# Raw Vs. Kibble, size of the dog



## SteveTheDog (Jan 30, 2012)

I've heard conflicting arguments that a raw diet will yield a smaller dog once full grown vs. a kibble diet for large breed. Any truth to this? Do they grow at a different rate on raw?

Steve is on a completely raw and scoffs at any kind of kibble. No plans of changing, but just wanted to ask the question.


----------



## Emoore (Oct 9, 2002)

I think Josie's Koda would argue with you. He's raw fed, 1 year old, and nearly 90lb lean. He's the biggest pup from his litter.


----------



## SteveTheDog (Jan 30, 2012)

Emoore said:


> I think Josie's Koda would argue with you. He's raw fed, 1 year old, and nearly 90lb lean. He's the biggest pup from his litter.


but if he were fed kibble would he have ended up bigger than 90lbs? that is the argument.


----------



## Emoore (Oct 9, 2002)

There's absolutely no way to know that. You're asking a question with no answer. The best we have is a littermate to littermate comparison.


----------



## SteveTheDog (Jan 30, 2012)

Emoore said:


> There's absolutely no way to know that. You're asking a question with no answer. The best we have is a littermate to littermate comparison.


There is no way to know it based upon that dog. However, if you took a sample of pups on raw vs. pups on kibble and compare sizing over a time you could get a decent idea. 

I am sure there is enough data on this site to compare the two.


----------



## Emoore (Oct 9, 2002)

To the best of my knowledge, there hasn't been a double-blind control study done on this. If you wanted you could start a poll to try to get an idea.


----------



## Josie/Zeus (Nov 6, 2000)

Zeus was kibble fed for about 9 months before I switched him to raw, he grew very fast and was oversized by the time he was 1 year old he was 28 inches tall. His sire and dam and siblings were all within standard. 

Koda was kibble fed until 5 months old- he got some raw food while at the breeder's but mostly kibble. He was a whopping 70 lbs. at 5 months old. 

I started Koda on raw at 5 months 4 days old, his weight was all over the place, sometimes going all the way up to 92 lbs. He has been steady at 88 lbs for 2 months now and I don't expect him to gain much more than that. I don't know how much Xbox (his sire) weighs.


----------



## Emoore (Oct 9, 2002)

I didn't know Koda was an Xbox pup!


----------



## Castlemaid (Jun 29, 2006)

I'm pretty sure that barring some pathologically serious nutritional deficiency, dogs will grow to the size their genes dictate. I don't think that comparing littermates would be indicative of anything. For example, Gryffon and Karlo are littermates, and both are on raw from puppyhood, both have a tall, lean, wirey structure, yet Karlo had a good 10 to 15 pounds on Gryff growing up, and settling into their adult weight.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

I also think that rawfed dogs tend to have more muscle mass than a kibble fed dog. They utilize everything they take in and there is little waste. So maybe a rawfed dog may be smaller compared to the same dog being kibble fed, because there is little fat on the dog. 
Structure is what it is genetically, but muscle/fat is more from the way the dog is raised/exercised/fed.


----------



## Emoore (Oct 9, 2002)

Castlemaid said:


> I'm pretty sure that barring some pathologically serious nutritional deficiency, dogs will grow to the size their genes dictate. I don't think that comparing littermates would be indicative of anything. .


I don't think it is either, just pointing out it's really the only thing we have. You can't raise a dog on kibble, then make him a puppy again and raise him on raw.


----------



## SteveTheDog (Jan 30, 2012)

Emoore said:


> I don't think it is either, just pointing out it's really the only thing we have. You can't raise a dog on kibble, then make him a puppy again and raise him on raw.


but you can take a sample of dogs that were raised on kibble and dogs raised on raw and draw conclusions. 

example, there is a chart that tells you the range your dog should weigh and height should be based upon its age. You then take in account whether the dog was kibble or raw fed and if they are in the upper end or the lower end of the allotted range. 

fairly simple.


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

The size of a mature dog is based on genetics. Raw fed dogs tend to mature more slowly, but they will still grow to the size they were genetically programmed to be.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

> but you can take a sample of dogs that were raised on kibble and dogs raised on raw and draw conclusions.
> 
> example, there is a chart that tells you the range your dog should weigh and height should be based upon its age. You then take in account whether the dog was kibble or raw fed and if they are in the upper end or the lower end of the allotted range.
> 
> fairly simple.


No, because lines(genetics) play into it and how active the dog is. And of course the quality of the nutrition the dog receives.
Like Lucia said, each dog is individual and will grow according to the genetics first then the diet. If I had put Karlo on kibble, I bet he'd be heavier than he was during his growing stages. As it is, he is on the thin side-yet 30# heavier than his sisters(a few are rawfed), and 10 more than his only brother(rawfed). But oddly, they are all very similar in their look, temperament and athleticism. Karlo was just dealt the bigger head and longer body. Maybe it's my water :blush: , because Onyx is also 90# and built like him, yet a female(rawfed from 6 mos on)
They both had a couple bouts of Pano, too.


----------



## Emoore (Oct 9, 2002)

SteveTheDog said:


> but you can take a sample of dogs that were raised on kibble and dogs raised on raw and draw conclusions.
> 
> example, there is a chart that tells you the range your dog should weigh and height should be based upon its age. You then take in account whether the dog was kibble or raw fed and if they are in the upper end or the lower end of the allotted range.
> 
> fairly simple.


Not simple at all.

Correlation does not imply causation, and there are a lot of variables to be taken into account. People who feed raw are also unlikely to neuter prior to 1 year of age. They are likely to vaccinate less. They are likely to be involved in dog sports. They are more likely to purchase from a breeder who does health testing and titling. Certainly people who feed kibble do these things too (I do) but your average raw feeder is more self-educated about dogs than your average kibble feeder. On the flip side, your average buyer of "Oversized" and "Old fashioned" dogs is less educated about German Shepherds in general and may be more likely to feed kibble. Whereas your average buyer of the lighter, leaner working lines may be more likely to feed raw. Without the ability to control for all those variables, any correlation is meaningless.


----------



## Clyde (Feb 13, 2011)

Emoore said:


> Not simple at all.
> 
> Correlation does not imply causation, and there are a lot of variables to be taken into account. People who feed raw are also unlikely to neuter prior to 1 year of age. They are likely to vaccinate less. They are likely to be involved in dog sports. They are more likely to purchase from a breeder who does health testing and titling. Certainly people who feed kibble do these things too (I do) but your average raw feeder is more self-educated about dogs than your average kibble feeder. On the flip side, your average buyer of "Oversized" and "Old fashioned" dogs is less educated about German Shepherds in general and may be more likely to feed kibble. Whereas your average buyer of the lighter, leaner working lines may be more likely to feed raw. Without the ability to control for all those variables, any correlation is meaningless.


Totally agree not simple at all! 


And really who cares

Also I really hate those age/weight charts. They cause much unnecessary concern and speculation. I think people should spend way more time looking at a body condition chart as their dog is growing instead of the other type.


----------



## anjum (Oct 29, 2011)

onyx'girl said:


> I also think that rawfed dogs tend to have more muscle mass than a kibble fed dog. They utilize everything they take in and there is little waste. So maybe a rawfed dog may be smaller compared to the same dog being kibble fed, because there is little fat on the dog.
> Structure is what it is genetically, but muscle/fat is more from the way the dog is raised/exercised/fed.


^^^This. All of my animals (2 dogs, 3 cats) were switched to raw as adults. I've noticed a marked difference in their muscle mass - they are much more 'muscly' after being on a raw diet, & the muscle definition is more pronounced. I guess this would indicate they have less body fat. And I don't limit fat in their diet, but they get little carbs.


----------



## Verivus (Nov 7, 2010)

onyx'girl said:


> I also think that rawfed dogs tend to have more muscle mass than a kibble fed dog. They utilize everything they take in and there is little waste. So maybe a rawfed dog may be smaller compared to the same dog being kibble fed, because there is little fat on the dog.
> Structure is what it is genetically, but muscle/fat is more from the way the dog is raised/exercised/fed.


This is so very true. With my GSD I can't say because he was raw-fed since he was 8 weeks. My papillon started on raw as an adult and she has definitely gained a couple pounds since then, though you can still feel her ribs.


----------



## SteveTheDog (Jan 30, 2012)

well here is a little update on Steve. He now just turned 8 months and he is 88 lbs. Definitely notice he seems to have more muscle mass than other GSD around his age. He is much bigger too..

crappy pictures, he is 7 1/4 months in these pics.


----------

