Raw feeding studies / scientific research data?

[happytail]

There are different degrees of carnivorism though.

Like cats for instance, are the only obligate carnivores on the planet. If they were fed an exclusive vegetarian diet, they would waste away and eventually die within a few weeks. Why? Because they need taurine in their diet, since they cannot synthesize it on their own.

Dogs on the other hand, are not obligate carnivores. I like to think of them as "facultative ominvores" which means that they can survive on a omnivorous or even vegetarian diet. Therefore they are not obligative to the carnivorous way of life. Is this kind of diet good for them? No. Will it kill them? No, but possibly more quickly than a more appropriate diet.

The arguement between PMR (prey model raw) and BARF is age old, relatively that is. BARFers like to justify adding in veggies to the diet because they think that wolves (closest extant species to the domesticated dog) eat the contents of the stomach of their prey animals. Even if this fact were true, but has been disproven, the stomach accounts for such a small percentage of the body weight of any prey item that the amount of nutrients acquired from it are negligible. So feeding veggies and fruit at every meal would not be an appropriate representation of this. If a BARFer felt it was necessary to add in plant matter to their dog's diet it would be more appropriate to add it in once a week, tops. That would better represent a natural diet for a dog.

None the less, BARF is still a far better alternative to kibble. Not the best, but still better.

[Zoey'sMommy]

Originally Posted by jdatwood

Your Vet's recommendation is based on a VERY short class being taught by Hills and Purina reps and based on Hills & Purina paid research. Vets will tell you not to feed raw because they don't know any better. They're taught that kibble diets are best when science clearly shows they're not

Regardless of the wolf vs. dog debacle, please consider your audience before making such generalizations. I understand the debate got very heated and a bit personal, but NOT all vets believe in or teach patients the same dietary methods. Just as one human doctor may have conflicting beliefs from the next. I have however, yet to find a Purina Rep listed as a professor at my or any other university. I know its irrelevant to this thread, just found it to be unnecessary in helping make your case. Thanks

[intensgrl]

As humans we would, and DO, thrive on what primates eat in the wild. No Doubt!! No cigarettes, no alcohol, little carbs, only plants, with low levels of meat. No one can argue the fact!!! Processed food increases diabetes, high cholesterol, blood pressure problems, and more... among other things.... cancer???!! Fast food, and pre-packaged food is evil and unnaturally unhealthy.

Now, take a canine pet who is forced by it owners will to eat healthy, and you have a perfect scenario IMO. No kibble, no fillers, no carbs, and healthy exercise. You all can argue the point.. but in my opinion.. even a crappily followed raw diet beats the hell out of kibble feeding. Just like a diet of pasta and fast food for humans does not compare to a crappily followed healthy diet of veggies and meat, with no sugar and carbs. It is funny that humans eat so badly, and when someone goes "healthy" suddenly everyone looks to the minute detail to see if the diet is perfectly balanced.. well, HELLO.. it is better in any form then crummy processed and fast food! The imperfect healthy diet far exceeds the benefits of the "perfect" crappy diet!

My dane boy will never eat that filler, grain based kibble, which swells to twice its size when dropped into a bowl of water. Judge me if you will, but my boy has a glassy coat, energy, good weight, and LOVES his food.

Whew, this is my soap box!!! OBVIOUSLY :/ The thought of him eating garbage makes my head spin!!!

[isa aldawolfa]

.. no time to read through all these responses, but if it helps, here is a blog i started (and have not kept up on due to time constraints) the scientific studies are mostly regarding puppies, but in them it shows that raw feeding is healthy - however raw fed dogs should absolutely be getting the exercise they need! http://theanosmicvegan.blogspot.com/
and, as stated, prior to kibble, dogs were fed raw. and no one in my family (great grandparents) ever worried about if they should get bone - its natural for carnivores to eat bone.
seriously, in a world where toxic waste is used in commercial fertilizer, can one really trust what a mass corporation would put inside of dog food?
not saying everyone should feed raw - its not convenient, and some people do not do the research necessary before starting raw - and this is often where those odd ball issues come in to play.
anyway, hope that helps..

[Rule12b]

Interesting thread, but it all seems like a re-hash. All I can say is my last dane was fed the best kibble I could find, and consistently had allergies and skin conditions to some degree. He also tended toward undereating.

I spent a lot of time reading up on grain-free food, then raw, before making each of those choices for Bentley in turn. I'd be lying if I said I didn't fret a bit about the bone content, but I've never seen a healthier coat, or happier Dane than B since putting him on raw. To me, that's the proof in the pudding.

I see a lot of defenders of raw recounting chats with vets, or members of the general public who really may not have a clue about it. I say defenders because people tend to question it. What I never seem to see are people who have fed raw, and then found dissatisfaction with it from the standpoint of their dog's health.


Just my .02.

[Shamu]

Originally Posted by Rule12b

What I never seem to see are people who have fed raw, and then found dissatisfaction with it from the standpoint of their dog's health.

There are members on this forum who tried to feed raw, but stopped because it wasn't working for the dog. Me included - I tried raw with both dogs; Shamu refused to eat it at all so I wouldn't even talk about her; but my 2nd dog, Golden Retriever, got to the vet 3 times with stomach problems when she was on raw. And this dog never had any stomach problems before, and it stopped after I stopped giving her bones. So it's not all 'black and white', and while raw seems to be working for most, some dogs do better on different types of diets.
Golden was fine on raw WITHOUT bones (I was supplementing with calcium/bone meal); but we switched back to kibbles after 6-8 month because I didn't see any difference/any improvement with her allergies, and it was almost impossible to get her to loose weight on raw (didn't I say she LOVED it)

BTW, when people are saying that everyone was feeding dogs raw in 'before kibbles' times, seriously was it ONLY raw meat and bones? I believe 'old-days' dog diet included grains too, or left-overs/table scraps.

[isa aldawolfa]

Originally Posted by Shamu

There are members on this forum who tried to feed raw, but stopped because it wasn't working for the dog. Me included - I tried raw with both dogs; Shamu refused to eat it at all so I wouldn't even talk about her; but my 2nd dog, Golden Retriever, got to the vet 3 times with stomach problems when she was on raw. And this dog never had any stomach problems before, and it stopped after I stopped giving her bones. So it's not all 'black and white', and while raw seems to be working for most, some dogs do better on different types of diets.
Golden was fine on raw WITHOUT bones (I was supplementing with calcium/bone meal); but we switched back to kibbles after 6-8 month because I didn't see any difference/any improvement with her allergies, and it was almost impossible to get her to loose weight on raw (didn't I say she LOVED it)

BTW, when people are saying that everyone was feeding dogs raw in 'before kibbles' times, seriously was it ONLY raw meat and bones? I believe 'old-days' dog diet included grains too, or left-overs/table scraps.

i have nothing against grains in very low quanity, but no, my great gradndfather refused to give too much "sides" table scraps to the dogs. they were hunting dogs and he felt that grains (in any significant quantity) was bad for them. so the sides went to the compost. i was too young to ever get into the whys of this. and prior to the agricultural revolution grains probably were not fed often. sometimes, when i see isa eating wild grain from the woods it makes me smile, and reminds me to add some oats to her diet. as well, very young puppies do well with some oats, sweet potato etc in their diet to help level glucose levels while their bodies adjust from mothers milk to raw.

when your dogs had issues.. did you try for a full month? many dogs when switched go through a detox period (as we do when we eradicate processed foods and sugar from our diet) and this can be a really scary time for owners.

again, not saying raw is right for everyone or even every dog. that is up to each owner. there have been some people with major issues feeding raw on this forum - which is why i have posted before for new raw feeders to search 'raw problems' on the forum. everyone should be aware of issues that can ensue. the one major issue i have seen is people feeding weight bearing bones (such as drumsticks) to dogs whose digestive systems are not yet ready for them, or who feed too much bone and not enough meat. some dogs have digestive issues - often genetic - which prevent raw from being an option. as well, raw fed dogs are considered being fed a "working dog" diet, which means they have to be exercised religiously or problems could occur - including obesity.

but you asked if their were any scientific studies showing raw was healthy and safe. i provided some scientific papers, and you have heard many a testament to the benefits. isa gets yearly blood work and last years were perfect. my vet does not like raw but is not a harper, and he has been mightily impressed (and tries not to show it).

if you dont like raw as an option for your dogs thats fine of course. but can i ask why you asked the question to begin with?