# Vet said only raw food is bad for my dog



## LoSt GhoSt

Well, went to the vet today so Lycan can get some shot. When they asked me what food I was feeding him, she asked me if I was still feeding him pedegree.

I responded no that I had switched him on raw food and that he was on his third day doing great, with a lot more energy. The lady gave me this stare as if I had done the worst crime in the world. She was speachless for a few seconds and then told me that dogs should be fed kibble. That just like humans, they too can get sick and that I wouldn't run off to the store to buy meat and eat it raw myself.

Then she ran off and I could hear her telling the doctor that I was feeding him raw food. Doctor came in with the shots and proceeded to tell me that raw food alone was bad for the dog. That to much protein can cause bad bone grown. That he was not against it but that I should try to keep it about 30-40% Raw and the rest of it kibble so he could get the carbohydrates and vitamins he needs.

Then he said, "We would like to think that our dogs are like wolves but the truth is that they are not, although he does look like a wolf lol". Then he said that there digestive system has evolved different then wolves and are not designed for raw food only.

... So I'm kind of in the middle of a bridge trying to figure out which direction I should take. He does have a lot more energy, doesn't smell and my back yard doesn't smell so bad but dang they make you feel like what your doing is wrong lol


----------



## BlackPuppy

I think we've all got that response at some time from a vet. Well, most of us. 

My dogs are so much healthier with raw food. Better coat, better teeth. Some dogs have shown an improved temperament with raw. 

Next time just lie to your vet.


----------



## ShenzisMom

I am all for listening to your vet. However, a vet is not an animal nutritionist. Ever wonder why vets carry garbage food like Hills? They either know better and like the money they make for carrying the stuff or don't know better at all. And I'm not sure which is worse.

As long as your dog is receiving a balanced, whole raw diet, he is fine IMO. I think your vet is concerned you may be doing it wrong, and did not want to get into a debate about what you are feeding. For the majority of people (including me, I feed TOTW) kibble is easier. But your vet should not have said that to you...if he was concerned he should have done it right and made sure your dog is eating a balanced diet, and if not, give pointers. Good for you for feeding raw!


----------



## Jax's Mom

Are you only feeding meat?


----------



## selzer

I think it is possible to feed a raw diet without any kibble, but it is not easy. It is not just a matter of throwing chicken legs at the dog and saying, go to it. It is hard for your vet to know what you are doing with your raw diet.

I just throw chicken legs at my dogs -- that is why I said that, but I do that at the most two meals out of 14 in a week's time. The rest of the time I feed a balanced kibble.

Now, I am not saying that you need to use kibble, but really have to make sure that your dog is getting a variety of meats, bones, and if not ground egg shells and probably a good supplement for phophorus -- in the proper ratios to your calcium, and you will need foods that provide anti-oxidants like blue-berries, and some vegetables -- pureed. If you have been doing it for a goodly period of time, I am sure there are short cuts and tricks, and making large batches, separating and freezing that probably makes it less difficult. 

But I can understand why your vet freaked out when you are feeding him raw. He probably does not know to what level you are committed to doing it properly. 

If you do not have hours to spend on creating a well-balanced diet for your dog, with variations, I think you should take your vet's advice and find a great kibble, and then feed fresh meat as 30-40%.


----------



## koda girl

Funny this post should come up today. I have been feeding my girl raw for 3 1/2 or 4 months now. Only raw, we buy it from a supplier. I had her at the vet this morning, he does not know that we switched to raw. Anyway I had her there because she has been limping on and off. Hard to tell which front leg it is but today we settled on the right. X-Rays nothing broken he gave her anti-inflamatories. I have been wondering if too much raw is too much. She always had diarrhea on kibble but I am thinking about trying to put 1 meal of kibble a day into her diet. I just don't want the diarrhea to come back. So I don't know what to do but I am wondering if your vet could be correct, at least for some dogs.


----------



## LoSt GhoSt

Thanks for the response guys.

Well, I'm on day 3 and just started off so the foods are not yet complete but I've been looking and reading the stickies on BARF/Raw and Nutrition sub forums to get a better understanding so rest assure I will not half ass this lol.

And time I have plenty of to make his food. 

And he also eats mangos, peaches, apples, watermelon and pineapples. I have not given him any blueberries but I have plenty of those. Ill throw some in his diet as well.


----------



## Freestep

Veterinary school teaches very little in the way of nutrition, and most of it is sponsored by corporations that manufacture dog food. Many vets also sell kibble, so it stands to reason they'd recommend it.


----------



## selzer

No better place than this to discuss this, I think. But I think a vet SHOULD say something to someone if they are feeding something. Ok, a vet is a professional, who went through a lot of college, and then a lot of grad school, and probably paid his dues in some type of internship before putting their shingle out. And still, where they list MBA average wage 100k+ and Engineers, 80K+ Vet's who have more schooling that both of these make an average of 60k -- in the neighborhood.

I am going somewhere with this.

So when they have their own practice, they have overhead (building rent or loans, equipment) and salaries to pay, expenses etc. So to bring home even 60K, they have to cram as many appointments as they can get in. Gee it cost me 40$ and I saw the vet for all of 5 minutes. Well, that might be about right when you consider what all you are paying for. 

So I think it is a bit much for us to think that a vet will be spending an hour or more just getting you started in a raw diet right. AND you will walk away with your eye balls rolling in different directions







. I think vet do see the results of people home-cooking for their dogs, or feeding raw for their dogs, but not going the distance. 

If you are feeding a decent kibble that is just not working well for your dog, you might have some skin and coat problems, overweight, underweight, less energy, and you might be able to figure that out with a change of kibbles or a good supplement. Feeding a dog an unbalanced raw diet, well, the dog could be lacking vital nutrients or ratios might be out of wack and cause some serious problems. 

There was a thread not long ago about weak pasterns and DECREASING protein actually improved that dog considerably. 

I think the vet should have said something, to the effect, if you are going to feed raw, get a good book on the subject and follow the recipes, and educate yourself on the proper ratios and what all is needed in the canine diet, or maybe give you the name of a canine nutritionist who could help you with a diet. 

With nothing more to go on, than "I'm feeding Raw." I think a vet would be unethical NOT to raise up the warning flag. (Sorry to those of you who feed raw correctly.) 

I know people who have been angry with the vet for telling them that the dog was overweight and needed to be put on a diet. They were so mad they stopped going to that vet. I applaud the vet. The vet KNEW that he might lose a customer, but did what was the right thing for the dog. the right thing for him to do, would to be to cash in on all the ailments the dog is likely to have as it ages seriously overweight -- that would do him the most good. But the vet did the right thing for the dog, but lost a customer.

Not all vets are nutritionists. But most vets have more nutrition-education the the average pet owner. For them not to give a general warning, would be somewhat unethical. I think that many of us have a pretty good working relationship with our vets and they are then less likely to give us the general disclaimer and more willing to give some meat in their discussions about food.


----------



## Draugr

Vets are not nutritionists and from what I've heard they get a 1 or 2 credit hour course in school that is taught by reps from Hills, Purina, or P&G. Quite balanced.

Raw usually results in wonderful changes for a dog. Raw can also be fed horribly and even kill a dog. Maybe that was his concern. Given what he said though, it's just a sore lack of education. Specifically:



> Then he said, "We would like to think that our dogs are like wolves but the truth is that they are not, although he does look like a wolf lol". Then he said that there digestive system has evolved different then wolves and are not designed for raw food only.


Dogs and wolves are the same species. A dog is literally the "domesticated wolf." Their dietary needs are no different at all. Their insides still work the same. They're a carnivorous animal, their dietary needs do not extend beyond what meat provides (which includes organs and raw bone).

If you aren't feeding bone supplement with a little bit of pureed vegetables or fruit for the fiber. I know some people don't like the idea of doing that and never get over the aversion to the idea.

http://www.orijen.ca/orijen/ORIJEN_White_paper.pdf

Bring this paper in for your vet to read.

~

Mine has been raw-fed since the end of February and I've noticed only positive changes. It requires more work on my end but it really isn't that difficult. Approximately 80% of the diet needs to be meat (non-secreting organs are considered meat), about 10% needs to be bone (I probably feed closer to 15% bone, but as long as your dog is eliminating just fine that's not a problem), about 5% needs to be liver, and about 5% needs to be another secreting organ. (Organ content total is about 2% of their body weight per week).

All their dietary needs as far as minerals, vitamins, amino acids, etc, are met with organs, and poultry skin like chicken (it's high in linoleic acid, organs are not). You want a variety from different meat sources - for instance, if you feed JUST beef liver it is too high in copper. Four sources of protein are ideal. I do pork, chicken, turkey, and beef since it is readily available around here.


----------



## Freestep

selzer said:


> I know people who have been angry with the vet for telling them that the dog was overweight and needed to be put on a diet. They were so mad they stopped going to that vet. I applaud the vet. The vet KNEW that he might lose a customer, but did what was the right thing for the dog. the right thing for him to do, would to be to cash in on all the ailments the dog is likely to have as it ages seriously overweight -- that would do him the most good. But the vet did the right thing for the dog, but lost a customer.


I have never understood why people get offended when they hear their dog is overweight. It's not an insult, it's a health issue! Seriously, it's not rocket science--if the dog is overweight, it's a very simple matter of feeding less and exercising more, but it's like pulling teeth to get people to understand that overweight/obesity HURTS the dog and to get them to take the weight off. I seriously don't get it, people say they "love" their dog, and yet keep it so fat the poor thing can barely get up.

I too applaud the vet who will tell their clients the pet is overweight, because so many of them won't. So many, in fact, that the cynical side of me begins to think that they want the dogs to be fat so they can make more money treating the countless ailments the dog will likely suffer.

Anyway--back to raw--it's not the best diet for ALL dogs. I had to go back to kibble with Luka because she had a hard time keeping weight on with raw.


----------



## Whiteshepherds

> http://www.orijen.ca/orijen/ORIJEN_White_paper.pdf
> 
> Bring this paper in for your vet to read.


Who wrote this article?


----------



## Draugr

Whiteshepherds said:


> Who wrote this article?


It's published by Orijen (Champion Pet Foods).


----------



## selzer

Draugr said:


> It's published by Orijen (Champion Pet Foods).


Ok, let me get this straight, you discount the nutrition class because it is designed by Hills or Purina, but you are willing to accept a paper created by a dog food company cashing in on grain-free marketing?


----------



## Draugr

selzer said:


> Ok, let me get this straight, you discount the nutrition class because it is designed by Hills or Purina, but you are willing to accept a paper created by a dog food company cashing in on grain-free marketing?


I'm not accepting it on the source's own merit. Maybe you should give it a read.

But thanks for the unwarranted sarcasm.

I'm more likely to pay attention to a paper that says a carnivore's appropriate diet is meat, rather than a company representative from a massive pet food corporation who makes their $$$ on insanely cheap ingredients, who says dogs are designed to eat corn. Any idiot can see that is not true.

If these reps came in and talking about a carnivore's optimum diet being, oh, I don't know, animal proteins, I wouldn't think anything of where they came from.

On top of that, maybe you ought to consider that a vet would be more likely to pay attention to a resource from a pet food company. That's kind of why that was given with a "show this to your vet."


----------



## selzer

Ok, let me understand this domestic dogs = wolves. 

So, has anyone truly studies a wild wolf pack and determined over the course of six months what each took in? I mean completely, Day 1, wolves take down deer, wolf 1 eats x, wolf 2 eats y, and so forth. Day 2 revisted the carcus of the deer. Day three, wolf7 catches rabbit and eats most of it before wolf2 steals the remainder. 

Are we REALLY willing to let our dogs eat like wolves? I mean really? Some days, nothing. Some days gorging (ie dogs in Elk). Wild critters have to stay lean, muscular, fast, strong, but they do not necessarily last all that long. 

I think we can probably do better than trying to mimic a wild diet for our dogs, because we are not giving them the exercise a wild wolf would see, nor are we subjecting them to the extreme environments that they manage. 

I think that in the thousands of years of evolution since wolves branched off into a variety of dog types, if that actually happened like that, digestive systems probably started evolving as soon as dogs cast their lot with men. 

Cats are obligate carnivors. I put two pancakes that were not eaten on sunday out in the woods for the critters. I was thinking the deer would eat them, or maybe a raccoon or skunk -- they have all of them in quantities there, and not afraid to come right up where people are close. Anyway it was a cat that got the pancake. That is pretty freaky, I mean, there is no meat to a pancake. 

And when I stop when I am out with the dogs, they eat hot dog or hamburger, bread and all. So will a feral dog. And if we had any around here, so would a wolf I would guess.


----------



## Dainerra

actually, a lot of RAW feeders fast their dogs on a regular basis. And one day the dog might eat more, others a bit less. One day the diet might have a bit more bone, another less. The diet balances out over the course of several days, much like a wild diet.


----------



## selzer

Draugr said:


> I'm not accepting it on the source's own merit. Maybe you should give it a read.
> 
> But thanks for the unwarranted sarcasm.
> 
> I'm more likely to pay attention to a paper that says a carnivore's appropriate diet is meat, rather than a company representative from a massive pet food corporation who makes their $$$ on insanely cheap ingredients, who says dogs are designed to eat corn. Any idiot can see that is not true.
> 
> If these reps came in and talking about a carnivore's optimum diet being, oh, I don't know, animal proteins, I wouldn't think anything of where they came from.
> 
> On top of that, maybe you ought to consider that a vet would be more likely to pay attention to a resource from a pet food company. That's kind of why that was given with a "show this to your vet."


I am around a LOT of dog people. Real people. People who show, breed, trial, train. People who have been doing it for decades. Do ya know what I hear from them. I hear how they tried this super food and that super food and many of the latest and greatest, but the one they can always come back to is Pro-plan -- ick! a Purina product. 

Purina has been making pet food for much longer than these other companies have been around. I do not feed purina, but I have their big binder on nutrition and on caring for dogs, kennel runs, etc. 

I think a lot of the latest garbage out there is as much marketing and ploys and it is sucking money out of the people who fall for it. Corn is bad, corn is bad, corn is bad. Now carbs are bad, carbs are bad, carbs are bad. Whatever. I think if you start with bad corn and rancid fat and hose it down with molassis, well yeah you will pretty much have garbage.


----------



## Freestep

selzer said:


> I think that in the thousands of years of evolution since wolves branched off into a variety of dog types, if that actually happened like that, digestive systems probably started evolving as soon as dogs cast their lot with men.


I think that there may be some truth to this. Back before there was kibble, people fed their dogs leftovers and scraps, which probably contained very little meat. Corn, potatoes, wheat, whatever staple the people ate. It stands to reason that a dogs' digestive tract could evovle to tolerate such a diet, especially since they don't have to hunt and kill their own meals. Of course a carboydrate-rich diet is not ideal for a carnivore, but over history, dogs somehow managed.



> Anyway it was a cat that got the pancake. That is pretty freaky, I mean, there is no meat to a pancake.


I have a cat that steals tomatoes off the kitchen counter. He also eats broccoli, cabbage and bread. Go figure.


----------



## LisaT

koda girl said:


> Funny this post should come up today. I have been feeding my girl raw for 3 1/2 or 4 months now. Only raw, we buy it from a supplier. I had her at the vet this morning, he does not know that we switched to raw. Anyway I had her there because she has been limping on and off. Hard to tell which front leg it is but today we settled on the right. X-Rays nothing broken he gave her anti-inflamatories. I have been wondering if too much raw is too much. She always had diarrhea on kibble but I am thinking about trying to put 1 meal of kibble a day into her diet. I just don't want the diarrhea to come back. So I don't know what to do but I am wondering if your vet could be correct, at least for some dogs.



I would also be concerned with tick disease.

If you're thinking pano, dogs on kibble also get this.

Do make sure that you have some mentors that have been raw feeding a long time to help get the diet balanced. If the limping IS pano, there is absolutely no reason to throw out everything that you are doing, you just might have to adjust it.


----------



## Verivus

A balanced raw diet is perfectly fine. Your vet is not a nutritionist. And for the record corn is bad, but I'm too lazy as usual to dig up the peer-reviewed articles that support my statement.


----------



## Draugr

selzer said:


> Are we REALLY willing to let our dogs eat like wolves? I mean really? Some days, nothing. Some days gorging (ie dogs in Elk). Wild critters have to stay lean, muscular, fast, strong, but they do not necessarily last all that long.


The idea is to mimic the content, not the frequency or style of pack eating. Although as another poster said, there are some that do gorge/fast their dog. The balance is attained over one to two weeks, however, much like a wild canid diet.



> And when I stop when I am out with the dogs, they eat hot dog or hamburger, bread and all. So will a feral dog. And if we had any around here, so would a wolf I would guess.


If we're going to start calling an animal by what it _will_ eat, rather than what is healthy/optimal, and what the animal is _designed_ to eat, then I'm sure half the dogs out there are "poopivores."



selzer said:


> I am around a LOT of dog people. Real people. People who show, breed, trial, train. People who have been doing it for decades. Do ya know what I hear from them. I hear how they tried this super food and that super food and many of the latest and greatest, but the one they can always come back to is Pro-plan -- ick! a Purina product.


Great, good for them. I'm sure you've heard this before, and many times: If all your friends jump off a cliff, are you going to?

Without knowing the specific things they tried, there's no way you or I can make any intelligent commentary on what they're saying. For all I know they think some Hill's diet is that "super food."

All this tells me is that their dog can survive on something and that whatever else they tried was not balanced.

Or, a more likely scenario, they fed it cold turkey for a week and decided it wasn't working because the dog's digestive system didn't have a chance to adapt to a radically different diet.



> Purina has been making pet food for much longer than these other companies have been around. I do not feed purina, but I have their big binder on nutrition and on caring for dogs, kennel runs, etc.


Yes. They've been around a long time, so obviously they _must_ be making healthy dog food. It probably has nothing to do with using cheap ingredients and maximizing their profit margins, or having tons of capital to sink into marketing. It's probably nothing to do with that.



> I think a lot of the latest garbage out there is as much marketing and ploys and it is sucking money out of the people who fall for it. Corn is bad, corn is bad, corn is bad. Now carbs are bad, carbs are bad, carbs are bad. Whatever. I think if you start with bad corn and rancid fat and hose it down with molassis, well yeah you will pretty much have garbage.


Carbs are an unnecessary part of any carnivores diet as are grains and I don't think you can feed a dog this for years on end without seeing any consequences, whether the owner is blind to them or not. Corn is an extremely poor-quality protein. We feed it to our calves to fatten them up for slaughter, not because it is healthy. Our pasture-fed cattle are immensely healthier even in those first two years of life.



Freestep said:


> I think that there may be some truth to this. Back before there was kibble, people fed their dogs leftovers and scraps, which probably contained very little meat. Corn, potatoes, wheat, whatever staple the people ate. It stands to reason that a dogs' digestive tract could evovle to tolerate such a diet, especially since they don't have to hunt and kill their own meals. Of course a carboydrate-rich diet is not ideal for a carnivore, but over history, dogs somehow managed.


That's because dogs are opportunistic carnivores. They'll eat meat when they can get it because it's ideal, but they can survive on almost anything else. Including poop. I would hope, however, that as pet owners, we have more than our dog's _survival_ on our mind, and that we care about our dogs _thriving_. I don't want to look at what I'm feeding my dog and think "yeah, he can survive on this, it's good."

I don't disagree with what you're saying - I think there were probably more meat scraps, maybe blood/scraps from a kill or a butchered animal, more expecting them to kill their own prey, etc, etc, but yes, I'm sure there were lots of cooked grains and other "bad" ingredients - but the problem here is that there's no selecting force for dogs that eat grains. They're cared and bred by people who have far different "selecting forces" than trying to turn a carnivore into an omnivore.

But, even beside that point - biologically (excepting obvious differences like size), there's no difference between the digestive system of a wild canine and a domesticated one. Same kinds of chemicals, a complete lack of chemicals for the digestion of plant matter/grains, same tract length, same...everything.


----------



## Heidigsd

Lost Ghost, here are some articles you may want to read also. 

PetDiets Dr. Remillard is a board certified nurtitionist

Raw meat diets spark concern - January 15, 2005

The Web-DVM TV, Radio & Blog: Are dogs and wolves really that similar??

If you want to learn more about how to prepare a diet raw or cooked I would recommend joining K9 Kitchen: K9Kitchen : dog diets raw cooked allergies disease

Good luck,
Michaela


----------



## selzer

People could not show and win without the dog in optimum condition. I am not talking about people who are feeding science diet. I am talking about people who's dogs are in top condition and are thriving. 

It depends on your corn. The type of corn used. And the quality of the corn. I eat corn. I like corn.


----------



## sable123

Listen, if it is fair to say that vet's in general are not experts in nutrition then it is fair to say that someone that offers up the famous Orijen White Paper is even less of an expert.

If you wrote that paper in school you would be expelled for plagiarism. There is not one bit of primary research in that paper. It is just a marketing gimmick to support the cult following.

More dogs, especially puppies, are being harmed by internet experts and raw diets than are being helped.

There is a comment about corn above. Corn is not a significant source of protein in the vast majority of dog foods on the market. Corn at best is 8% protein so clearly it couldn't possibly be significant.


----------



## lhczth

How do smart people manage to feed themselves without buying complete foods in a bag yet are incapable of doing the same for their dogs? Raw diets are only bad when fed by lazy people. The same people that themselves probably live off of McDonalds, Taco Bell, and prepackaged junk. 

I have fed raw for more than 12 years. Raised a number of puppies and weaned 5 litters to raw. This isn't rocket science, but it does require a bit more thought that digging a cup into a bag and pouring it into a bowl. For most, the latter is easier just like eating out or eating prepackaged foods are easier than preparing stuff from scratch for themselves or their families. We are told that raw and/or fresh foods are healthier for us yet we don't believe the same is true for our dogs? :shrug:


----------



## Jax08

OP - My Jax has been on RAW for at least 2 years now. Would you like to see her results from her Chem17 that I ran for kicks and giggles this past spring? The only result off was her pancreatic level and that was due to training with hot dogs as rewards. I thought my vet was going to cry until we figured that out. I know that it was not caused by her everyday diet because she doesn't have much fat on the meat she eats. Everything else was dead on. 

I have my cat on RAW. End of IBD for him. I have an elderly cancer dog on RAW. We thought she wouldn't see last Christmas before we switched and now we're heading into her 12th year almost 1 1/2 years later. Her blood work (Chem10) after being on RAW for several months was also dead on.

Don't let anyone tell you a RAW diet is bad for your dog or is being "harmed" by it. A very good vet who graduated very high in his class from Cornell told me that being a vet in these days means they don't know very much about nutrition. They take 1 or 2 classes in nutrition for the basics and that's it. Do your research, make sure you are feeding the proper proportions and you'll be fine.


----------



## Draugr

selzer said:


> People could not show and win without the dog in optimum condition. I am not talking about people who are feeding science diet. I am talking about people who's dogs are in top condition and are thriving.


I think a young dog can be fed essentially nothing more than glorified garbage, and horribly species-inappropriate foods, and appear just fine, particularly when given a higher standard of veterinary care than most pet dogs are.



> It depends on your corn. The type of corn used. And the quality of the corn. I eat corn. I like corn.


No, it really doesn't. The highest quality corn is horribly inappropriate for a carnivore. And no amount of wishing otherwise and saying "well these people feed corn and their dogs look good..." will make it otherwise.

You're an omnivore. You get more out of corn than a dog would, a lot more. I love corn too. I like candy, too.

You go ahead and eat all the corn you want. I eat plenty of it. Second helpings whenever I can. Even thirds. Just remember that in an absolute sense, even we don't get a lot out of corn - look at how much of it is left over in the, erm..."leavings."



sable123 said:


> Listen, if it is fair to say that vet's in general are not experts in nutrition then it is fair to say that someone that offers up the famous Orijen White Paper is even less of an expert.


A degree doesn't make someone an expert, particularly when you are pretending a vet's an expert in something they recieve little to no education on.

I know more than any of my three previous and current vets do on dog nutrition. It's called education. And as long as you've got more than two brain cells to rub together, it isn't difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff (in terms of misinformation and information).



> If you wrote that paper in school you would be expelled for plagiarism. There is not one bit of primary research in that paper. It is just a marketing gimmick to support the cult following.


There's not intended to be any primary research in it, that's why it's called a white paper. It doesn't ever pretend to be anything other than that. They don't try and hide what they are doing, they are marketing their food, it's right in there. I don't even get what you are going at, here. Grasping at straws, I guess.

It's one of the better summarizations of other research I've seen concerning a dog's taxonomy and dietary needs. And as I attempted to explain before, proably more likely to be taken seriously by a vet, given that it comes from a pet food company. I post it because it summarizes other informed beliefs I've taken quite well, all in one spot. Not because "it's posted by little company X cashing in on the grain-free market."



> More dogs, especially puppies, are being harmed by internet experts and raw diets than are being helped.


I call BS. Not just because I disagree, but because you've literally got no way to prove that whatsoever. There's no way to even objectively measure such a ridiculous claim.

But go ahead, trust Big Brand Corporation X. I'm sure they'd never mislead you on anything.



lhczth said:


> We are told that raw and/or fresh foods are healthier for us yet we don't believe the same is true for our dogs? :shrug:


It's because of exactly what you said - it's easier to feed kibble so some people are more comfortable being brainwashed into thinking corn is just the most wonderful thing ever for their dog, because that means there's nothing that they could be doing better. It makes them feel better, it doesn't make them right.



Jax08 said:


> OP - My Jax has been on RAW for at least 2 years now. Would you like to see her results from her Chem17 that I ran for kicks and giggles this past spring?


My dog's chem27 showed equally good results after approximately four months on raw.


----------



## sable123

How many dogs do you have? Any significant competitive accomplishments with your dog(s)? Have you ever bred?

Have you ever been to a competitive event of any kind and asked what dogs that train 365 days a year eat?

To be perfectly honest I have seen pups out of great stock raised on raw and they developed into pretty crappy dogs.

Dogs can utilize a wide variety of foods and live happy healthy lives.

Unfortunately for all the raw foodies, there is not one shred of scientific evidence that raw fed dogs are healthier than dogs eating just average food.

Most of the aliments dogs suffer from are due to early neutering and over-vaccination. That is a scientific fact, your raw foodie buzzwords are not.


----------



## Draugr

sable123 said:


> Most of the aliments dogs suffer from are due to early neutering and over-vaccination. That is a scientific fact, your raw foodie buzzwords are not.


Right, and your ad hominim attacks and the "I've done more irrelevant stuff than you" crap does.

And actually no, neither of those are any more scientific "fact" then the idea that dogs are best fed corn is.

Not that I don't agree, I do. Well, I think what goes into a dog's body plays a bigger role, but I'd agree that at least _many_ of the problems dogs experience are due to both the things you mentioned. But that's hardly stone cold scientific fact, either.

What is scientific fact is the taxonomic classification of the domestic dog and the biology/physiology of their digestive system.


----------



## ShenzisMom

I am a little confused as to why how many dogs one has has any correlation to their knowledge on a topic. So far, Draugr has been to the point and quite knowledgeable. Keeping true to a conversation without resorting to personal attacks or elitism such as other people have succumbed to because they know no other way to be 'right'.

Good on you Draugr, I wish I could thank your posts more.


----------



## Jax08

Draugr - don't let him draw you in. Per his own posts, he works in the kibble industry, has an office in Manhattan and doesn't even own a GSD. He makes scientific claims based on 'studies' but never produces them. His favorite word is "corn" so my guess is career is corn broker. Unfortunately for corn brokers, there is no scientific fact that kibble fed dogs are healthier than raw fed dogs. Obviously no bias in his posts. 

I'll base my opinion on the blood tests.


----------



## Draugr

Jax08 said:


> Draugr - don't let him draw you in. Per his own posts, he works in the kibble industry, has an office in Manhattan and doesn't even own a GSD. He makes scientific claims based on 'studies' but never produces them. His favorite word is "corn" so my guess is career is corn broker. Unfortunately for corn brokers, there is no scientific fact that kibble fed dogs are healthier than raw fed dogs. Obviously no bias in his posts.
> 
> I'll base my opinion on the blood tests.


That explains a lot .

Had one of those on my old forum. Thanks for the heads up! :thumbup:

ETA: Nevermind...taking Jax's advice .


----------



## selzer

Dog food is a racket at best. First it was corn -- uhg! how awful. Then it was the four-D meats. Then it was grains -- of any type. (I do not see why potato would be better than corn or rice.) Dog food is a racket because marketing wins out over results, and even on the crappiest foods, like Beneful, people can BELIEVE the food is doing their dogs good, they BELIEVE in the food, so they see results that are not even there. 

But whatever. 

What gets to me is that people can be feeding Orijen and Fromm, and have to have different foods for the different dogs of the same breed in their group -- two or three dogs of the same breed and two different foods. And, they supplement on top of that with meats and supplements.

I feel comfortable switching a raw meal in once or twice in a week for my dogs because my food is not high protein, and I am not supplementing them with anything else. But why should you need to supplement a dog with a super-food?

But I think the thread is off track enough. I think the vet should have given their opinion on the matter. It is up to the OP whether he should listen to people he has no clue about their background or his vet. Or he can do his own research. But I hear over and over and over again about how people do RAW wrong harm their dogs over time. If you are doing right, I think it is fine. But I also have seen dogs live pretty darn healthy for fourteen years on Dads and Purina. So I do not think the quality of kibble makes as much of a difference as everyone suggests.

We know that some of the crap in the crappiest foods are carcinogens, and we want to do better than that. I figure if you find a good food and you can stay away from artificial colors, flavoring, and are careful about how the food is preserved, and stay away from anything that comes from China, it is working for your crew, than go for it. If you would prefer to fix the dog's food, then you have to ensure that you are covering all the bases. That is fine too. But I would NOT lie to the vet about feeding the dog raw or kibble or homemade -- that is one of the more irresponsible things I have read here lately. 

The vet wants your money and patronage, they are not going to refuse to have you as a patient because you feed raw food. They may disagree with it, but they will still take your money. 

I think your vet was right to voice a valid concern. You are ensuring that you are providing a balanced, canine appropriate diet -- that is fine to.


----------



## sable123

Draugr said:


> Right, and your ad hominim attacks and the "I've done more irrelevant stuff than you" crap does.
> 
> And actually no, neither of those are any more scientific "fact" then the idea that dogs are best fed corn is.
> 
> Not that I don't agree, I do. Well, I think what goes into a dog's body plays a bigger role, but I'd agree that at least _many_ of the problems dogs experience are due to both the things you mentioned. But that's hardly stone cold scientific fact, either.
> 
> What is scientific fact is the taxonomic classification of the domestic dog and the biology/physiology of their digestive system.


Dogs eat what is available. Whether it is a dead deer or elk or garbage on the streets of New York, Rome or Moscow. Meat, candy, donuts, fruit, wild oats, even paper wrappers. Dogs eat it all. That is fact. Do a test run to Dunkin Donuts bring home a dozen and offer one to your GSD. I bet he eats it. 

Don't romance about wild canines as super predators because they are not. Generally they eat what they run across. Wild canines would be lucky to get a big bowl of Pro Plan everyday rather than go for days or even weeks without eating. Don't play that game because any rancher around Yellowstone would stick up a 12 gauge up your rear if you fed the wolves a high quality commercial food.

Your comments on the dreadful effects of early neutering and annual vaccination have been studied for years and, yes, in peer reviewed scientific studies. Whether the problem is orthopedic, cancer, diabetes, improper coat, or behavioral both early neutering and worthless annual vaccines quintuple certain health risks. If you want to learn how bad it is vaccinate annually you need only read Dodds & Schultz. This is fact, and accepted medical protocol now. As for neutering, there is plenty to:

Salmeri KR, Bloomberg MS, Scruggs SL, Shille V.. Gonadectomy in immature dogs: effects on skeletal, physical, and behavioral development. JAVMA 1991;198:1193-1203
http://www.grca.org/healthsurvey.pdf
Grumbach MM. Estrogen, bone, growth and sex: a sea change in conventional wisdom. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab. 2000;13 Suppl 6:1439-55.
Gilsanz V, Roe TF, Gibbens DT, Schulz EE, Carlson ME, Gonzalez O, Boechat MI. Effect of sex steroids on peak bone density of growing rabbits. Am J Physiol. 1988 Oct;255(4 Pt 1):E416-21.
Slauterbeck JR, Pankratz K, Xu KT, Bozeman SC, Hardy DM. Canine ovariohysterectomy and orchiectomy increases the prevalence of ACL injury. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 Dec;(429):301-5.
Spain CV, Scarlett JM, Houpt KA. Long-term risks and benefits of early-age gonadectomy in dogs. JAVMA 2004;224:380-387.
Ware WA, Hopper DL. Cardiac tumors in dogs: 1982-1995. J Vet Intern Med 1999 Mar-Apr;13(2):95-103
Cooley DM, Beranek BC, Schlittler DL, Glickman NW, Glickman LT, Waters D, Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2002 Nov;11(11):1434-40
Ru G, Terracini B, Glickman LT. Host related risk factors for canine osteosarcoma. Vet J. 1998 Jul;156(1):31-9.
Obradovich J, Walshaw R, Goullaud E. The influence of castration on the development of prostatic carcinoma in the dog. 43 cases (1978-1985). J Vet Intern Med 1987 Oct-Dec;1(4):183-7
http://www.akcchf.org/pdfs/whitepapers/Biennial_National_Parent_Club_Canine_Health_Conference.pdf
Meuten DJ. Tumors in Domestic Animals. 4th Edn. Iowa State Press, Blackwell Publishing Company, Ames, Iowa, p. 575
Stocklin-Gautschi NM, Hassig M, Reichler IM, Hubler M, Arnold S. The relationship of urinary incontinence to early spaying in bitches. J. Reprod. Fertil. Suppl. 57:233-6, 2001
Pessina MA, Hoyt RF Jr, Goldstein I, Traish AM. Differential effects of estradiol, progesterone, and testosterone on vaginal structural integrity. Endocrinology. 2006 Jan;147(1):61-9.
Kim NN, Min K, Pessina MA, Munarriz R, Goldstein I, Traish AM. Effects of ovariectomy and steroid hormones on vaginal smooth muscle contractility. Int J Impot Res. 2004 Feb;16(1):43-50.
Aaron A, Eggleton K, Power C, Holt PE. Urethral sphincter mechanism incompetence in male dogs: a retrospective analysis of 54 cases. Vet Rec. 139:542-6, 1996
Panciera DL. Hypothyroidism in dogs: 66 cases (1987-1992). J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc., 204:761-7 1994
Howe LM, Slater MR, Boothe HW, Hobson HP, Holcom JL, Spann AC. Long-term outcome of gonadectomy performed at an early age or traditional age in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2001 Jan 15;218(2):217-21.

So it amazes me that people obsess about "chicken by products", beet pulp and Vitamin K3 but neuter before maturity and vaccinate willy-nilly ever year when it has been proven that it causes severe problems and is not required for life long immunity. 

So those are the facts. Show me the peer review study saying raw-feeding is superior. Better yet come to the NAVHDA Invitational this year and see what the winner eats, typically Pro Plan, Eukanuba, Loyall, Annamaet, SportMix and even $25 a bag (50lbs) Black Gold.

And to the one poster: Yes I have one GSD (and 12 hunting dogs) which officially is mine after two years of babysitting and I am a hedge fund manager in NY not in the kibble business.


----------



## Draugr

Not even gonna touch it. Just keep running your mouth, you've been thoroughly discredited already.


----------



## sable123

Draugr said:


> Not even gonna touch it. Just keep running your mouth, you've been thoroughly discredited already.


Sure bud....I want the peer reviewed study that shows raw feeding is better. What I find repulsive is some guy that reads a few things on the internet has one dog and no professional qualifications at all acting like Dr. Kronfeld. Know who that is?


----------



## Draugr

sable123 said:


> Sure bud....I want the peer reviewed study that shows raw feeding is better. What I find repulsive is some guy that reads a few things on the internet has one dog and no professional qualifications at all acting like Dr. Kronfeld. Know who that is?


"Sable123"?

The guy who also has some pretty obvious ulterior motives?


----------



## selzer

Why because one individual that none of us REALLY know, said something about another individual that none of us REALLY know? I find that a bit sad. But whatever. 

About what dogs eat, the following link, if you read all of AnneV's posts, you will laugh until you cry. After four pages of this post, maybe that is what we all need.

Dogs in Elk


----------



## Zisso

I just skimmed over the majority of the posts in this thread because I don't enjoy getting into the debates between others. 

I can tell you that since starting a raw diet my two are much healthier. 

For months after bringing Zisso home, we went through multiple trips to the vet because everything, and I mean Everything, gave him diarrhea. He had cannon butt ALL the time. I was not content to give him medicine (Metro) for extended periods of time. I did my research, asked a LOT of questions, and tried a LOT of different things when I first started feeding RAW.

That was well over a year ago...possibly two. Zisso now has firm stools, and he eats beef, pork, venison, primarily. We are about to try Emu. Chicken- he has developed an allergy to (we started with chicken for a long time, but now that is the only thing that gives him cannon butt) so no more chicken for him. But now he gets his organs (small bit 2-3 times a week) and RED meat, and bone content. 

Nadia also seems better for the RAW diet although she did not have the troubles Z did. 

Both dogs still get kibble, but only a cup of TOTW in the evening. If I had to do it, I could switch them back over to only kibble, but I work hard and save money so I can afford to feed them RAW and that is what serves them best. If Z was back on only kibble I have no doubt he would start having issues again.

Selzer...I LOVE that story! One of the best ones I have ever read!!


----------



## malinois_16

Sable123- There have been no scientific studies on raw because had there been the kibble companies would be out of business. They dont want to sponsor stuff like that because they would be digging their own graves.

Secondly, I take offense to the comment where you state there is no evidence dogs on raw do better then a dog on kibble. 

My dog is 4 years old. For the first year of his life he was good. He was neutered at 11 months, was vaccinated and the such and while I believe vaccines and his neuter contributed to his allergy issues I believe his immune system was never healthy due to the kibble he was fed. He was fed Orijen, Purina, Hills..nothing helped. He scratched himself raw, his ears were gross, his teeth were nasty, he had NO energy, he was so fat. He was miserable. He was on prednisone for I dont know how long, his butthole was not happy with what I fed thus the anal gland issues. He always had runny poops. 

On raw...all that went away. How the HECK can you explain this? He hasnt had another anal gland issue since raw, his ears are better, teeth are good, coat is filled back in and its not greasy anymore, he has bounds of energy, hes NOT over weight anymore. I believe if my dog was still on kibble he would be on death row. He was not happy. 

Sure dogs can eat anything but it doesnt mean its healthy for them. Heck, I can eat McDonalds day in and out and live but does it mean I am thriving? My dog eats kitty litter munchies, does that mean he should be on a diet of that?

Perhaps before you bash a raw diet you should do more research on it. Wolves in the wild eat a raw diet and the ONLY reason they dont live as long as ours do is they are exposed to the elements, no vet care, no vaccines, no HW prevention..no nothing. When a wolf breaks a leg is dies, our dogs go to the vet and get it fixed.

Also, his blood work he had last year the vet said was good. So obviously im feeding the diet right. I research raw and didnt go based on scientific studies because those are usually useless.


----------



## LoSt GhoSt

Thanks for the comments guys. I will have to agree with Draugr. 

And I will continue to build a raw diet food for my dog. I tell you what, after 3 days of raw meat, he is much happier, more energetic (not necessarily a good thing for me lol) and doesn't smell. That in its self speaks volume. I've tried feeding him some kibble again (Blue Buffalo) but he no longer touches it. He has been on his third brand because he refuses to eat them (what got me thinking and starting this raw diet) and started developing what I think is allergies from this last one because he started getting pink eye and the vet couldn't find anything wrong with him, and now its gone. 

And speaking of a balance diet, tomorrow will be my shopping day to buy some more stuff for him. And also having two brother willing to help me out will def be much easier to do this.

Thanks again guys.

And Heidigsd

I will read your links. Thanks you.

And I can assure you guys that you will see me again. lol After all we learn by asking questions when in doubt.


----------



## 4TheDawgies

Heidigsd said:


> Lost Ghost, here are some articles you may want to read also.
> 
> PetDiets Dr. Remillard is a board certified nurtitionist
> 
> Raw meat diets spark concern - January 15, 2005
> 
> The Web-DVM TV, Radio & Blog: Are dogs and wolves really that similar??
> 
> If you want to learn more about how to prepare a diet raw or cooked I would recommend joining K9 Kitchen: K9Kitchen : dog diets raw cooked allergies disease
> 
> Good luck,
> Michaela


I wanted to comment in regards to your post. The last link of the vet in the youtube video discussing the differences between wolves and dogs.

What that vet fails to realize is dogs have been reclassified.



http://www.orijen.ca/orijen/ORIJEN_White_paper.pdf said:


> Yet despite his long and close association with
> humans, the dog remains closest genetically to
> the gray wolf, with whom he shares over 99% of
> his mitochondrial DNA.
> The close genetic relationship between dog and
> wolf led the Smithsonian Institution to reclassify
> the dog from its previous separate species
> designation of Canis familiaris to Canis lupus
> familiaris.





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog said:


> The domestic dog was originally classified as Canis familiaris and Canis familiarus domesticus by Carolus Linnaeus in 1758,[19][20] and was reclassified in 1993 as Canis lupus familiaris, a subspecies of the gray wolf Canis lupus, by the Smithsonian Institution and the American Society of Mammalogists. Overwhelming evidence from behavior, vocalizations, morphology, and molecular biology led to the contemporary scientific understanding that a single species, the gray wolf, is the common ancestor for all breeds of domestic dogs;[21][22] however, the timeframe and mechanisms by which dogs diverged are controversial.[21] Canis lupus familiaris is listed as the name for the taxon that is broadly used in the scientific community and recommended by ITIS; Canis familiaris, however, is a recognised synonym.[23]


Without genetics of a relative known to be dog or wolf to compare to, one cannot tell the difference in DNA between a dog or a wolf. 

Regardless of the similarities or differences found between our dogs and a wolf, The facts remain the same.
Dogs, like wolves, share the same carnivore digestive system as well as many physical characteristics lending to the obvious conclusion of meat eater. 



> CARNIVORES (wolves, dogs, cats)
> Carnivore means 'meat eater' (Latin carne
> meaning 'flesh' and vorare meaning 'to devour')
> and classifies animals whose diets consist
> mainly of meat – such as dogs and cats.
> The anatomical features of carnivores are:
> *1. SHORT, SIMPLE & ACIDIC DIGESTIVE
> TRACTS. *Protein and fat from animal
> source are quickly and easily digested –
> hence the short digestive system of
> dogs and cats.
> The ability of dogs and cats to secrete
> hydrochloric acid is also exceptional. To
> facilitate protein breakdown and kill the
> bacteria found in decaying meats, dogs
> and cats are able to keep their gastric
> pH around 1-2.
> *2. SHARP TEETH* (designed for slicing
> meat, not grinding plants). Carnivores
> have elongated teeth designed for
> tearing and killing prey.
> Their molars are triangular with jagged
> edges that function like serrated-edged
> blades that give a smooth cutting motion
> like the blades on a pair of shears.
> *3. JAWS MOVE VERTICALLY* unlike
> herbivores and omnivores that grind
> their food by side to side chewing, the
> jaws of dogs and cats operate vertically
> to provide a smooth cutting motion, and
> open widely to swallow large chunks of
> meat.
> *4. NO AMYLASE IN SALIVA.* Amylase in
> saliva is something omnivorous and
> herbivorous animals possess, but not
> carnivorous animals like dogs or cats.
> As amylase is not present in saliva, the
> burden is entirely on the pancreas to
> produce the amylase needed to digest
> carbohydrates.
> Feeding dogs as though they were
> omnivores or herbivores makes the
> pancreas work harder in order to digest
> the carbohydrate-filled foods (instead of
> just producing normal amounts of the
> enzymes needed to digest proteins and
> fats).
> 3


We all already know the obvious facts that corn, wheat, soy, by products, flavoring etc. are all used in dog food for one simple reason. ITS CHEAPER!

So while it may be affordable to feed your dog a 30lb bag of these grains and fillers, it is far from "thriving". An ingredient list is in the order of 1st is most used ingredient in a food, and last being the least used in the food. In dog food the first ingredient is usually about 70-80% of the food make up. Tell me how feeding your dog 70-80% corn or rice is a good idea. If we fed ourselves, humans, omnivores who are MEANT to eat both plants and meat, nothing but corn, we would become sick and malnourished. So herein lies my question, who in their right mind thinks feeding their dog corn is helping their dog to "thrive" instead of survive". The wolf and even our dog we see today, are a direct product of evolution since the beginning of this earth. They have adapted their bodies to eating meat. 
The only grains a wolf will get is that of eating the stomach remains of a herbivore, or eating the stool of already digested grains and plants from herbivores.

As for the argument that dog showers, breeders, competitors etc. are feeding these "bad" foods of purina etc. 
I would like to point out the fact that those very same people receive tremendous discounts for feeding their champions that food. There are discounts offered at my work as well as other dog food stores for breeders to buy those foods in bulk. 
Those foods didn't get big because of how well they work for our dogs. They have been around long before the uproar of feeding our dogs healthy diets came about. So they had a one up with already made money to market, and hire professionals to market their product properly and get it out there. 

A competitor in the dog sport of Schutzhund in my area works for Hills. After working my dogs at the club she is at she approached me about how well muscled, fit, athletic, agile, and healthy my dogs looked. She asked me what I was feeding my dogs. She nodded and said she had a hunch. I asked what she fed and she said she fed Science diet. I asked why if she knew the benefits her dogs would find if she switched to raw. She said the only reason was that she got such a big discount from Hills. She had been working there 25 years and said she would leave but she couldn't afford to leave. 

She prefers to feed her dogs the cheap option despite the obvious differences. I prefer to feed my dogs something my dogs thrive on. 
To each their own.

Looking at the physiology of our animals, the results of the foods versus each other, and the health, the choice is easy.


----------



## selzer

The dog food debate, it always comes down to this:

What I do is right. 

If you are not doing what I do, you are wrong. 

It does not matter if what you are doing is what people have done for decades, if it is not what I am doing, you are wrong. 

If you are ok with being wrong, then go ahead, your allowed. 

Have a nice day.


----------



## Jax08

selzer said:


> Why because one individual that none of us REALLY know, said something about another individual that none of us REALLY know? I find that a bit sad. But whatever.


Sue, if anyone reads his other posts that should discredit him in itself. Especially the last one about the ivermectin. And, yes, I made a snotty comment about being a corn broker but everything else I stated can also be found in his posts. Other than that one sarcastic comment, it's everything the person himself has said. I didn't make anything up. It really is kind of sad. But whatever.


----------



## Jax08

As far as kibble is concerned, we still have one dog on kibble. We tried going "grain-free" with her with 4Health from Tractor Supply. The first bag went well, the second bag she had such terrible gas it was just crazy. So she is back on Purina One. If the growth she has is cancer as I suspect then she will be put on RAW also regardless of any whining about hassle from DH.

I've noticed many changes primarily in muscle mass with my animals on RAW. Cats are tricky animals so a person really needs to make sure all the components are there for them. He lost that "hay" gut that inside cats seem to get as they age without losing any weight. I see the same thing in Banshee. Jax is still young so she never developed that. Their coats are better, they are given flying colors in their yearly exam and the blood work is dead on. Can't beat the scientific facts (blood test) to back that up. 

I really know nothing about kibble anymore since it's not an issue with me. I know Selzer had many problems with food and the food she know uses has corn in it (kumpi?). She says her dogs are doing great. Sue - are these dogs from the same line? Just wondered if they were the same line if there could be digestive issues that all of them did poorly on some foods and great on another?


----------



## selzer

Jax08 said:


> Sue, if anyone reads his other posts that should discredit him in itself. Especially the last one about the ivermectin. And, yes, I made a snotty comment about being a corn broker but everything else I stated can also be found in his posts. Other than that one sarcastic comment, it's everything the person himself has said. I didn't make anything up. It really is kind of sad. But whatever.


Jax, I think I was trying to encourage people to look up people's posts and make their own conclusions about their character, rather than just believing whatever someone says in the middle of a thread. You said that, and they immediately discredited him. At least he came by his knowledge somewhere, most of the people on here are just parroting what other people have said. 

it makes sense, it makes sense, a dog should not eat grain. Why then should they eat potato??? No answer.


----------



## Draugr

selzer said:


> Jax, I think I was trying to encourage people to look up people's posts and make their own conclusions about their character, rather than just believing whatever someone says in the middle of a thread. You said that, and they immediately discredited him. At least he came by his knowledge somewhere, most of the people on here are just parroting what other people have said.


I took it at face value because nobody said anything different, it explained perfectly the kinds of things this person was saying, and because the person who it concerned had nothing to say to refute it.

And if you want to get right down to it, all anybody ever does is parrot what other people have said. Including the illustrious sable123.



> it makes sense, it makes sense, a dog should not eat grain. Why then should they eat potato??? No answer.


Okay, try this on for size:

They shouldn't.

But it's less taxing on them than grains are. And, too, kibbles that use potato as a filler/binder tend to be (IN GENERAL) more nutritious than those using grains.

I never saw anyone ask this quesiton. I might have just missed it though.


----------



## Jax08

Sorry, Sue. I misunderstood your intent. :blush:

I"m not saying what a dog should or shouldn't eat. I feed mine RAW and am very happy with the results. I am curious to know your bloodlines and if their intolerance to certain foods could be related. I know you've been very happy with the food you feed after many problems with the "high" quality food usually recommended.

As far as grain vs. potato - my questions would be ...
Which can a dog digest to get the most nutrients? 
What nutrients are they gaining by eating either? (remember I'm a RAW feeder and don't feed either!)
Which food is more nutritious for a dog?

I would need to do the research into this before answering any of those questions.  The one thing I know about corn is it has no business in a CAT's food. That is simply filler and cheap protein. A cat would die if it was feed corn and chicken by-products because it would be lacking taurine. So, the conclusion on that can easily be assumed to be a money racket by the manufacturer's. But cats aren't dogs so I don't feel that conclusion can be made as easily.


----------



## Draugr

> As far as grain vs. potato - my questions would be ...
> Which can a dog digest to get the most nutrients?
> What nutrients are they gaining by eating either? (remember I'm a RAW feeder and don't feed either!)
> Which food is more nutritious for a dog?


If you were feeding ONLY potato and ONLY grains, there's significantly more nutrients in the grains and the dog could get more out of it. Keep in mind though that grain intolerances and allergies are fairly common in dogs - because they aren't supposed to be eating it!!! My own dog has a wheat allergy. That's not the case with potato since there is very little in it to react to. Potato allergies are far less common.

Anyway, there's way more than that going into kibble.

In a grain-based food, more of the nutrients are supplied via the poorly digestible grains. They count it toward their protein count (particularly in corn-based foods), vitamin/mineral count, etc.

Since potatoes are nutritionally sparse...if not basically nutritionally dead...those nutrients need to be supplied via other means (such as more meat content, more supplementation with vitamins/minerals, etc).

Potato is also more expensive to use than grain.

That's why grain-free foods _tend_ to be of better quality (though that is obviously not the case in all situations!!!).



> A cat would die if it was feed corn and chicken by-products because it would be lacking taurine.


I'll have to dig up the study on my home computer, it's bookmarked on there somewhere, but while a dog can live without taurine in its diet, it will suffer significantly for it.

A dog is basically just a very, very well designed carnivore. There are very few obligate carnivores on the surface of the earth (discounting oceanic life), mostly confined to the feline family - because it simply isn't efficient nor advantageous to _require_ meat for survival. Opportunistic carnivores are far more prevalent. What I see a lot is confusing what an animal WILL eat with what it is DESIGNED to eat, or what it will be HEALTHY eating.

Any 5-year old _will_ eat loads of candy, until they make themselves sick. Does that mean that is what they are designed to eat? What they should eat?

You can't look at what something will eat when you are making dietary considerations - you need to look at the organism's biology. How efficiently they process meat or plants.


----------



## selzer

People recommend Canidae, and my dogs, for the most part did ok on that, except for Whitney, until they changed the formula and switched to Diamond as the manufacturer. 

Then all my dog had serious issues, but most of them recovered. The puppies, Milla and Ninja had trouble gaining weight. Everyone else was on the thin side of ideal. Then I had a bad run of 10 44 pound bags. Take 5-7 pounds off of the thin side of ideal, and that is a LOT of weight for one month. And for the skinnies they became ribsies. And the chronic colitis that one in particular had, but the others also had bouts of it. Since the switch the colitis went away. 

I believe that my problem was completely dog food related, and by switching, there was no more colitis in anyone. Nada. I was having two colitis attacks from Whit a week. And not for the lack of vetting. We tested her for everything under the sun. SIBO, EPI, and other things. I think I funded there expansion on whitney's intestine. Salmonella, Ecoli, We gave her enzymes just in case it would help and the testing failed. Switching foods solved the problem. I tried other foods, TOTW, was one of them with her, and grain free Canidae -- that was even worse. Trying to get them to gain weight on the Canidae, I tried wellness core, solid gold barking at the moon, prarie raw instinct, chicken soup. Nothing worked -- nothing fed on top of the canidae like we were switching foods for a couple of weeks gave any indication that it would help at all.

But switching to this is fine.

I fed Cujo grain-free Canidae for a year. His coat sucked, and he was thin as a rail. Now he looks good and his coat is much better. I started him on Nutro, then switch to Natural Balance -- no appreciable improvement, to canidae not really any better, to grain free canidae -- disappointing results. 

So I just stay away from Diamond-produced product. 

My dogs were fine on Diamond -- prior to the afflotoxin scare, and they were fine on Nutro -- until the gluten problem. Half of Whitney's litter died in utero -- Arwen went on a hunger strike. I was feeding cans out of the bad lots, both Nutro Max and Nutro Ultra -- the cans were from the bad lots. I was feeding her the canned food along with the kibble to get her to eat. She had 14 pups in her and only eight survived. 

Whitney could have had trouble stemming from that. I had the yellow bile barf and all. We did not know that there was a dog food problem until months later when it came out. 

That is why I switched to Canidae, but Diamond who now manufactures Canidae was involved in both the major recalls. 

Ok, I am hashing up ancient history. I have good reason to be frustrated with dog food companies.


----------



## DoberDad

Draugr said:


> particularly when you are pretending a vet's an expert in something they recieve little to no education on.


What are you basing this on? In my experience, you could not be more wrong. Just curious as to your basis for such a claim. I know firsthand that NCSU provides extensive training and courses on nutrition as well as a number of schools my colleagues have went to. 

I know this has been argued ad nauseum, but too many folks who suckle at the Leerburg teet hear Mr. Frawley give his opinion (read: OPINION) on Vets and nutrition and they treat it as the gospel. Sure, you are going to come across some Vets who are not as up on nutrition, just as you would easily come across a neurosurgeon who is not as advanced when it comes to gynecology.


----------



## Draugr

> Sure, you are going to come across some Vets who are not as up on nutrition, just as you would easily come across a neurosurgeon who is not as advanced when it comes to gynecology.


You sort of just answered your own question, there =/.

Vets aren't dieticians, they are medical practioners.

Asking them about dietary needs is like asking a neurosurgeon for gynecological advise. Sure, he probably knows _something_ about it, because it's somewhat related to his field of practice in a general sense, but it's not going to be as good, and it may even potentially be flat out wrong.

~

I've had a few people I know finish up vet school (know, in the sense that I know them online - not much different than anybody in this thread excepting length of time that I've known these people) who say that nutrition education is heavily slanted and lacking besides.

"Little to no" was probably not the best way to describe it =/.


----------



## selzer

93 percent of the protein in my corn-food is animal based. The corn dent in the corn meal they use is low in protein, sugar and so low in gluten it can be cosidered gluten free. I am ok with that. 

My sister's friend is allergic to wheat, WHEAT! No wheat, no macaroni, no bread, no- lots of things humans are designed to eat. But she has an allergy. We had to have stuff on the menu at my sister's wedding that was totally wheat free. 

Arwen had an allergy to BEEF. Beef, she's a DOG! or was a dog. But beef was a problem for her. 

I currently am feeding 11 dogs corn without any problems. That is pretty good. I mean, no allergies to corn. And Cujo had some major crappy coat prior to switching. His coat looks the best it has looked, but then, dad is giving him bacon grease too. They spoil him. They do this silly ritual every time they feed him, and if the miss a step -- like putting the goody in, he lets the food sit there and stares at them until they figure out there error. He has them pretty well-trained. Today he got chicken soup instead of bacon grease. 

I think that corn got a really bad name because it was in ALL of the lower quality foods, and if you see corn in the food, you can quickly discount it. I look for different things. Corn Gluten Meal, Rice Protein Concentrate, Barley -- hard to find food without it. Fragments: white rice, brown rice, rice bran, rice flour, etc. and Molassis. The way I look at it, if it has meat and the fat is not rancid, then, there is no need to sugar it up for a carnivore.


----------



## DoberDad

Draugr said:


> You sort of just answered your own question, there =/.


Actually, you failed to answer my question. Your assertion is that vets receive (i before e, except after c, Draugr!) little to no training in nutrition. 

Again, my question is to what do you base this assertion? 

My contention is that you will come across vets who may not be so on top of nutrition. Your contention is that vets receive little to no eduction in nutrition. There is a very clear and noticeable difference in the two.

I'll hang up and await your reply.


----------



## Draugr

DoberDad said:


> My contention is that you will come across vets who may not be so on top of nutrition. Your contention is that vets receive little to no eduction in nutrition. There is a very clear and noticeable difference in the two.
> 
> I'll hang up and await your reply.


I edited my reply, you are basically right, there.


----------



## DoberDad

Draugr said:


> You sort of just answered your own question, there =/.
> 
> Vets aren't dieticians, they are medical practioners.
> 
> Asking them about dietary needs is like asking a neurosurgeon for gynecological advise. Sure, he probably knows _something_ about it, because it's somewhat related to his field of practice in a general sense, but it's not going to be as good, and it may even potentially be flat out wrong.
> 
> ~
> 
> I've had a few people I know finish up vet school (know, in the sense that I know them online - not much different than anybody in this thread excepting length of time that I've known these people) who say that nutrition education is heavily slanted and lacking besides.
> 
> "Little to no" was probably not the best way to describe it =/.


So, you are basing your assertion off of an e-friend who you do not even know if they have a DVM hanging on their wall? Any yahoo can be an Internet DVM. 

Many folks get this ridiculous idea that Vets know little or nothing about nutrition from Leerburg and message boards such as this. It causes a real disservice, not only to the dog owner, but also to the vet. What many fail to realize is Mr. Frawley is a businessman. He also wants your money and will push his products just as any other businessman. 

Would I recommend a client who has not done their homework on BARF to begin feeding raw? **** no. BARF can be complicated and not everyone is up to task. You can easily get your ratio's off and can some real issues for your dog, if fed long-term. 

My recommendation for my clients is to feed what works best for you and your dog. If they have questions, I will answer to the best of my ability.

Anyways, back to your post. Yes, I agree 'little to no' was a very poor choice of words.


----------



## Draugr

> So, you are basing your assertion off of an e-friend who you do not even know if they have a DVM hanging on their wall? Any yahoo can be an Internet DVM.


An e-friend who is absolutely no different than anyone else on these boards claiming the same thing OR claiming the opposite thing.

No different than you, either.

Actually, yes, different, because I've known these people quite some time and have developed a relationship with them.

ETA: WTF does Leerburg have to do with any of this? I didn't see anybody drag them into this until you brought it up. I've read their rabies vaccination article, that's about it.

ETA2: I get this "ridiculous idea" that vets know nothing about proper nutrition from my own personal experience in dealing with them as well as people I know - online, and IRL - dealings with them. I'm sure "Leerburg" is not the only organization or person that agrees with me on that.

ETA3: If I was a vet I wouldn't sit aroud and recommend everyone I see feed raw, either.

But I wouldn't sit around a lie to someone about it, either. I'd tell them why I have concerns about it, but I wouldn't tell them it's deadly or horribly inappropriate and dangerous (on its own merit, not talking about when someone screws it up) or any of that nonsense. That's something I see a lot and even see _encouraged_. It only fuels further mistrust between clients and veterinarians.


----------



## kr16

This is written by a vet, might have money making motives, maybe not.

http://www.lukesallnatural.com/images/WhatdoVetslearnaboutnutrition.pdf


----------



## DoberDad

Draugr said:


> An e-friend who is absolutely no different than anyone else on these boards claiming the same thing OR claiming the opposite thing.
> 
> No different than you, either.
> 
> Actually, yes, different, because I've known these people quite some time and have developed a relationship with them.
> 
> ETA: WTF does Leerburg have to do with any of this? I didn't see anybody drag them into this until you brought it up. I've read their rabies vaccination article, that's about it.
> 
> ETA2: I get this "ridiculous idea" that vets know nothing about proper nutrition from my own personal experience in dealing with them as well as people I know - online, and IRL - dealings with them. I'm sure "Leerburg" is not the only organization or person that agrees with me on that.


You are exactly right, no different than me. 

If you do not see what Frawley's opinion does to the mindset of the herd, then... well, nevermind. Yes, I introduced Leerburg/Frawley into this e-battle. Why? They are, a lot of the time, the reason many folks believe the garbage you believe. Other times, it is people spewing his opinion (again, OPINION) for him.

From your own personal experience? What vet school did you go to again? Sorry, I missed that somewhere in these posts. You're saying Vets receive little to no training in nutrition - so, please, what personal experience are you basing this on?

Just because you have come across a vet or vets who have little know-how in nutrition, does not mean this is the case with all vets or even the majority of vets.


----------



## Draugr

My personal experience _in dealing with them_.

Maybe you should reading the post you're replying to.

And you know, if you want me to believe that it's "nothing personal" maybe you should avoid dismissing my entire mindset as "garbage."

** Watch the language**


----------



## DoberDad

Draugr said:


> My personal experience _in dealing with them_.
> 
> Maybe you should reading the post you're replying to.
> 
> And you know, if you want me to believe that it's "nothing personal" maybe you should avoid dismissing my entire mindset as "garbage."
> 
> ** removed by admin**.


I'm not dismissing your mindset, just your assertion 

And, yes, nothing personal. I like debate - nothing more, nothing less. 

I will agree with you that some vets are lacking in nutrition. Is it all vets or the majority of vets? In my experience, no. 

And, Draugr, I hope you have a great vet who listens to you and works *with* you to provide a long and healthy life to your pet. To me, that is what a vet should do and what I strive to do.


----------



## DoberDad

kr16 said:


> This is written by a vet, might have money making motives, maybe not.
> 
> http://www.lukesallnatural.com/images/WhatdoVetslearnaboutnutrition.pdf


Who knows their motive. I would be interested to know when they were in school and where they went to school. It is my belief that in the last decade or so, nutrition has become a hot topic. As such, vet schools have shifted their curriculum to meet this. Did vets, 20 years ago, learn very little about nutrition in school? ****, I don't know, I was sitting in a second grade class longing for gym class at that time. 

I didn't read that article, but from the header, I have a general idea of where the author is heading . But, who am I to argue with the guy/gal. They are likely basing their opinion on their experience in vet school and who am I to tell them they are wrong?

From what I know from experience, NCSU does focus on nutrition. I have colleagues from MSU, UGA, and Tufts who tell me the same about their school.


----------



## kr16

what is the deal with this site?

www.aavmc.org

I got this on the web also.

According to the Association of American Veterinary Medical Colleges (AAVMC) there are 32 veterinary medical colleges in the United States and Canada. Our sampling of nine veterinary school undergraduate curriculum requirements found only *5/9 schools required 3 credits in animal nutrition* while *4/9 schools required 0 credits in animal nutrition to graduate*. Total credits to graduate varied from 46-79 per school. Source:


----------



## Whiteshepherds

This is kind of ridiculous. A vet can study nutrition whether it's needed for their degree or not. Some people have 2 and 3 degrees. Some people, including DVM's continue to take courses and learn after they graduate and set up practice. (go figure) It's ridiculous to make it sound like all vets are bumbling idiots when it comes to dogs and what they should be eating. Like every other profession, some vets are more educated than others.


----------



## DoberDad

kr16 said:


> what is the deal with this site?
> 
> www.aavmc.org
> 
> I got this on the web also.
> 
> According to the Association of American Veterinary Medical Colleges (AAVMC) there are 32 veterinary medical colleges in the United States and Canada. Our sampling of nine veterinary school undergraduate curriculum requirements found only *5/9 schools required 3 credits in animal nutrition* while *4/9 schools required 0 credits in animal nutrition to graduate*. Total credits to graduate varied from 46-79 per school. Source:


They represent Veterinary Nutritionist's - those who specialize in nutrition and are board certified.

There are ways in vet school to actively avoid as much nutrition courses as possible. Why a student would do that is beyond me. However, the schools I mentioned below provide solid nutrition courses for their students and I would be very surprised to hear of a school where a sufficient level of nutritional courses are not offered. 

Some of the nutrition courses, like many other courses, are not mandatory.


----------



## DoberDad

Whiteshepherds said:


> This is kind of ridiculous. A vet can study nutrition whether it's needed for their degree or not. Some people have 2 and 3 degrees. Some people, including DVM's continue to take courses and learn after they graduate and set up practice. (go figure) It's ridiculous to make it sound like all vets are bumbling idiots when it comes to dogs and what they should be eating. Like every other profession, some vets are more educated than others.


Exactly! 100% correct, Whiteshepherds!


----------



## kr16

DoberDad said:


> They represent Veterinary Nutritionist's - those who specialize in nutrition and are board certified.
> 
> There are ways in vet school to actively avoid as much nutrition courses as possible. Why a student would do that is beyond me. However, the schools I mentioned below provide solid nutrition courses for their students and I would be very surprised to hear of a school where a sufficient level of nutritional courses are not offered.
> 
> Some of the nutrition courses, like many other courses, are not mandatory.


 

Thanks for the reply, IM not qualified for this argument but IMO which means nothing, lol, a lot of vets do not know enough about nutrition and shouldn't pretend they do.

Maybe you are one that does know and you get insulted by the blanket statements that all vets do not know about nutrition. So you must have gone above what was taught in vet school and did your research. Amazing for your clients. Than again maybe your vet school was good about that topic.

On another note, I will say vets have a much harder time giving a true diagnosis since their patients do not speak or show clear signs sometimes That leaves guessing or a huge expensive bill for the client. Also some vets are forced to makes calls on things they are not experts in. Not sure if dog specialist exists or how they get their training. But not an easy task, vets have at all. 

IMO they just need to admit what they do not know, and that is where the issue would get solved.

I am lucky my brother is a radiologist and he comes to the vet to read x-rays and blood work if needed. Than again he will tell you general practitioners know nothing, lol. Its a good wing man to have when I or my dogs have a medical issue.

Its a very hard job for anyone, in any medical field.


----------



## DoberDad

kr16 said:


> Thanks for the reply, IM not qualified for this argument but IMO which means nothing, lol, a lot of vets do not know enough about nutrition and shouldn't pretend they do.
> 
> Maybe you are one that does know and you get insulted by the blanket statements that all vets do not know about nutrition. So you must have gone above what was taught in vet school and did your research. Amazing for your clients. Than again maybe your vet school was good about that topic.
> 
> On another note, I will say vets have a much harder time giving a true diagnosis since their patients do not speak or show clear signs sometimes That leaves guessing or a huge expensive bill for the client. Also some vets are forced to makes calls on things they are not experts in. Not sure if dog specialist exists or how they get their training. But not an easy task, vets have at all.
> 
> IMO they just need to admit what they do not know, and that is where the issue would get solved.
> 
> I am lucky my brother is a radiologist and he comes to the vet to read x-rays and blood work if needed. Than again he will tell you general practitioners know nothing, lol. Its a good wing man to have when I or my dogs have a medical issue.
> 
> Its a very hard job for anyone, in any medical field.


That is fair. Here is my opinion:

The schools I mentioned below provide plenty of nutritional courses for their students. It would be my guess that most all schools provide this, although I have heard of one that does not. 

I do not agree that the problem is with vets 'not admitting what they do not know'. I would argue that the problem is people do not do enough research and are far too naive. It's easy for any person to come onto this site, or any of the countless others and read the vet-bashing you see in this thread and take it as truth. ****, I would be willing to bet that half the people in this thread making the assertion that vets do not know nutrition are basing this off of opinions of others. 

The fact is, there is a reason vets go to school for 8 years and earn their doctorate degree. There is also a reason that a person cannot practice medicine on their own pet without a DVM, even if they have read and belong to every dog message board on the Internet. Too many people read a few posts and are naive enough to believe what they read without doing due diligence and performing a little research. 

I try to be fair with my clients. However I will be honest and tell you that there have been a few who, like I described above, would rather take the word of some anonymous person behind a computer screen than their doctor and I have kindly suggested that we are not a good fit, and as such, they should pursue another veterinarian. I have heard of people stitching up their own dog with fishing line (dog ran into a barbed wire fence). When the wound reached the point of necrosis, they decided they would bring it to the vet. This dog now has a horrible scar and endured unmeasurable pain for days just because these idiots felt vets were a ripoff. And, yes, I am sorry, but those who say a vet is a rip off and would rather 'fix' their own pet, would need to have their intelligence questioned. 

I do not take offense to people saying vets do not know nutrition. To me, it's more serious than getting my own feelings hurt. In today's society, where information is so readily available, why not do some **** research to form your own opinion rather than letting somebody else force-feed you their agenda(s)? I am not saying this is you at all, just stating that too many folks are willing to follow the herd.

Good debate, all!


----------



## LisaT

DoberDad said:


> The fact is, there is a reason vets go to school for 8 years and earn their doctorate degree.


Perhaps a slip of the tongue there, as the majority of vets I believe don't have a PhD? I actually have no idea of the numbers though - I suspect that vets at universities probably do.



> In today's society, where information is so readily available, why not do some **** research to form your own opinion rather than letting somebody else force-feed you their agenda(s)? I am not saying this is you at all, just stating that too many folks are willing to follow the herd.


Most folks I know on the forums do their own research, and many also consult with folks that have some sort of certification, like Monica Segal, or Sabine Contreras, or others. It may be that I travel in a select crowd, I dunno....



> Just because you have come across a vet or vets who have little know-how in nutrition, does not mean this is the case with all vets or even the majority of vets.


I've been on the forums for a long time and have seen a lot of dogs go through those forums. Sure seems the rare case to find a vet that can get down and talk details about diet and how to formulate a diet, particularly when you're talking about an issue dog. Or heck, how many vets are still recommending Science Diet, Purina and Pedigree products - that's a good measure right there. 

For the nutrition that is taught in many, some, all(?) vet schools, a bigger question is who is doing the teaching, and what are they being taught?

Heck, one of the worst diets I've ever fed my dog was one that was developed by an internist that had _special_ nutrition training at the university. I don't doubt that he had training, I just don't buy into what he was taught.

The commercial pet food industry is an industry that makes a lot of money by taking "waste products" from other industries, and feeding them to our pets. Lots of grain products, low quality ingredients, etc. It's about making dog food profitable (sure, it's a business), making sure the dog will eat the food, and making sure the stool is firm. It's not about optimal nutrition. And those are precisely the folks that seem to be doing most of the nutritional research right now. Interestingly enough, I've read some really useful and helpful stuff put out by, for example, Royal Canin. I'd never feed their food though. The business of pet nutrition, imo, gets in the way of optimal pet nutrition.


----------



## CookieTN

I definitely agree that the internet is not the best place to get information. A lot of times it's helpful and can be used to find uncommon resources, but you could be talking to anybody.
I admit I learned most of what I know about dog food from the internet, but the decision to switch to raw was made primarily by talking to other raw feeders and having them share their resources with me. I've been a raw feeder for nearly three years now. My vet is not particularly pro-raw, but told me to keep feeding it when I took my dog in for a check-up during our first year of it.

I'll say it: personally I would not go to a vet for nutrition advice. I'd talk with him about it, but he wouldn't be my only or primary resource. (Oddly, it seems that a lot of vets who promote brands I would never feed again, will tell you that a meat-based diet is best. Do they know that the brands they're recommending are more corn than anything, or is that just not a big deal to them?) I wouldn't go to a general practitioner doctor for in-depth human nutrition advice, either.
But medical care? Heck yes!


----------



## DoberDad

LisaT said:


> Perhaps a slip of the tongue there, as the majority of vets I believe don't have a PhD? I actually have no idea of the numbers though - I suspect that vets at universities probably do.


Most vets spend 4 years in an undergraduate degree, then 4 years earning their DVM. DVM is a Doctorate of Veterinary Medicine. Some vet schools, you earn a Masters in Public Health along with your DVM. 

It was great chatting with you folks. Again, please do your own research and form your own opinions. When I say research, stay away from opinions and be sure to be able to distinguish people's opinion from fact. That is the best advice I can give you all. If you read on here that vets have no nutritional training in vet school, don't automatically believe it, research it. ****, call a vet school and ask for information on their course work. 

Good luck, everyone, and good night!


----------



## LisaT

CookieTN said:


> I definitely agree that the internet is not the best place to get information.


I can't agree with this statement. 

The internet is an extremely valuable tool and often the best place to get information. However, people have to be able to evaluate the information that they are getting, which, in some cases, is tougher than other cases.


----------



## CookieTN

LisaT said:


> I can't agree with this statement.
> 
> The internet is an extremely valuable tool and often the best place to get information. However, people have to be able to evaluate the information that they are getting, which, in some cases, is tougher than other cases.


Meh, I agree, actually. It depends upon where the information is coming from. Guess I was referring mostly to those who go by what they're told in Yahoo Answers.


----------



## DoberDad

CookieTN said:


> I'll say it: personally I would not go to a vet for nutrition advice. I'd talk with him about it, but he wouldn't be my only or primary resource. (Oddly, it seems that a lot of vets who promote brands I would never feed again, will tell you that a meat-based diet is best. Do they know that the brands they're recommending are more corn than anything, or is that just not a big deal to them?) I wouldn't go to a general practitioner doctor for in-depth human nutrition advice, either.
> But medical care? Heck yes!


Can't argue with that! 

Even outside of pet care, it's best to do your own research so that you can intelligently discuss your needs. I appreciate my clients who take an interest in their pet's well being and ask questions. I am happy to explain what I am doing, why I am doing it, and what I hope to accomplish by doing it. It builds trust and a very healthy relationship overall.

I think I have said good night three times and keep posting. So, I mean it this time, good night, folks!


----------



## LisaT

DoberDad said:


> Most vets spend 4 years in an undergraduate degree, then 4 years earning their DVM. DVM is a Doctorate of Veterinary Medicine. Some vet schools, you earn a Masters in Public Health along with your DVM.


My understanding is that DVM stands for Doctor of Veterinarian Medicine. Here, for example, it's written out: DVM Curriculum :: North Carolina State University College of Veterinary Medicine

A doctorate is a specialized degree, which I don't think applies to a general DVM, since a doctorate is a Doctor of Philosophy: Doctorate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## LisaT

CookieTN said:


> Meh, I agree, actually. It depends upon where the information is coming from. *Guess I was referring mostly to those who go by what they're told in Yahoo Answers.*


Oh geez, I hear you :toasting:


----------



## DoberDad

LisaT said:


> My understanding is that DVM stands for Doctor of Veterinarian Medicine. Here, for example, it's written out: DVM Curriculum :: North Carolina State University College of Veterinary Medicine
> 
> A doctorate is a specialized degree, which I don't think applies to a general DVM, since a doctorate is a Doctor of Philosophy: Doctorate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I'm sorry Lisa, I misunderstood what you were asking. Yes, Doctor of Veterinary Medicine.


----------



## LisaT

DoberDad said:


> I'm sorry Lisa, I misunderstood what you were asking. Yes, Doctor of Veterinary Medicine.


Not that it's that big of a deal, but it took me awhile to understand when students were choosing between going for their MD or a PhD when studying medicine, so I'm guessing that the veterinarian stuff works the same way. 

Regardless of title, it's a significant amount of study.

I think it's pretty late where you are, have a good night!


----------



## Lucy Dog

DoberDad... I've kind of skimmed through what I can, but as Lisa mentioned in one of her earlier post, if vets are so knowledgeable with regards to pet nutrition, why are they all still recommending some of the worst brands out there (science diet, pedigree, etc)?

Are they told to recommend these brands because they're in the waiting room of 90% of the vets out there or do they really believe these are the best diets out there for a dog? 

Do you agree with these recommendations? If not, what would you personally recommend for a healthy adult dog?


----------



## bianca

I have been feeding raw and thankfully my vet is on board! In fact I have recently seen a specialist vet for one of my cats and told him I was trying to swap her over to a homecooked renal diet as I don't want her on the hills prescription diet (nor will she eat it). He gave me a whole stack of recipes yippee!

It's strange this topic came up again today in the Brisbane (Australia) paper today is an article on the preservative levels that are triggering neurological conditions in cats and dogs.

Here there are no rules on labelling. Companies are allowed to use sulfer dioxide in pet meat. One lab test showed a product had 435 times the level claimed on the packet.

Anyway, the outcome was it is best to feed a complete HUMAN grade raw food.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...ode-tests-reveal/story-e6freoof-1226095928053


----------



## vat

Just because companies like Purina have been around for years does not mean they got the food right, just the advertising. Heck Hostess has been around for years as well but that does not make Twinkies a great food. Just saying.


----------



## Bee

codswallop


----------



## 4TheDawgies

vat said:


> Just because companies like Purina have been around for years does not mean they got the food right, just the advertising. Heck Hostess has been around for years as well but that does not make Twinkies a great food. Just saying.


YES Thank you!!!

Appear to experience is a logical fallacy


----------



## Heidigsd

*Lost Ghost*, you have received a lot of good advise and all I can say is do your own research and go from there. I usually stay out of these discussions all together because it just gets old. 

Don't listen to internet hype, just because people repeat something a million times doesn't make it a fact. The ones that usually scream the loudest on these message boards would be the ones I stay away from...IMHO. 

I find it insulting the way certain people put down veterinarians to say the least. 

Here is something you might find interesting also, scroll down to "Fact of the Month": Monica Segal July 2011 Newsletter


----------



## Castlemaid

But Salmonella outbreaks have been traced to manufactured kibble - even making people who handle the food sick. 

National Media Attention to Pet Food Salmonella Contaminations

A much more widespread problem than the one kennel metionned in the Monica Segal newsletter.


----------



## Lauri & The Gang

Lost Ghost - I'll give you my $.02 (for what it's worth).

I have been feeding my dogs raw for over a decade. I have weaned two litters of Chinese Crested puppies directly to raw and 4 of those puppies have NEVER had kibble (two are mine). My current pack consists of the following:

Mauser - 3 yr old GSD; raw fed since 8 weeks of age
Sasha - 4 yr old GSD/? mix; raw fed since she arrived here in 2008
Tazer - 12 yr old Cocker Spaniel; raw fed since 2001
Winnie - 12 yr old Corgi mix; raw fed since 2001
Kaynya - 4 yr old Chinese Crested; raw fed since 8 weeks of age
Spike - 2 yr old Chinese Crested; raw fed since birth
Fuego - 1 yr old Chinese Crested; raw fed since birth

My previous raw fed dogs:

Neke - GSD; raw fed from 3 yrs of age until her death at 14.5 yrs from cancer
Riggs - GSD; raw fed from just under a year until his death at 11 from cancer
Tessa - GSD; raw fed from 2 yrs of age until her death at 9 from the effects of heavy steroid use (prior to her going raw)
Remi - GSD; raw fed from 3 until his death at 9 from Spondylosis
Sadie - Husky; raw fed from her arrival here at an estimated age of 12-14 until her death about a year later


My dog's diet consists of 50% Muscle Meat (green tripe is included in this category), 45% RMB and 5% Organ Meats.

They get NO veggies or fruit as part of their regular diet (they do get some as treats every now and then).

Tazer, the Cocker, had horrible allergies prior to going raw but has had no problems since. Sadie, the ancient Husky, made such an amazing recovery in her condition in just a couple months on raw that it amazed my vets AND me.

My 'healthy' dogs looked fine to me prior to switching them to raw. What I found AFTER switching them were dogs with more energy and less shedding and stool output.

Just because a dog looks healthy doesn't mean they couldn't be health*IER*.

I lived with 4 German Shepherds and vacuumed maybe once a week (and no, I didn't have fur carpets).

I believe that Neke, Tessa, Remi and Rigg's deaths were accelerated by being over vaccinated. When I had them I was fostering for a local shelter and they recommended I give all my dogs a combo shot every 6 MONTHS (because I tended to foster the health problem cases). I followed their suggestion for a couple years - because I didn't know any better.

I DO believe that the raw diet gave me extra time with them.


----------



## Heidigsd

Castlemaid said:


> But Salmonella outbreaks have been traced to manufactured kibble - even making people who handle the food sick.
> 
> National Media Attention to Pet Food Salmonella Contaminations
> 
> A much more widespread problem than the one kennel metionned in the Monica Segal newsletter.


And salmonella has also been found in treats, pig ears, etc. Point is that our dogs can and do get sick from bacteria. Look through the health section and you'll see many dogs suffering from vomiting and/or diarrhea that are raw fed but not one person will admit that it could be the cause of them being sick. I just get tired of people claiming that it doesn't happen when there is plenty of proof that it does happen. But people continue to stick their head in the sand and the dogs suffer.

I really don't care if people decide to feed raw but don't pretend there aren't risks involved. 

Raw Meat Diets


----------



## Lucy Dog

Heidigsd said:


> And salmonella has also been found in treats, pig ears, etc. Point is that our dogs can and do get sick from bacteria. Look through the health section and you'll see many dogs suffering from vomiting and/or diarrhea that are raw fed but not one person will admit that it could be the cause of them being sick. I just get tired of people claiming that it doesn't happen when there is plenty of proof that it does happen. But people continue to stick their head in the sand and the dogs suffer.
> 
> I really don't care if people decide to feed raw but don't pretend there aren't risks involved.
> 
> Raw Meat Diets


So what do you suggest then.... stop feeding the dogs anything all together? If there's risks in both sides (raw and kibble)... what would you suggest? 

If there are risks from doing both diets... who exactly is sticking their heads in the sand and ignoring the risks?

And what does occasional throwing up and/or diarrhea have to do with bacteria/salmonella? There are a million and one reasons that can cause a dog to do this. I'm not sure if I get the point you're trying to make...?


----------



## Jax08

Heidigsd said:


> And salmonella has also been found in treats, pig ears, etc. Point is that our dogs can and do get sick from bacteria. Look through the health section and you'll see many dogs suffering from vomiting and/or diarrhea that are raw fed but not one person will admit that it could be the cause of them being sick.


Could you please post some examples? I, seriously, can not think of one dog that being RAW fed caused it to throw up and have diarrhea. I have 3 RAW fed animals here going on over 2 years and none of them have ever thrown up or had diarrhea. 

And if the dog did have salmonella poisoning then chances are it would have to be on an antibiotic. I had a collie who would drag in road kill from all over. Tell me THAT wasn't crawling with bacteria. He never threw up or had diarrhea. The fact is that the threat of salmonella poisoning in RAW *or* kibbble is an extremely small percentage. A dog's system is built a bit better than ours and can handle more bacteria without getting sick. I"m not claiming that our dogs won't or can't get sick from food poisoning but, IME, I have not seen it.


----------



## Lucy Dog

Jax08 said:


> A dog's system is built a bit better than ours and can handle more bacteria without getting sick. I"m not claiming that our dogs won't or can't get sick from food poisoning but, IME, I have not seen it.


Exactly - because they're carnivores. We're not.


----------



## Lauri & The Gang

I wore a new shirt to work Friday and came down with a cold. Can I say the SHIRT caused my cold??

No. Not only would that be silly but it would not be taking into account EVERYTHING else that I encountered that day.

When things go wrong people like to point to what's NEW. Why? Because everything else was fine before that so it MUST be the new food.

I'm not saying that raw fed dogs don't get sick. Some do. And some dogs being feed Ol Roy live a long and happy life.

Do what YOU feel is best for YOUR dog and do not condemn someone else for doing something different (unless they ARE feeding Ol Roy).


----------



## Jax08

Heidigsd said:


> Here is something you might find interesting also, scroll down to "Fact of the Month": Monica Segal July 2011 Newsletter


You seem to be against a RAW diet? I"m asking because I'm really unsure given this article used as an example.



> *Fact of The Month
> *_Dogs can contract salmonellosis_
> People don’t like to hear it. Some raw feeders become defensive about it. Others deny it altogether. From my perspective, it’s really not about your choice of feeding method so much as it is about facts. Denying them or hiding from them doesn’t help anyone to make a better decision on behalf of their dogs.* Here’s a case that has nothing to do with feeding a raw diet.* “The authors describe a large outbreak of canine salmonellosis in a * municipal kennel *in Tuscany.
> .....
> [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]There are many strains of salmonella and proving cause and effect isn?t always easy. For example, a dog that ate raw chicken and had salmonellosis may be presumed to have contracted it from the chicken, and indeed s/he may have. On the other hand, the dog may have become sick from having consumed the feces of another dog or another contaminated food. For that matter, the dog may have a compromised immune system that was overwhelmed by bacteria that would not have made a healthier dog sick.


[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I'm just not really sure what point you are trying to make? Is it just that dogs CAN contract salmonella and other bacterial infections? If so, I don't think anyone even denied that. But there are just as many dogs puking up kibble as there are on RAW. There are many dogs, and other animals (my cat being one of them!) with intestinal issues that have been helped by feeding RAW. I don't think there is a right or wrong diet that is species specific unless you are feeding maple leaves to cats. There is good kibble and bad kibble. There is a right way to feed a RAW diet and a wrong way to feed it.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Can't we all just get along? :rofl:[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT]


----------



## wyominggrandma

The youngest vet at the clinic I work for (who graduated about two years ago) has admitted that the instruction they receive about nutrition is bare bones... The basic stuff about weight, obesity, etc. Dog food companies come talk to them about why their food is the best.
I have fed raw until I lost my supplier. My dogs looked great on raw, but I also did the complete diet of raw meat, raw veggies, raw fruit and also rice or oatmeal. Had small stools and great teeth. I am feeding kibble now with raw meat included a few times a week when I can buy chicken at a good price.
However, years and years ago, when dirt was new, I was showing dogs and helping show and condition other people dogs. Back then, you had a few basic brands, Purina, Sturdy, Kennel Ration. Dogs were fed kibble with table scraps and these same dogs showed, trailed and won alot. Didn't need special food for this breed or that. I think alot of health problems we see in dogs these days is because there is so much protein and fat in foods that alot of the major organs just can't handle it.(alot like feeding horses straight alfalfa and then loading them up on grain, makes them hot as can be). I think sometimes a dog fed these high quality foods actually have issues not seen in dogs fed just the typical tried and true dog foods that give them normal nutrition. Do you realize how many show dogs, top winning show dogs, then and now are being fed good old Pedigree? When you look at old videos of Covey Tucker Hills Manhatten, he was fed ordinary food, there werent that many different foods in those years.
My opinion, and it is just mine from years of raising many different breeds of dogs, is we are killing them with all this high fancy food. Pat Hastings gives a great seminar about food and she says she used to work for a MAJOR dog food company and the bags were the only thing different about the dog food and a chance of ingredients: adult, puppy, etc, different size kibble, etc. She also talked about the issue with large breed dogs and pasterns falling down. Her advice? When your dogs pasterns start bowing and getting "soft" just feed the cheapest food you can find and they will repair themselves. Cheap adult dog food.... No meds, no calcium, no nothing except cheap dog food to slow growty.
I feed a regular food to my show dogs and to my pets. Have bred many litters on this same food, raised puppies on this same food. I don't pay $60 a bag for food.Guess what, my dogs have lived long healthy lives with no issies. 
Dog food companines hype the food to make money and make you think you are not feeding your dogs good enough.
My clinic sells Science Diet. I won't feed it, and it kills me to recommend it.
I don't work for dog food companies or anything, just use the same common sense about feeding my dogs as I have for over 45 years, it works for me.


----------



## Josie/Zeus

I have been feeding raw for just over a decade now, my old dog Zeus was on Innova prior to raw. What got me started was when developed pano and his ears were full of wax, gross. 
Zeus was diagnosed with hs, apart from cancer, the Vet gave Zeus a 4 out of 5 physically, he was very healthy. In fact, he bounced from his spleen surgery so fast and I believe .his health/diet had a lot to do with it.
Odin has been on raw diet. since 8 weeks old, I have yet to clean his ears, they are squeeky clean, his fur is soft and shiny even though he is in the pool for 40 mins a day. 
In the end, do your research, go with your gut feeling. I am sure you will do what you think is best for your dog. Goodluck.


----------



## LisaT

bianca said:


> It's strange this topic came up again today in the Brisbane (Australia) paper today is an article on the preservative levels that are triggering neurological conditions in cats and dogs.
> 
> Here there are no rules on labelling. Companies are allowed to use sulfer dioxide in pet meat. One lab test showed a product had 435 times the level claimed on the packet.
> 
> Anyway, the outcome was it is best to feed a complete HUMAN grade raw food.
> 
> Pet food laced with dangerously high levels of sulphur dioxode, tests reveal | Courier Mail


Wow bianca, I had no clue - very scary!


----------



## Wolfgeist

Veterinarians will do what they can to scare you in to buying kibble from them. Unfortunately, once vets see how much money they can make and how many BMWs they can own, they forget about what is best for our beloved animal companions.


----------



## LoSt GhoSt

Thanks for the comments guys. I have read every single one of them and I have made my decision. After 4 days of RAW food. I don't think I can go back to kibble.

Maybe the Vet was just concerned that I might not do it right. But I am confident enough to try it out. I was really intrigued with Blue Wilderness but dang that is expensive.

Thanks again for all your input guys.


----------



## Whiteshepherds

Wild Wolf said:


> Veterinarians will do what they can to scare you in to buying kibble from them. Unfortunately, once vets see how much money they can make and how many BMWs they can own, they forget about what is best for our beloved animal companions.


That's an insult to a LOT of vets. What do you work for instead of a paycheck, high praise and pats on the back??


----------



## Lauri & The Gang

LoSt GhoSt said:


> Maybe the Vet was just concerned that I might not do it right.


The #1 WORST diet is an INcorrectly done homemade raw or cooked diet.

While it's not hard to figure out there is SOME thinking involved and if you do it REALLY wrong you can cause problems.


----------



## selzer

Good post Wyoming Grandma. 

Josie/Zeus, I have two puppies from the same litter. One has clean ears, one has wax. They are both fed the same stuff, in the same quantities. So, I do not think I can believe that it is because of the type of food. I think that different dogs have a different make up. Some get ear infections, some get wax, some have ears that are not problematic. 

Not all dogs get ear infections from the ingredients in food, only dogs with a problem with that food or something else, like spores in the air. Who knows? You can have a dog that has lots of infections improve when you put them on a diet that does not have an ingredient that contributes to the dog's issue. 

Having one dog with an issue that cleared up by feeding Raw, and the second dog always fed Raw, not indicating that issue is not a true test that raw-fed dogs do not have ear problems. You need a much larger sample. 

I do not have anything against feeding Raw. But I do not encourage it, because I do not have faith that people will do it right.


----------



## DeeMcB

selzer said:


> I do not have anything against feeding Raw. But I do not encourage it, because I do not have faith that people will do it right.


What is your concern about "doing it right"? 

Honestly, I find it almost impossible to muck up. The first 4-6 weeks were trial & error with amounts, sensitivities, etc, but once I figured that all out per dog, it's honestly as easy as it is to dip a cup in to a bag of kibble and put it in a bowl. 

If I can raise healthy kids, I'm confident that I can raise healthy dogs.


----------



## Draugr

DeeMcB said:


> What is your concern about "doing it right"?
> 
> Honestly, I find it almost impossible to muck up. The first 4-6 weeks were trial & error with amounts, sensitivities, etc, but once I figured that all out per dog, it's honestly as easy as it is to dip a cup in to a bag of kibble and put it in a bowl.
> 
> If I can raise healthy kids, I'm confident that I can raise healthy dogs.


That's sort of my experience with the matter.

Not that I wasn't a worry-wart for the beginning, but now that I'm into it...it's easier than feeding myself. _Way_ easier. 

I don't get all the worries about "how difficult" it is. My dog eats 10x healthier than I do. Balance is not difficult to achieve.

Really my only sole concern with a "newbie" raw feeder is that they'll be feeding JUST muscle meat. No RMBs or organs. But I doubt anybody registered on a dog forum and actively reading topics on here is going to be so careless as to do absolutely ZERO research into the matter.

Maybe there is that careless person that is probably better off feeding crappy-quality kibbles, but I don't see why that's a legitimate excuse to drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator just because there *might* be someone too inept to feed raw.

/shrug.


----------



## DharmasMom

I always love these threads about food. Experts can't even agree on the BEST diet for people. How on earth can they agree on the best diet for animals. The truth is our dogs were healthy and thrived for YEARS prior to all of the "high quality" and fancy foods or raw diets out there. Every dog my mother has ever had is proof of this. Every one of them has been feed grocery store canned food/kibble/table food and every one of them has lived so far past their expiration date it is amazing. Her pom lived to be 17. Her schnauzer lived to be 18. The greyhound she has now is almost 14 and only now beginning to fade (although he is fading fast). 

People are so passionate about their dog's diets and that is fine. Personally, I feel if you have found something that is working for your dog, you can afford it and your dog likes it then go for it.


----------



## Draugr

Draugr said:


> Maybe there is that careless person that is probably better off feeding crappy-quality kibbles, but I don't see why that's a legitimate excuse to drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator just because there *might* be someone too inept to feed raw.


Quick addendum: By which I mean "what is easiest to feed, and most difficult to screw up," not specifically that _kibble_ is the "lowest common denominator." I hope that distinction makes sense.


----------



## selzer

Draugr, you are basing this on the people on the forums. If you haven't noticed yet, we are not exactly ordinary pet owners. Ordinary pet owners drop their dog at the shelter when they get old or when they need training or when they break the chain in the back yard. Ordinary pet owners have a dog, maybe an indoor dog, but they do nothing with that dog except maybe a trip around the block once a week. 

Ordinary dog owners are not on the internet looking up RMBs. They hear from a friend of a friend that feeding raw is the way to go, or they here that it will make the dog aggressive and they WANT that, These people go into the vet with their pup and announce they are feeding RAW and people cringe. Why? Because no one KNOWS whether the person is throwing a live rabbit or chicken at the dog, or has gone and researched and is making good choices and keeping proper balance. 

I have been to the vet more because of kibble -- no denying that, that whole kibble debochle and it was supposedly awesome food. But the last time I had to rush in for an emergency, it was from feeding raw.


----------



## Draugr

> Ordinary dog owners are not on the internet looking up RMBs.


That was my point...

ETA: Crap, sorry. Got my threads mixed up. I basically said that, paraphrased, in another thread...thought it was this one =/.


----------



## wyominggrandma

As far as getting it right, it can be hard. Alot of folks just don't get it. At all..... They think feeding raw means just that, you take a chunk of meat add some stuff and viola, its a raw diet.
For example, we had a dog come in to board, a very sweet GSD. Owners stated the dog refused to eat any dry food and would only eat they food they made for her. They gave us three tubs of "food"to feed her over the course of three or four days. "just put the food in the dish and let it sit, she will ususally eat it eventually. Then fill the dish up again. I have fed raw. I opened the first bucket and thought I would puke. It was a rancid smelling mess of rice pudding, oil and chunks of raw ham. This had oil sitting on the top. OMG, it was horrid and her stools were horrible. The first day we gave her this "food" and she sorta ate, but just acted hungry. So for fun, we gave her some dry kibble. She gobbled it down. We kept leaving the mess in her dish but also kept a bowl of dry food. By The time we sent the dog home, she was eating dry food, had nice firm stools and explained to the owners why we fed the dry food. They were thrilled, said they had never been able get her to eat very well and just their version of the raw diet. They thought they were doing great.
A raw diet is easy if you use your head and realize how much of everything they need to vary the diet and do it correctly. Not everyone really wants to take time to do a raw diet correctly, they just feel meat and its fine.


----------



## wyominggrandma

I meant that to say " they just feed raw meat and think its fine.".
If you are going to feed raw, you can't just throw out chunks of raw meat and say" I feed raw". It does take time and effort to do it correctly.


----------



## LoSt GhoSt

I understand your concern guys. But lets not jump into conclusions. You guys are making it sound like I am not capable of such a task. Everybody has a starting point and yes, like DeeMcB said the first few weeks are trial and error. As my responsibility and choosen owner (Lycan basically chose me to be his master from the rest of the fam), I will make sure that he is properly feed and taken care of. If I feel that I am not doing a good enough job, I'll throw in some kibble in his diet.

And of course you all will know and hope to hear some input to improve when I post up his food diet in the "Our Dog Menu" thread. 

But I do appreciate your responses as with everything, I try to learn as much as I can for it/from it to be my best at it. So this thread has been very helpful.

Thanks again

Ghost


----------



## CookieTN

Agreed. I encourage raw, but I also encourage really researching beforehand so the people know what they're getting into. If they aren't willing to research it first, then I tell them they shouldn't feed it. I definitely agree that it isn't hard to feed raw, but most of the people I know prefer the convenience of kibble anyways. (And if on the other hand everyone made the switch the price of meat would probably go way up.) Especially after hearing me tell them about how I balance it out--sounds harder than it actually is.
Not aimed at you, Lost Ghost.


----------



## LisaT

DharmasMom said:


> Every dog my mother has ever had is proof of this. Every one of them has been feed grocery store canned food/kibble/table food and every one of them has lived so far past their expiration date it is amazing. Her pom lived to be 17. Her schnauzer lived to be 18. The greyhound she has now is almost 14 and only now beginning to fade (although he is fading fast).


Dog food has changed quite a bit over the years. A lot of the foods used to be a lot better than the foods now. And the key is that most dogs used to get table "scraps" - healthy leftovers. Now, the mantra, is to not feed any "people food" - you see people say this with pride on the forums all the time


----------



## Jax08

LoSt GhoSt said:


> I understand your concern guys. But lets not jump into conclusions. You guys are making it sound like I am not capable of such a task.
> Ghost


I don't think any of these posts are directed at you, just a general discussion on what can be done wrong and examples that people have seen.  There is another thread right now regarding a terribly imbalanced RAW diet. 

RAW diets are not rocket science and I'm sure if you do your research, you'll be fine.


----------



## selzer

We are not directing it at you, just sticking up for your vet a little. I mean, what WyomingGrandma is saying, that is what vet's see. So unless they take time to actually have a decent discussion about how you are feeding and what you are feeding, they are probably thinking rancid rice pudding, raw ham, and olive oil. Ick!!! 

Just for the sake of argument, lets say you are someone who put that kind of a dog-diet together. You told your vet you were feeding raw, and the vet just smiled and nodded and told you that is very commendable. And when your pup failed to thrive, or started having organs shutting down, and the vet asked you what you are feeding, and you tell him, then is not necessarily the best time to give a caution, maybe an earlier caution would have prevented that step.


----------



## LoSt GhoSt

Ok sorry guys. Might have miss understood some of you. Carry on 

Already have two pages of notes to set up my raw diet.


----------

