I got this link today from a yahoo raw list. Its the 1st one in the far right column. Sounded pretty cool to me. Mods, if it has already been posted then feel free to delete.

http://www.ukrmb.co.uk/showcontent.toy?contentnid=7217

When I tell people that I feed my dog Raw (when the yask what type of Dog food I feed)they always give me a weird look , like they didn't hear right.I would love that for every person that looks at me like that , i could hand them a brochure with all the info that sites and others offer on the benefit of Raw.Especially the article that says that "Vets" are unware of the Dangers of Processed pet Food they tell their clients to feed their own pets.

people look at me like I'm weird, too...and then they see her

it's fun being the smartest person in the room, isn't it? ;D

Yep

Good link Mike. The only thing it doesn't address is the type of "homemade food", whether it's raw or cooked. A lot of people consider "homemade" as food they cook for their dogs. I wish the study had been more specific in this area.

You have to realize that the general public has been spoonfed information by the dogfood companies and their veterinarians for generations. I didn't know anything about a raw diet or organic foods until I started looking for a new puppy. Unless you are very involved in the dog world, the public will remain ignorant like I was. It's going to take time for change to take place because it's a different concept and it goes against everything people have been taught.

This is my first post here (though I've been lurking around Leerburg for the last four-plus years) so I realize you guys don't have any reason to pay attention to me. I don't have any problems with raw feeding (I'd like to try it myself someday), but I can't stand misleading "science".

This study really doesn't say how they crunched their numbers, so I guess they just averaged them which brings up problems involving hidden explanations. Looking at their other numbers confirms this. How many people here actually think that not spaying or neutering takes an average of two years off their dogs' lives? The most obvious explanation (to me) is that most owners who sterilize their pets care enough about them to give better care (veterinary attention, not allowing them to wander, etc.)

If the vets failed to take other factors for sterilization, they probably didn't with feeding either. The most probable explanation I can give for their results is this: feeding big dogs human grade food is expensive, so smaller dogs are more likely to be fed "homecooked" diets. Smaller dogs also tend to live much longer, so the averages are skewed in favor of home cooking.

It would have been much more informative if they had simply given out all of their data. If anyone can find it, the actual numbers would be interesting to look at. The study as it is really means nothing.

Figured it was better than nothin' and worth posting for people to see or pick apart.

My anecdotal evidence is better than your anecdotal evidence!

Hi Kristen and welcome to the board!

You and I have a similar take on these kinds of studies. While they're interesting, what they show is a correlation. A correlation by itself doesn't prove anything.

When I was taking Statistics I remember being AMAZED at how easy it was to skew data to imply a cause and effect or how to shift data into a form that was misleading. I am never as trusting now when I read "Studies have shown..." Now I want to see those studies myself before I give them any attention. It's way too easy to have a biased study.

Correlations are a great starting point but they are not the finished product.

While this particular study was interesting, it had WAY too many variables to really offer much. For one thing, it took dogs of multiple breeds from a specific area and had no control group. I don't see this as a study so much as a survey report.

It was an interesting read, but nothing that I think anyone should consider when making decisions concerning their dog's care.

I wish there would be a wide scale, well-run study on the advantages of feeding raw though. As it is, I think the lack of positive scientific evidence for feeding raw is why so many people are afraid to try it. That doesn't mean the evidence isn't there...this board is full of members who have plenty of evidence...but a controlled unbiased study would really help give people confidence.

This would actually be a great thing to consider for a PhD program. Hmmmmm....