in raw meat, you should also worry about what comes out the other end and gets tracked all over the house without you knowing...

 

[Sorraia]

Especially considering we have a lot more scientific and nutritional information available today than what was back then.

But that's my main question...is there any actual proof that raw is better? I agree that it's much more natural then kibble but is it actually proven to be better?

I would need to go back through my research I did years ago, but on the same token... is there proof that a processed diet is better?

My anecdotal experience with my pets is that raw is far better than kibble. But that's really just anecdote. Considering the increasing number of recalls for pet food in recent years, I would say raw is better as long as you know where your raw is coming from (and really - if you are going to feed a raw diet, you should know where it is coming from).

 

[littledevils]

Proof for me is that I had a dog who had to go to the vet at least twice a month because he had horrible horrible allergies. Both food allergies and environmental allergies. At 6 months of age, my vet wanted to put him on daily antihistamines and steroids for the rest of his life after we've done elimination diets and eliminated a gazillion things in his environment (e.g. no fabric softener, avoid grass when it was wet etc). I wasn't ready to do that unless we tried everything else before. So as a last resort we switched him to raw.

Within 2 weeks all of his problems disappeared and haven't come back.

He is almost 10 yrs old now. He looks and acts like a one year old. When I tell people how old he is, their jaw drops and they cannot believe it. He does not have to go to the vet other than yearly exam.

Before we switched him to raw, he was very aggressive. Once he was on raw he started to calm down. Eating bones almost act like a punching bag for him where he can let out all of his aggression.

He is doing fantastic. Before raw he was miserable. That is proof enough for me.

I have many friends with similar stories.

I'm not saying it is a cure for everything and prevents everything. But it sure as heck gave my dog his quality of life back.

When it comes to my cat, she had horrible teeth to the point where soon she would have needed a dental. No more, her teeth are sparkly white. Her coat is great, she's doing great. Before her poops would clear a room. Literally. It was horrible. Now you don't smell anything so that's been a lovely bonus.

 

[Bamboo]

Especially considering we have a lot more scientific and nutritional information available today than what was back then.

But that's my main question...is there any actual proof that raw is better? I agree that it's much more natural then kibble but is it actually proven to be better?

I would need to go back through my research I did years ago, but on the same token... is there proof that a processed diet is better?

OK, I worded that wrong...what I really wonder is if it really matters at all whether it's raw or kibble, so long as nutritional needs are being met and, if so, which way is superior (and why?)

As for anecdotal evidence, without sounding like I'm doubting anybody, I am wary of it. I, personally, like numbers, statistics, etc.

 

[littledevils]

Other proof - Wait til you see Pickles in a few weeks
She's refusing to eat any kibble and wet. She looks miserable and not just because of her injuries. She is nutritionally deprived.
After she only ate 1/4 c of kibble in 2 days I switched her to raw. She already had 2 small meals since noon. She needs good nutrition so desperately!

Here's a video I just took today, her second raw meal of the day
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBsAwkuByuM

Her back isn't as wide as your palm, check out her rib cage/tummy... She's quite tall but just skin and bones.

Stay tuned how she'll look like in a few weeks

 

[Moon]

what I really wonder is if it really matters at all whether it's raw or kibble, so long as nutritional needs are being met and, if so, which way is superior (and why?)

No matter how nutritionally balanced a processed food is, it will never be as healthy as fresh foods prepared at home. If for no other reason than that, a raw or home cooked diet will always be superior.

I've been going through a lot of health problems, and between dealing with my GP, rheumatologist, nutritionist and now integrative medicine doctor the basic advice is always the same - the more fresh, home made food I eat, the better.

 

[Maple]

Many times dogs get a hold of a cooked bone, those spliter, raw bones do not spliter.

Raw bones DO splinter.
I think alot has to do with the genetics of the animal. What one can tolerate another cannot. I made a good effort to try raw and failed 100%. Different issues for 2 different dogs. I finally gave up after spending thousands of dollars in vet bills. Allergies are allergies, one of my dogs has an allergy to fish. Fish in kibble or fish raw causes the same effect. The genetic make up of the animal is the bottom line. My girlfriend feeds her cats the cheapest **** on the market, smokes 3 packs of cigarettes a day (in the house, her cats NEVER go outside so this crap is filling their lungs 24/7) and yet she has never had a cat live under 19 years of age, how do you explain that one except for the genetic make up of the animals. People should do for all their animals what works best be it kibble or raw as no one can really PROVE what method is better for all.

 

[Sorraia]

OK, I worded that wrong...what I really wonder is if it really matters at all whether it's raw or kibble, so long as nutritional needs are being met and, if so, which way is superior (and why?)

As for anecdotal evidence, without sounding like I'm doubting anybody, I am wary of it. I, personally, like numbers, statistics, etc.

On the same token, how do we know all needs are being met through a processed diet? There can be plenty of numbers and statistics showing it is so... but there's always going to be that one factor not accounted for. Scientific studies aren't always the end all be all - and I say that AS a scientist. There is always SOMETHING we aren't going to know. Just think... how many studies are constantly being redone and the conclusions being changed? Why is that? Because someone though to look at a different study group or a different factor. Maybe in this study on eggs they looked at the cholesterol and saturated fat only and concluded eggs are bad, but in another study they looked at additional factors, such as what kind of cholesterol was in the egg, what other nutrients are in the egg, how the egg was cooked and what that cooking process does to the nutrients, how the nutrients interact with one another, etc. Based on that second study, the conclusion was changed - eggs aren't as bad as we thought them to be. So EVEN IF there were studies done on raw vs. processed diets (I really don't think there are), what does that mean? More importantly - who funded those studies and what conclusions did they WANT to see? Many times, studies are in fact flawed, because the funding source wants to see a particular result. No, it isn't supposed to be that way, but that's often how it is - which is why those of us who do work in the sciences are taught and trained to think critically and consider as many factors as possible.

But honestly - when a biological being is made to consume a specific diet, how can processed ever be better? How can processed even be equal? One major problem with processed - it has to be cooked. Cooking destroys natural nutrients and enzymes. The foods we eat are required by our bodies for a reason: not only are they nutritious for our bodies, but they are balanced and contain important enzymes that help us to digest those nutrients. Same thing for our pets. When we start cooking and destroying those nutrients and enzymes, how do we replace them? Through more processing: adding synthetically created nutrients. Is this really equal to natural? Not always. Sometimes the balance is off. Sometimes the bioavailability is lower. Sometimes there are important enzymes that are NOT replaced that are important in the absorption, utilization, or synthesis of those nutrients. There ARE studies on these factors (and many of these studies are being included in my NOM-ology research - see signature, these aren't things that are isolated to one species, but can be applied to many species). These are important factors to consider when choosing a diet for not only ourselves, but our pets.

Does that mean raw is the only option? No, not necessarily. Does that mean it is always going to be the answer? Not always. Does that mean that maybe it is the better solution 99% of the time? Possibly. Does it mean it is worth trying? Absolutely, and that's the statement I lean most in favor of. If you are trying to do what is best for your animal, you have the resources available to you, and you feel comfortable trying it, then by all means try it for a month or two and see if it works for you and your pets. You might be surprised! If you don't want to try it, that's your choice, and that doesn't necessarily mean it is a bad choice. But for those of us who have tried it (especially after years of trying to find a high quality processed diet that provides full health benefits, hasn't been recalled, and isn't going to break us financially, and having no success) and seen the results we have, the proof is in the pudding, seeing is believing. I believe it is superior.

 

[Sorraia]

Many times dogs get a hold of a cooked bone, those spliter, raw bones do not spliter.

Raw bones DO splinter.
I think alot has to do with the genetics of the animal. What one can tolerate another cannot. I made a good effort to try raw and failed 100%. Different issues for 2 different dogs. I finally gave up after spending thousands of dollars in vet bills. Allergies are allergies, one of my dogs has an allergy to fish. Fish in kibble or fish raw causes the same effect. The genetic make up of the animal is the bottom line. My girlfriend feeds her cats the cheapest s**t on the market, smokes 3 packs of cigarettes a day (in the house, her cats NEVER go outside so this crap is filling their lungs 24/7) and yet she has never had a cat live under 19 years of age, how do you explain that one except for the genetic make up of the animals. People should do for all their animals what works best be it kibble or raw as no one can really PROVE what method is better for all.

Genetics isn't always everything though. Why do some identical twins live in the same place, same conditions, etc, yet one has health problems the other doesn't? Genetically they are the same, since identical twins occur when a fertilized egg splits (as opposed to fraternal twins where two eggs are fertilized independently by different sperm). Environmentally they are living in the same conditions. Yet they aren't the same. Why is your friends' cats living past 19 years of age while living in a smoker's house? I doubt it is genetics if it keeps happening - since every cat she gets is going to have very different genetics (unless she is keeping a bunch of highly inbred cats...). There is much more to it than that. These are the things science can't answer, at least not yet. There is so much more to life than just genetics. Can genetics play a factor? Absolutely. But that's not everything. A lot of newer studies are finding this out - while some issues are strongly tied to genetics, others are not, and the majority are actually a strong interaction of genetics and environment - and not anyone environmental factor, but a NUMBER of environmental factors: nutrition, diet (nutrition alone isn't enough, sometimes it is the source of nutrition), exercise, air quality, water quality, chemicals in the soil, chemicals in our homes, drugs, mental health, emotional health, etc etc etc. All of these interact with each other in such a complex way, no one currently understands it fully, only small parts of it.

Yes, allergies are allergies, but that's the thing about raw: it is so much easier to control what you are putting into your pets and you have a number of options. Your dog is allergic to fish? Raw doesn't require fish. So use chicken, beef, goat, lamb, wild game, etc instead. The problem with kibble is ingredients can be hidden. You have to sit there and look at every single ingredient on a list that may have dozens of ingredients on it. Maybe the ingredient isn't clearly listed either, maybe some obscure scientific name is used instead. Raw isn't like that, at least not if you are making it at home. When I feed my dogs, I KNOW they are getting chicken or beef. I don't need to worry about what else is mixed up in it. I don't need to worry about melamine tainting their food, as long as I know where that food came from. That's not to say everyone HAS to go to raw, BUT there really are so many more options with raw than with have with a processed diet. And when you get into it, it really is NOT as hard as it looks. Does that mean it is absolutely going to work with every single animal? Not necessarily, but when it doesn't work, do we really know it is THAT animal, or maybe how the diet is being set up?

 

[Moon]

no one can really PROVE what method is better for all.

Exactly. Not any one solution is going to be a global fix. But I do think that raw diets still aren't considered a solution for a lot of animals when they could very well be the best thing for them.

 

[Sorraia]

no one can really PROVE what method is better for all.

Exactly. Not any one solution is going to be a global fix. But I do think that raw diets still aren't considered a solution for a lot of animals when they could very well be the best thing for them.

I agree. More often than not raw is not even considered an option.

 

[littledevils]

re: allergies

Cooking/processing does alter it.

My guy while on kibble could not have beef or chicken. Allergies.

Guess what he eats all the time now. Raw beef and chicken.

Many friends had the same thing happening with their dogs. Couldn't handle a certain processed meat/food but are fine with it in raw form. Not saying that this will be the same each time but... there most definitely are difference between raw and food that has been cooked/processed.

 

[Bamboo]

See, this is the problem with anecdotal "evidence"...in this thread alone and there are claims on both sides. My main problem with raw feeding is how difficult it is to find unbiased and clear information on it. I looked though tons of pages for a good portion of the night (and that, along with other things, have made it impossible to sleep -hence my being awake at this ridiculous hour on a day off lol) and have very little to show for it. There seem to be only 'raw' pages and 'kibble' pages, both of which are very condescending to each other. And both are filled with anecdotal evidence, tons of it: vets who say raw is the best diet, vets who say raw is the worst diet, dogs who have almost died from raw and dogs who have been brought back from the brink of death by raw, the argument that it's the most natural diet, only to be countered with wolves die from obstructions and malnutrition all the time in the wild, and so on and so on...

Just so my position is clear: I'm not against raw -I've fed raw and I plan to feed it again. I agree that it is totally the most natural way to feed animals. I just don't like when there is so little information other then what people say because there are so many factors. It wouldn't be beyond corporations to pay people to go on the internet and say how amazing their product is...or how somebody else's product almost killed their dog. Vets often have interests in who's feeding what to their animals and even if they don't, I think we're all aware of the fact that vet=\=nutritionist. People are also much more susceptible to the power of suggestion then we think: if somebody hears that raw is some sort of cure-all ambrosia, then they may start to 'see' all kinds of results that may or may not be there. Same goes with kibble.

Many times, studies are in fact flawed, because the funding source wants to see a particular result. No, it isn't supposed to be that way, but that's often how it is - which is why those of us who do work in the sciences are taught and trained to think critically and consider as many factors as possible.

But honestly - when a biological being is made to consume a specific diet, how can processed ever be better? How can processed even be equal? One major problem with processed - it has to be cooked. Cooking destroys natural nutrients and enzymes.

If we're going to doubt studies, then how do we know any of this. Of course studies reveal different things over time: that is the nature of science. Does that mean we should stop just because we could find something different (or additional) next time? I don't think so.

(All this being said, I'll reiterate: I like raw -I've fed raw. I agree that it's more natural, especially from a biology stand point. There are risks but there are risks stepping out the front door but we don't let that stop us (or at least, we shouldn't lol) we take precautions. I do have concerns about it but these are more about the lack of info rather then the diet itself. I'm mostly just playing devil's advocate since this is a fantastic debate and I haven't had one of those in a long time :mrgreen: )

 

[jorats]

This is very interesting. I'm going to read more on this.
Also, I think my main problem would be finding a raw diet for dogs in Sudbury.
I am not confident enough in myself to "make up" the diet. I get my meat from Superstore. I highly doubt their meat is handled with care or even comes from the best places.

 

[Sorraia]

re: allergies

Cooking/processing does alter it.

My guy while on kibble could not have beef or chicken. Allergies.

Guess what he eats all the time now. Raw beef and chicken.

Many friends had the same thing happening with their dogs. Couldn't handle a certain processed meat/food but are fine with it in raw form. Not saying that this will be the same each time but... there most definitely are difference between raw and food that has been cooked/processed.

I didn't even consider that, but it is very true! I have an allergy to milk, but not the milk itself, something in the milk. I am fine with other dairy products - the processing they go through destroys or removes whatever is causing my allergy. (I suspect it might be a hormone or something else added to milk, because I have recently found out I am fine with organic milk. Tried it on advice of my midwife.)