I was just getting ready to post this new topic and saw the post about the moms email regarding her vet's stand on raw. I could have added this to that, I guess, but decided to start over!

I switched to a new vet last week who practices traditional medicine AND what he's called 'natural' medicine (sort of like homeopathic). They let a new client have a free exam, and we had to get a rabies shot, so I decided to go test him out. I asked lots of questions regarding his stand on vaccines and raw diet - he was awesome (unfortunately also super busy with long waits!)

Anyway, when I asked if he was 'supportive' of raw diets, and not just tolerant, he said this, "I will absolutely support you in making the decision to feed raw. In all honesty, the reason many vets will not 'recommend' raw, is not because they think it's bad for the dog, it's because they are scared of getting sued by someone who feeds their dog raw (under the vet's advice) and then someone with a compromised immune system (like HIV patients) gets samonella poisoning from the dog's feces. " He went on to say that, in his opinion, all you have to do is not eat dog poop and you'll be fine, and that kibble also has samonella in it and dog feces from kibble fed dogs does too. He said that lots of vets know this, but they are looking out for themselves because it is true, that if they recommend something, then they possibly could be held responsible for the outcome in today's 'sue-happy' society.

So even he, as a believer in raw, can't push raw feeding because of the consequences. He says when he talks about nutrition, he gives the pros and cons of each and tells his clients to research it and make the best decision for them. He does tell them that he feeds raw.

That makes a lot of sense as to why so many vets are so reluctant even when they see the good results!

I can't tell you how many people have been amazed or "lectured" me when they have been at my home for feeding time. I own a pet shop and will admit that I feed a largely raw diet, but only to customers I feel have an open mind. About a year ago, I took photos of every step from the food, supplements, to making the dogs down/stay and wait, to eating and posted on some message boards that were discussing diets. I'd post it here, but the rules against photos aren't something I want to mess up on. At any rate, the responses I got ranged from supportive to suggesting I should have my dogs taken away form me.

Edited by Chip Bridges (06/06/2010 06:11 PM)
Edit reason: typo

 Quote: Chip Bridges

I'd post it here, but the rules against photos aren't something I want to mess up on.

Links to photos on a Photobucket-type site are fine. Many board members have posted links to exactly such photo-journals. I am reminded particularly of a certain hog-head and of a certain dog with feathers hanging out of the sides of his mouth.

In addition, many vets are reluctant to recommend raw because of their fear of completely inappropriate diets (rightfully, IMO, after reading about some of the random nutritional disasters some owners feed their dogs in a misguided attempt to do better than kibble without learning anything at all about the most basic requirements -- like digestible bones). Who hasn't read about owners feeding ground beef, period?

Particularly tragic are the puppies deprived of the calcium their growing teeth and bones and organs need, whose owners get the first clue when a pup's leg breaks during normal play.

I wish this was an exaggeration, but it's not. One of the cases like this turned out, after a lot of back-and-forth posts, to be the result of an owner who didn't like to handle poultry. So the puppy got all beef and no bones.

There are still those vets who are selling the crap-in-a-bag they recommend, but you are absolutely right that there are also vets who understand the real-food benefits but have valid fears.

I've had two vets who didn't support raw. One cited the either overly complicated diets or simplistically inappropriate diet as the problem which to him suggested that the person hadn't thought through the reasons for each ingredient to begin with. The second cited that dogs under kibble diets historically live longer healthier lives on average but admitted there were some very sorry excuses for dog food on the shelves.

I've seen some very nice people who were "experts" in their breed completely screw up raw diet either by using single ingredient diets like just chicken leg quarters for months to years, dismissing organs as a needed component because "they just give the dogs the runs", or can't figure out why every time they change proteins the dog has a digestive upset so they stick with one for years on end. I've come to the conclusion that these folks have no idea why they are feeding what they are feeding. Considering some of the nightmare diets I've seen come in to work like the dog who was fed nothing but rice and steamed veggies and the lunch meat and cheese dog I can understand the hesitation based on vets concern over what people feed their pets when home diet is left up to the most misinformed among us. After all have you seen what some people feed their kids?

Okay, so now you have me freaking out. I was hoping a chicken base of RMB (whole fryers cut up and given over the week) would be great. Now, I do have access to lamb, but haven't started it yet (fat content and just nervous that the bones are bigger). I understand variation is good. But sometimes not practical. Can you vary on the ground muscle meat and be ok? There is always ground turkey, buffalo and beef. Maggie just had a bout of loose poop because of the mackerel. It's a good thing I was keeping a food diary per Michael Wise advice.

 Quote: marcia blum

Okay, so now you have me freaking out. I was hoping a chicken base of RMB (whole fryers cut up and given over the week) would be great. Now, I do have access to lamb, but haven't started it yet (fat content and just nervous that the bones are bigger). I understand variation is good. But sometimes not practical. Can you vary on the ground muscle meat and be ok? There is always ground turkey, buffalo and beef. Maggie just had a bout of loose poop because of the mackerel. It's a good thing I was keeping a food diary per Michael Wise advice.

The variety can be provided in the muscle meat. Lots of people use poultry for the RMB base of their raw diet. So the answer to your question is yes.

Canned fish is in the organ-meat-and-new-fat category for me; that is, it's introduced gradually. Don't worry: You can freeze the remainder of the can in portions ... no prob.


eta
One of mine, a small senior, gets one sardine perched like a cherry on his dish of food. Turns out that more canned fish than that doesn't agree with him.

But that's OK. He gets (along with the others) occasional lamb, buffalo when it's on sale, some beef, plain live-culture yogurt, different organ meats, occasional eggs, occasional THK turned into "gravy" over the top, Trader Joe's wild line-caught frozen fillet of white fish, trimmings from the butcher where I shop when he makes lamb chops, and anything else that pops up cheap.

These things may not be as cheap as poultry, and they mostly don't provide much digestible bone, but they are "sides." They give lots of variety in amino acid profiles.

What Connie said! I use bone-in chicken for the base, but get some beef liver/kidney/lamb hearts, etc. for the 4 ounce portions, then pulverize some veggies, one raw egg (including shell), and a salmon oil supplement, vit. E, and tiny scoop of healthy kibble most nights. When out of chicken, I give them Timberwolf/TOTW, with an egg and organ meat I have leftover.
It's not a big production, I can prep everything I need twice a week and just refrigerate until it's all gone for two (and sometimes three) dogs. My Mom's dog that I keep 3-4 nights a week does fine eating kibble at her place and raw here.

I strongly urge not mixing kibble with raw. Not the dog who has different days with raw and kibble -- the dog whose raw food is mixed with kibble.

 Quote: Connie Sutherland

I strongly urge not mixing kibble with raw. Not the dog who has different days with raw and kibble -- the dog whose raw food is mixed with kibble.

I plucked this from one of the many previous thread on this topic to avoid re-typing it.

"I would absolutely caution you against mixing raw and kibble. Kibble takes much longer than raw to get from one end of the dog to the other. That slow-down gives food-borne pathogens time/opportunity to colonize that the dog's natural system does not.

The dog's two critical (not foolproof, but huge) defenses against food-borne pathogens are his extremely caustic stomach acid and his swift route from mouth to poop, not allowing pathogens time to settle down and raise a family in the gut. (Colonizing is the route to illness from food-borne pathogens.)

So I don't feed raw to a dog on antacids and I don't cause the digestion rate of a dog eating raw food to be unnaturally slowed down."