Hey, whatever. I can only speak from cat experience anyway. I'm not neccesarily convinced that all-raw-all-the-time will make or break an animal, but my anecdotal evidence is quite clear that human grade quality does make a big difference. The old geezer shed some flab and has her old night-time-freak-out energy back. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I agree with Ed, whoever wrote that article was just plain ignorant about proper nutrition. Anyway, the health issues based on a kibble diet outweigh the ones based on raw meat.

IMO, not all raw diets are good for your dog. There are a million different ways to put together a raw diet but it's what's in that diet that makes the difference; using the right foods and combining them properly.

For starting the thread with what seemed be be a sincere interest, you have been incredibly negative throughout the thread

What can I say? I had a sincere interest. An interest in being pointed towards some hard evidence in order to counter the hard evidence I've seen, that didn't jive with the way I WANTED to believe. Instead I received empty hypothesis, and eventually . . . muted hostility. Which is what many anti's have said of the proponents ("They're like religious fanatics"). However, I don't think it's THAT bad here, from what I see.

Go unwad yourself and wash up... this thread is starting to smell.

Hey! There's that muted hostility I was talking about! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Steven, you're going to bash a guy for using a term like "evolutionize", with you dropping terms like "argumentation"? LOL! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

""Myth; dogs are carnivores". ... I've never heard any such out-of-context assertion in any of my own BARF reading."

"(I feed very little of these as dogs are a carnivore)" - <a href="http://www.barfers.com/barf.html">Barfers.com</a>

"she also keeps noting that dogs aren't even comparable to wolves in the first place. So which is it?"

I don't think she's ever asserted that dogs were all that close to wolves. So I'd say . . .

Furthermore, you're right, I'm taking any and all sources I can find. While any one of them does not represent the raw diet movement as a whole, they ALL share some of the same arguments. Those arguments have been brought into question, and no suitable (for me, anyway) response has been given.

Again, I'm not questioning ANYONE'S decision to do whatever they please (why should I?). I simply am hoping that those of you who have chosen this path, could share a little of the wisdom that led you down it. For those of you who have, I thank you.

ar·gu·men·ta·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ärgy-mn-tshn)
n.
The presentation and elaboration of an argument or arguments.
Deductive reasoning in debate.
A debate.

As for evolutionize...

No entries found. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

I don't think she's ever asserted that dogs were all that close to wolves.

That was my point precisely. She says time and time again, "dogs are not close to wolves"...and yet she goes on to point out that wolves benefit from a diet more varied than muscle meat; the implication being that dogs do too (and should).
Being that she spent a great deal of time up to that point telling us that dogs are absoloutly positivly not analagous to wolves, it makes no sense to then use wolves as a model of what dogs should eat. I don't know who the heck asserts the muscle-meat creed anyway. She's right, that's retarded....but so is her logical cohesion.

She also points out a little something about how dogs don't have the same digestive enzymes as wolves. Where does one start with that? Which ones? When were they lost? The evidence should be rather self evident. Taking her word without any charitable assumptions I suppose that means that dingos, many a modern feral dog, and pets on a raw diet are all really just slowly starving to from the day they're weaned?

And to squelch any potential semantic hang-ups, dogs and wolves are of the order carnivora. They are carnivores taxanomically. In practice, however, they are indeed omnivores. Billinghurst, I know, covers that adequately. I don't know the deal with barfers.com.

As for hard evidence, I can't help ya out. You just seem to bring out the critic in me.

This thread is funny. . .Aaron I think you have some issues friend.

What gave you the bright idea to go looking for hard scientific evidence on a dog training webboard?

Why not order some vet journals or go to university level discussion boards. . .you gomer.

Here is my pseudo intellectual input. . .

I don't know what exactly goes into Kibbles n' Bits. . .I don't really know what the nutritional value of kibbles n' bits is. . .I don't really have an unbiased source to find that information.

I know exactly what goes into my own raw diet I feed my dogs. I follow general guidelines for portions and suppliments that I have taken from various sources of research for a healthy well balanced diet. None of them are "BARF" sources either. . .general vet recomendations and studies published by Purina Mills on daily recomendeds for dogs. I then make a few changes based on my dog's physical requirements. . .higher than most pet dogs.

I take into consideration the possible side effects that feeding raw meat and bones can have. . .and I take steps to minimize those problems. I grind and chop bone. . .I freeze meats. . .I par boil or boil some other meat sources.

That is the best anyone can do brudda.

I can't believe that Science Diet who's portion %s are NEARLY identical to mine can provide better nutrition. We both get our foods from "similar" (maybe) sources, we both fortify our foods with vitamin sups. . .blah blah blah.

My vet says he doesn't care what I feed the dogs as long as the portions are correct and they are not having other problems with the diet. They are not, so I could care less about scientific data other than the daily recomendeds that I already use.

This is such a non topic. . .if you don't want to feed a raw diet. . .then don't. I don't give a crap. If you want to bother someone for scientific proof of claims made by BARFers then go find a scientific source.

The rest of you gomers that are egging Aaron on are just as dopey.

Except for Steven, he is smart. Argumentation. . .real word, checked the dictionary myself.

Obviously none of us has what you, Aaron, are looking for. . .so why don't you go try to find it somewhere else.

Fine, you get 2 points for argumentation. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Didn't I already post something along the lines of "Well, it's certainly your choice . . . " So uh Van Camp . . .

Furthermore, I love all of this "Well, why don't YOU do some research" or "Don't bother us for scientific evidence". Is it not safe to assume that a board full of people engaging in a practice MIGHT know where some of the evidence is that supports it? I don't know, maybe it's just me.

As far as issues . . . what do you want? Cigar Afficianado? I have like, 30 of em. MAD magazine? O? Harper's Bazaar? Of course I have issues . . . doesn't everyone? What does that have to do with anything?