Quote: beth fuqua

... Our vet also mentioned the "lack" of scientific studies on raw feeding v. anectodal evidence from people who just do it. The issue I see (and our vet acknowledged) with purely scentific, tightly controlled studies, according to "the book" is that somebody must pay for it. ...
The pet food companies have no motivation to fund studies about raw feeding - they don't profit from that. The people food processors (chicken and other common protein sources with raw feeding) aren't all that motivated either - they are already making their money from people food sales. And their "by-products" are already going into pet food, so technically, they are using the whole animal already. Pay me here, or pay me there. ....

Yes, this is the heart of the "no good research" problem, I believe.

QUOTE: Unfortunately, for the raw feeding controversy, pet feed manufacturers are the source and controllers of most major animal nutrition studies. END from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_feeding

I think that's a pretty evenhanded discussion of the raw-commercial debate.

My personal experience with adopting pre-owned dogs surrendered because their previous owners could no longer deal with vet bills for chronically unhealthy dogs (especially severely allergic dogs on daily steroids because their misery without it allowed them no quality of life) has convinced me beyond any doubt at all that I will not change my mind about raw; my experiences have been too striking and conclusive.

My granddog had a pretty bad bout of salmonella AND e.Coli disease from a big yummy snack of decomposing roadkill, and his vet (who normally advocates and supports raw feeding) prefers that he not be exposed to the possible food-borne pathogens in raw. That's an exception I fully understand. I also had a dog with chronic pancreatic inflammation who I also hesitated to feed a raw diet. Another exception.

They are exceptions to what I think is the universal need for mammals to eat what is closest to fresh real food as possible.

JMO.

I don't mean to be the vet grinch or come off as anti-vet, but the reality in my world of experience, and being in the military I'v lived in alot of places, which means alot of vets, and my assesment is in the dog world, Vets are the dumbest folks. Or maybe I should say the most ignorant about dogs as a whole, or maybe it's just about working dogs either way I'v been amzazed at the lack of knowledge on behalf of the vets I'v had contact with. I'v gotten much better info off the internet and treated succesfully many problems, from my own research and buying my own medications online, where I had a vet that was spinning their wheels. One time they called me back after 3 unsuccessful vistis and was like, can you bring him in, I think I know what it could be, I had the pleasure, of saying, it's ok, I'v treated the problem, it was this, and I got the medication from here, and he's all fine now, thanks.

I'v got stories for days, about vets, who in the end, and after money wasted just flat out didn't know jack ****.

~CHRIS DUHON

I agree with you, Chris, and like I said, one of my best friends is a VIT (Vet In Training! ) For the most part the vets are like human doctors and are a pretty disappointing lot. When (if) you find a good one, grab him or her and do not let go. They're worth their weight in meaty bones!!

Beth,

Thank you for the reply, and thanks to the others who replied.

I'm asking this forum if there are any studies on raw vs kibble at all. I only asked the vet if there were any that refute the alleged benefits of raw over kibble. If he, as my dog's vet, is going tell me feeding raw is "stupid", I think he should have something to back that assertion up.

I'm diabetic. There are things my doctor has told me to do regarding my diet. He always explains the reasons for his recommendations, and they are always based on science. I should be able to expect the same from my vet.

If, when we bring Hans back, he doesn't have any studies, then I guess the next step is to find out if there is anything in his professional experience to back up his stand. I think if there was he would have told me though.

 Quote: rich pallechio

If he, as my dog's vet, is going tell me feeding raw is "stupid", I think he should have something to back that assertion up....

There's plenty. As has been mentioned, though, they are funded by commercial pet food manufacturers.

Have you read any of the books about fresh-v.-kibble, such as Complete Guide to Natural Health for Dogs and Cats by Richard Pitcairn, D.V.M., and Susan Hubble Pitcairn, M.S.; The Nature of Animal Healing by Martin Goldstein, DVM; Natural Nutrition for Dogs and Cats: The Ultimate Diet by Schultze, and The Encyclopediea of Natural Pet Care by CJ Puotinen? These and Tom Lonsdale's books are real wake-ups.

And even standard vet handbooks (Merck comes to mind as one in which I have read this discussion) address the inappropriateness of grains in dog food.

All we can do is read the authoritative opinions (after weeding out the ones with a financial interest, which, believe me, is a complicated task; Hill's et al are everywhere funding print against fresh food) and decide for ourselves who makes the most sense.

This site has a few good links, including the Pottenger study:
http://www.raw-connections.com/

P.S. At the vet's, I take it into account if the waiting room is filled with Science Diet and other grain-heavy junk food for dogs; if it is, then I have to assume that the vet has a financial interest in deriding fresh food.

BTW, if what you want most is authoritative evidence against commercial food and in support of raw, I think Tom Lonsdale's book might be your best bet. I'm already convinced, and I like a few other vets' works on raw better for readability, but Lonsdale presents the science well.
http://www.leerburg.com/969.htm

He's the Australian veterinary surgeon who was treated miserably by the Australian Veterinary Association, which, BTW, has close financial ties to commercial pet food companies. (This is one small example of how the world of animal nutrition research works.)
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LA20040513042

I also like to produce the credentials of this outspoken long-time advocate of raw feeding and ask whether there are opponents of raw with this kind of bio:
http://www.pgf.edu.au/about/dbryden.cfm Dr. Bryden has said that every vet in training should be required to read Lonsdale's book.

Connie,

"... if what you want most is authoritative evidence against commercial food and in support of raw..." Well, I'm looking for authoritative evidence. If it supports raw, great. If it supports commercial food, that's great too. What I'm looking for is science. Not science that supports my decision (though that would be nice), but science that gives me a basis to guide my decisions. And argue with my Vet if I need to

By the way, I got a letter on the subject from my vet today. I'm impressed that he took the time to do that. He references the BARF diet, and a gives me a VIN (Veterinary Information Network) URL. Unfortunately, that URL requires registration and a fee and is for vets only. From the context of the letter, I guess the VIN article argues against using the BARF diet.

But he did ask another Vet about it, someone who is published (I googled her), who asserts (as did another poster here) that a diet of 100% raw meat would be deficient, and then goes on to make the same argument about parasites and bacteria in raw meat as my vet did.

Any of you who feed raw ever have E. Colli or Salmonella problems?

I never have, but there's e.Coli and salmonella everywhere, and a dog with suppressed immune function or an overload of pathogens from, say, rotting roadkill) could certainly suffer illness from food-borne pathogens. (As we all know, there have been well-publicized kibble-related illnesses, deaths, and recalls, too.)

There is no 100% safe food.

We all have to balance what we read and learn with what we are comfortable doing.

I think you will feel much more comfortable discussing the topic with your vet if you can read a couple of the books written by experienced vet researchers like Lonsdale.

 Quote: Connie Sutherland

I never have, but there's e.Coli and salmonella everywhere, and a dog with suppressed immune function or an overload of pathogens from, say, rotting roadkill) could certainly suffer illness from food-borne pathogens. (As we all know, there have been well-publicized kibble-related illnesses, deaths, and recalls, too.)

There is no 100% safe food.

We all have to balance what we read and learn with what we are comfortable doing.

I think you will feel much more comfortable discussing the topic with your vet if you can read a couple of the books written by experienced vet researchers like Lonsdale.

Right on Connie!!!....and right on Chris D. I like to think vet's try to do what they think is best for their patients. And now, having said that.....

Rich, My suggestion would be to look at your dogs health, stamina and overall well-being. If you feel it is good then just smile and nob and walk out of the vet's office and feed your dog what you want too. That's what I do anyway.

Happy New Year!!!!

Rich, Meant to answer the the ecoli/salmonella/bacteria question. I have only had this happen twice, once when a 4month old puppy ate some crawfish that were a week or so old and recently when my schipperke ate some dead, totally rotten skunk. He had to take 10days of meds. The first chance he got the lil smarta$$ went right back to that hide and proceeded to chew on it! I couldn't believe my eyes! That's how we figured out what the problem was.....

I told this story yesterday but put it in the wrong thread. Guess I was in one of my confused states or something!?!

Debbie