Originally posted by Richard Cannon:


The point is that you need to have a realistic look at the potential problems. The fact that there is a potential for a problem doesn't mean that you will have it. But to poo poo the potential for a problem isn't a realistic position to take. There are people that have had real and severe problems with the raw diet. Those that support it don't want to hear it.
Richard,

There is risk of a problem no matter WHAT you feed. What about my friend whose puppy aspirated a piece of kibble and got life threatening pneumonia and a huge vet bill. What about the yeast infections and joint issues that dogs acquire thru eating grain filled food?

Let's face it, there is risk of a problem associated with anything we choose to do with our dogs. Educate yourself and make a decision you can live with. If you feel good about what you are doing for your dogs and they are happy and healthy then why do you need others to agree with your choice? (whether you feed commercial food or raw or home cooked or a combination)

Richard, I realize that there are problems with both feeding methods, but that line is usually just used as an excuse for the kibble people to bash raw without pointing out all of the potential problems of kibble!

Most problems can be avoided through the use of common sense for both types of feeding. Just don't give bones that don't have meat on them to avoid impaction, use fresh meat, feed the dogs on a towel that you can bleach (depending on how obsessive a person might be).

However, no one ever seems to mention the problems with kibble: kibble companies using grains as protein sources, some nutrients being greatly reduced through the cooking and preserving process, and if the food isn't preserved correctly it could be full of mold or bacteria that could potentially kill a dog (to name a few). People forget about the risks of kibble because they have fed it so long that they don't want to think about what might or did happen because of it.

I would add too that, while I respect Chad's credentials, that they do not make him (or any else it the world) the sole authority on such things.

Nearly THIRTY years ago, I studied under an undergraduate professor in a class on lipid metabolism (I believe was Dr Pfieffer, UGA, but it was a long time to remember a name) who was regarded by the scientifc community as a bit of a loon because he felt that margarine and other substances with trans fatty acids would be the death of all and even worse than saturated fat due to lack of known (at the time, not sure now) metabolic breakdown pathway and behavior in cell membranes (they pack like saturated fats due to 3-D structure)

The "wacko" natural foods people were also voicing the same concerns and did not have the credentials to back them up -- but no one listened anyway......

FAST forward -- NOW, 30 years later, the concerns are gelling and labeling for Trans fatty acids on foods is going forward.

I guess what I am trying to say is that, even in the scientific community, "different" ideas can be squashed (I can give more examples but like the above cannot point you to a publisher report* so what is the point?) and, lest we forget, much of the research in the ivory tower is funded by corporate america.......

*the worthiness of what is and is not published has its own little political pathway to walk through as well.

Cindy and Lauren,

The problem I have with these discussions is that the proponents won't admit to the problems involved with feeding raw. We get this happy MAry sunshine story that all is wonderful and there are no problems. I have read a couple of books on the subject and several web sites on the isse and today is the first itme I ahve seen someone say that marrow bones or weight bearing bones aren't acceptable for the diet. In fact I have seen several people adocate them.

Go back and look at the comments reguarding feeding raw and tell me that the adocates are providing a true assesment of the risks. The comments run to "You are and idiot if you choose to feed with a system that has proven to extend your dogs life and improve health and been developed based on the research of many people that take a long look at the nutrional requirements of the dog. You should move to this system that is based on no research as to getting proper nutrition in to the dog, that is based on the idea that we should return to a time that the dogs lived shorter less healty lives. Ingnore the research that there are known pathogens that will be involved in feeding this way, you can use things that have been demonstrated not to work to prevent those problems. It is much more like the natural diet of animals that lead shorter, less healthy lives."

Yes there are problems with kibble. There are kibbles that are truely bad and poorly construced. But that isn't ALL kibbles. If you get a decent food and pay attention to the food when you get it to make sure there are no obvious problems, and return it if there are, you will be successful with the dogs.

I would just like the people that advocate the Raw diet take an accurate position on it. If that is done then I have no problem with the discussion and I would stay out of it because I can't really provide the pro side of the argument. As long as people choose to ignore the issues that are involved with problemd of raw I feel it is important that people get the other side of the issue. Just provide a fair assesment of the issue.

Nancy, Lauren and Cindy all seem to carry the boat here. It was not that long ago (less than 10 years) that breeders and pet owners were told to feed their young dogs puppy food until they were a year old. Now we know that puppies should come off of puppy food at 4 1/2 to 5 months of age. I used to feed puppy food and I saw more pano than I care to remember.

What this comes down to is COOMON SENSE AND EDUCATION. To say that human grade ingredients and suppliments is somehow less healthy than kibble from a bag is ludicrous. How can anyone support Iames, Eukanuba or Pro Plan when these companies refus to tell you exactly what is in their products. What are they using that adds protien to their products? What exactly are they using for fiber? what exactly are they using to provide the vitamines?

I can tell you that they will not provide this information. What does that say for the quality of their product? I will tell you that if they were proud of these ingredients they would be advertising them and using this information to market their dog food and not keeping it a secret.

Making dog food is not ROCKET SCIENCE - these companies are not guarding some state secret by NO TELLING US exactly whats in their food. They are hiding the fact that a good portion of what they put in their food is the cheapest shit they can find that offers high protien, fiber etc etc etc.

I was a skeptic for some time before I started into this program. I made some mistakes but I would never turn around and go back to pouring nutrition from a bag.

To answer Lee's questions directed at raw feeders,

1. For those who have gone the raw route, has anyone ever had to have a bone surgically removed from their dog?

Nope. One pupppy started on raw from 10 weeks, one older dog switched at the same time. Yes, even the raw bones splinter-the dogs get recreational bones until I hear the first "snap!" and then in the trash they go.

And I should add, in 34 years of living with dogs, many raided the trash (or were "helped" by children) and ate whole cooked chicken carcasses, t-bones, pork chop bones, and other naughty cooked bones. Nobody went to the vet.

2. Have you dogs ever come down with salmonella?

After switching to raw, one night both my dogs had a horrible vomiting episode. All night long. Very slimy nasty stuff. I have not fed that type of meat again.

To add: One night my puppyman ate about two handfuls of kibble treats some well-meaning guest brought for him. Immediate violent vomiting-horrible slimy stuff all night. He hasn't had this food again either.

BUt-both of these were probably my fault. I worked in a hospital for 6 years-and I think nasty bacteria are much more likely to come from YOUR hands than anything you're feeding your dog. I or my guest were probably the cause both times-some crap on our own fingers.

3. Has your dog ever died from this type of feeding?

Nope, not yet. But the many dogs of my past didn't die from kibble either. One spitz even lived to be over twenty.

It's your choice-I like feeding raw, yes, I talked to my vet and she did make suggestions as to supplements to add (human grade vitamins and fiber, as flax seed). But kibble is certainly convenient and there's some decent ones out there.

Originally posted by Richard Cannon:
Cindy and Lauren,

I have read a couple of books on the subject and several web sites on the isse and today is the first itme I ahve seen someone say that marrow bones or weight bearing bones aren't acceptable for the diet. Richard, I dont know what sites your are on but not feeding weight bearing bones is pretty widely accepted and I supervise all feeding*-- I am on a BARF discussion list and have read several books. I would report on problems had I found them -- they just have not been there....but then I did a lot of reading and follow the guidance on supplements, mineral balance, etc.

*I also watch the rarely given rib bone as they can get stuck pretty good between teeth.

Ed, what info are you trying to get?

"How can anyone support Iames, Eukanuba or Pro Plan when these companies refus to tell you exactly what is in their products. What are they using that adds protien to their products? What exactly are they using for fiber? what exactly are they using to provide the vitamines?

I can tell you that they will not provide this information."

Every ingredient that is used to make the food is listed on the ingredients label. The wordage used on that label fits very precise definitions that are published in AAFCO's book, which is available for public purchase, and the Code of Federal Regulations. For sh-ts and grins I called a tech rep from Nestle this morning and he was willing ot give me the analyzed amino acid ratios in one of their products. Maybe it was the way that you asked for this information that caused them not to want to share it.

Chad, I do have some sincere questions as I always want to learn and maybe you could answer them.

1 For what duration does an AAFCO feeding trial have to last and how long do they typically last? Are these trials done at the boundary levels of all nutrients?

2 Do all feeds have to just contain AAFCO mandated protein levels, fat levels, etc etc or do they have to undergo feeding trials?

3 What kind of sample size is used for these feeding trials when they are performed?

4 There are a number of foods out there that have "herbal" ingredients and I am always cautious with herbs based on human issues with overuse of untested herbal conconctions.

5 What kind of temperatures are used in the preparation of these foods (in re trans fatty acid formation under high temperatures)

Hi Nancy,
1)I do not have an AAFCO book here in the office, but in the book they list the requirements for animal studies.

2)Not all diets need to undergo dog feeding trials. In vitro analysis can be sufficient under certain circumstances.

3) See #1

4)Any ingredient not listed in AAFCO (herbal ingredients) are unapproved feed additives for animals. Things such as glucosamine, St. John's Wort and other products sold as human dietary supplements, have not been approved for use in animals by the FDA. Selling these products for use in animals is illegal. If they are components of a feed, they are considered as unapproved food additives and the entire feed is considered adulterated. If they are sold as separate ingredients, they could be considered unapproved new animal drugs. I would not financially support feed companies that use these ingredients.

5) Pelleting heats the feed mixture and under steam pressure extrudes the feed through a forming die and then rapidly cools the pellets. I am only familiar with pelleting protocols for swine and poultry diets. In these protocols the feed will reach approx. 150 degrees C for about 1-3 minutes. Based on the chemical properties of the ingredients used in dog food rather than pig food, much lower temperatures would be needed for dog food. There are also newer extruder apparatus that use higher pressure, lower temp. There are a few commercial small batch custom feed manufacturers, as well as many pelleter and extruder sales companies out there that often advertise in Feedstuff magazine. There sales rep people would be able to give you a much better idea of temperatures and exposure times for there equipment.