I was looking on google for "raw diet bone meat ratio" (didn't have time to read through the forum again), and happened to hit upon an anti-raw site: http://www.secondchanceranch.org/rawmyth.htm

There are a lot of people on the other side of feeding raw, referencing O'Heare's book among others (I haven't read it myself, but it seems to be considered the ultimate proof for the anti-raw). Some of those arguments don't really make sense to me ("humans eat cooked meat, so it's all right for dogs" -- well, our stomachs are different!). I also get why a dog's stomach is more likely to kill bacteria than ours. What about bones puncturing throats, stomachs, etc, though? The anti-raw people claim that thousands of dogs are being killed by splinters of RAW bones, that chicken and turkey bones are the leading culprit, and that the incidents of this are on the rise (they correlate it with the rise of popularity of raw diets). Is that correlation true? How much of a threat is this?

 Quote: sam fain

... There are a lot of people on the other side of feeding raw, referencing O'Heare's book among others (I haven't read it myself, but it seems to be considered the ultimate proof for the anti-raw).

His e-book "Vegan Dog"? Or his e-book "Raw Meat Diets for Cats and Dogs?"

"Raw Meat Diets for Cats and Dogs?"
The quip:

 Quote:

Raw Meat Diets for Cats and Dogs? is an objective and critical evaluation of the advisability of feeding a raw meat-based diet to pet cats and dogs. It reviews the scientific literature on the issue and explores the arguments for such a diet. Most sources that have previously explored the topic have been decidedly non-objective. If you are interested in taking a careful, critical and objective look at this dietary trend Raw Meat Diets for Cats and Dogs? is the book to read.

A vegan pushing vegan diets for carnivores doesn't sound too unbiased to me, but if they have statistical facts about correlation between the grow of raw diet and rise of the number of dogs killed by chicken/turkey bones, it would be alarming.
Since I haven't read the e-book and have no intention of paying for it, I have no idea what kind of "scientific literature review" is in it.
I have to say, though, that for people lambasting Dr. Billinghurst for making money off his books and seminars, it's a bit rich to do the same on the other side.

There are several citations of PETA material as well as papers done by ex- or current execs of the Hills Corporation.

However, that does not mean that everything he says is untrue. There is a risk of bone impaction, splintering, etc. And yes, of course that incidence rises as raw feeding becomes more popular.

Dogs who do not eat raw poultry bones are not at risk from raw poultry bone mishaps.

(By the same token, dogs who eat raw diets were not at risk from the terrible industry-wide recalls of 2006 or any of the many other recalls, and are not at risk from any of the other problems associated with kibble.)

Most raw feeders rely heavily on poultry. If they all used, say, goats, then the rise in bone problems would be a goat-bone thing.

I am not trying to beat this to death, but what he's saying is simplistic (I would say meaningless) in the extreme. If there is any risk at all in a feeding protocol, then the incidence of that risk coming true rises as the popularity of the protocol rises. How could it be any other way? If hardly anyone fed kibble, then the tainted kibble would have killed very few dogs.


This guy is often in the center of a controversy about the validity of his degrees as well as his self-published status, but that doesn't mean that he has no facts at all. There is indeed risk in every choice.

I am probably more at risk from salmonella and e.Coli and who knows what else if I eat fresh produce than if I stick to a bowl of Froot Loops for every meal.

Thank you, Connie.

So, how significant a concern is this?
And how do I minimize the risk of a punctured stomach or other similar problems?
I've seen recommendations to the effect that smaller bones such as those in chicken necks shouldn't be fed. That is in direct contradiction to the advice given (and truly appreciated) here of actually starting the dog on necks/backs as the ideal first raw experience.
Or am I just worrying too much again?

 Quote:

If there is any risk at all in a feeding protocol, then the incidence of that risk coming true rises as the popularity of the protocol rises.

Oh, absolutely.
I guess, what I'm trying to figure out is, how much of a rise there is, and, more importantly, what the rate is of dogs hurt by eating raw bones among the total number of dogs that are fed RMB diets.

Sam, don't cook anything with bones. I have a 10 pound Schipperke, raw fed for about a year and a half and she is not quite two.

Cornish game hens are the largest part of her diet. She also eats neck bones, some deer last year, beef steak bones. The ones that are a little large are more of a recreational bone. She really likes chewing on them. If she doesn't finish something, I pick it up and throw is away so it doesn't get dried out or anything.

In the 1.5 year I have had her, she has never chocked on anything and there have been absolutely no problems concerning bones. I have no statistics, only my experience to share.

What does significant mean to you? I don't know how to say how significant it is.

I have personally known and owned many, many dogs whose health was in the toilet until they were switched to fresh raw food as well as a couple directly affected by the Diamond recall (several years back). I have never known a dog who had an internal raw bone mishap, but they exist; it is a risk.

So for me, anecdotally, there is no comparison. In fact, for me there is no comparison, period, because of the things I believe about most commercial dog foods and their lack of appropriateness for dogs.



Your other question: I like to feed backs (for softness of those collagen-y bones) as a first RMB, and I'm not a big fan of wings because they are lots of fat and bone. OTOH, I think that feeding the meat the way it came (not cut into little pieces) is probably ideal. (This falls under "true prey diet," my own term, which also dispels the notion of prey diets as being devoid of produce.)

 Quote: Sam Fain

... I guess, what I'm trying to figure out is, how much of a rise there is, and, more importantly, what the rate is of dogs hurt by eating raw bones among the total number of dogs that are fed RMB diets.

1. The rise would be exactly commensurate with the rise in the raw diet's popularity;

2. It depends absolutely on who you ask, I'm afraid.

When I started to become convinced I should switch Kasey to raw about a year and a half ago, I too was worried about the whole 'bone getting stuck' thing. There are a lot of anti-raw people, vets included, that do use that to 'scare' out of feeding raw.

So I decided to do my own research from the people who would see these bones getting stuck and puncturing digestive tracts. We have 3 emergency vet hospitals in our city, so I thought that would be the best place to start! So I went to each of them and asked them a few questions:
1. How many dogs a year do you treat for bones being stuck in their stomach/intestines?
2. How many of those are raw fed?
3. How many dogs do you see that have bacterial infections/poisoning from raw meats/bones?

All three of them answered the same - we see quite a few dogs with bones/bone fragments stuck in their digestive tracts. But NONE of them were raw fed - they are either bones that were cooked, or those sterile bones from the pet store that pieces had broken off of. And as for the bacteria, they had not ever had to treat a raw fed dog for salmonella or any other bacteria. They did however, have a few dogs that were affected bacterially by the recalled dog foods.

None of those vets were 'pro-raw', they just answered the questions honestly. I also asked my regular vet clinic and my substitute vet clinic (one is putting up with me feeding raw, the other is neutral), and they answered the same - they have not had to extract a raw bone from a dog or cat. But yet they still warn their clients it can happen.

Of course there is a risk. There is a risk of you and your dog getting hit by a car on a walk!