results of raw feeding

[kajarrel]

Here's one article (I have edited my original post, which did not include the link):

 

Freeman LM, Michel KE. Evaluation of raw food diets for dogs.J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2001 Mar 1;218(5):705-9.

 

I'd like to comment more later about science, and the scientific process (and raw diets) - right now, got to run.

 

Kim

[MrSnappy]

Originally posted by Eileen Stein:

I'm a little surprised at the anti-science sentiments being expressed on this list, but I don't know why I should be. But I think a lot of what's being said, along the lines of "double blind hey look as us go and skew evidence to fit our premise" shows a real misunderstanding of the scientific method and what we owe to it.

I think you miss the point, Eileen.

 

WHO, exactly, is going to fund the studies for a raw diet? And who do you think funds the massive, expensive ones done for kibble? Here's a clue - pet food manufacturers do NOT fund those studies out of the goodness of their warm-and-fuzzy corporate hearts.

 

I have nothing "against" science and use it as it benefits me and those I love. If my dog has a broken bone he goes to an allopathic veterinarian who can set it and help it mend. But why would I ask a veterinarian to validate the choice I make about nutrition for my dogs? Veterinarians are hardly nutrionists, as I have pointed out already. And as Northof49 wisely points out, it's not hard to see how fresh foods are obviously better than manufactured ones. And because ***I*** feel that way, that's the way I feed.

 

If you don't, feed kibble. Still no gun in my hand pointing at your head. But why do you feel the pressing need to insist on proof? Just don't feed it. But don't try to tell me that what I see, feel and know to be true is false because your favourite scientist didn't study it in a labratory.

 

If I had a dog who was dying before my eyes, and medication was not helping him, I would definitely try other measures, probably including raw food.

Okay, and so that's where you stand. I don't see feeding a fresh food diet as an extreme measure, any more than I see orange juice as emergency measures against a cold. I just like it with my breakfast and I know it's better for me than Fresca. I don't need my dogs to be dying before I decide I want to feed them the healthiest diet within my means.

 

So about all I have to add is humour - perhaps you left your sense of it in the coffee grinder after drying eggshells for your little darling's brekkers - but I could send you information on purchasing a franchise for that as well...

Actually Bill I have a great sense of humour. It's just that something has to be funny to amuse me. I'm not trying to be an ass with that comment either. I just don't find your thinly veiled invective funny at all.

 

RDM

[Shawna]

This is truly bizarre.

 

I get attacked for having heard some negative stories about raw food and sharing one on request, in spite of repeatedly saying that I'd heard more good stories than bad.

 

Eileen gets attacked for simply desiring to see a scientific study so she can have some controlled figures to look at. Common sense tells a person to research before trying something that could be potentially hazardous. (Note the word POTENTIALLY.)

 

Bill gets attacked for having a sense of humor.

 

Several impolite comments have been made in general because not everybody who has participated in this discussion has immediately fallen down on their knees before the raw food god.

 

Somehow I don't think the kibble feeders are the closed minded ones.

[Guest PrairieFire]

"I just don't find your thinly veiled invective funny at all."

 

That's too bad, RDM, I find your spewing obvious invective quite funny...

 

By the way, the quote for the membership is in USD...

[sunnyrocks]

I have noticed in my research that everyone talks about chicken backs, necks, wings. I was wondering about thighs and legs. Are they okay to feed? The last couple of days that's all I could get at the store. The cat's love it, I cut the meat off the bone and give the bone to the dogs.

I'm hoping to switch to an all raw diet starting this weekend. Strangely enough I find having to put kibble down for them more work than barfing. Guess it's because I then have to watch and if they don't eat it, pick it up before work so they don't have all day to eat. They always eat the raw and if one doesn't, the other's will finish up for them!

[kajarrel]

RDM,

Come on -- in a public forum YOU implied that a raw diet cured your friend's dog of lupus, YOU implied that a raw diet is better than kibble and that owners who feed commmercial diets don't have their dogs best interests at heart (i.e., YOU wrote, "I do find it strange that people hang on to kibble though, given kibble is nothing more than a fake food. Why we put so much faith in a company that also makes razor blades and laundry detergent is mystifying to me. As if they have your our dogs' best interests at heart."). . .

 

All people questioned was whether there is scientific evidence that what you imply is so . . .

 

On the other hand, I don't think anyone asking you questions about raw feeding implied that kibble diet is BETTER than raw or that kibble cures illness. In fact, I think most of us said that we would consider (or have considered) feeding raw/homemade diets if there is(was) sufficient evidence that it would benefit our dogs.

 

Why the anger? The questions aren't a personal attack on you, or anyone that feeds raw food for that matter . . . I'm confused.

 

But don't try to tell me that what I see, feel and know to be true is false because your favourite scientist didn't study it in a labratory.

For what it's worth, lack of scientific evidence (e.g., anecdotcal evidence or simple association) doesn't make something *false* - I don't think anyone who believes in the scientific process would suggest that - it simply means that there is insufficient evidence to infer cause and effect . . .

 

Kim

[airbear]

Originally posted by sunnyrocks:

I was wondering about thighs and legs. Are they okay to feed? The last couple of days that's all I could get at the store. The cat's love it, I cut the meat off the bone and give the bone to the dogs.

I think the reason for back/necks and wings is because of the phosphorous to calcium balance. The phosphorous comes from the meat, the calcium from the bones. Thighs and legs have a higher meat-to-bone ratio than a back/neck or a wing. I'm sure you can give your pup a thigh or a leg every now and again without a problem. They are more expensive though.

 

Having said that, I am not very good at the raw thing. I prefer to call what mine get a 'natural' diet. Everything from raw chicken parts to Belgian waffles on Sundays, Dairy Queen if they've been good, oatmeal with milk when it's chilly in the morning, and last night they had the leftover buttercream icing. I guess the criteria on this discussion thread are glossy coat, clean teeth, small poop and lots of energy, so I guess my diet 'passes'.

 

Now here's a dumb*ss question - do you think that feeding raw lamb to your prone-to-gripping dog could give him ideas? I'm serious! Do you think dogs who eat lamb may come to associate the Raw on the Hoof lamb, as Bill puts it, with the 'meal in my bowl' lamb?

 

Kristi

http://www.airbear.ca

http://www.runwickrun.ca

[Guest PrairieFire]

Kristi -

 

I directly imply that the reason our pups do well as working dogs is because they are weaned on Lamb Milk Replacer mixed with powdered Lamb and Rice Kibble...

 

It's the Lambie Milk Replacer that adds to thier understanding of stock.

 

Honest.

 

As far as more grippy, I know lots of folks who feed a kibble with high corn content, and I have yet to see thier dogs out amongst the stalks attacking the cobs...

[MrSnappy]

*Disclaimer* By quoting Shawna's posts in part and not in full, I hereby announce that I do so mainly in the interests of brevity, and partly because most of it isn't worth quoting.

 

Originally posted by Shawna:

This is truly bizarre.

 

I get attacked for having heard some negative stories about raw food and sharing one on request, in spite of repeatedly saying that I'd heard more good stories than bad.

If you look for attacks, you'll find them everywhere Shawna.

 

No one "attacked" you - you got quoted and immediately assumed someone was out to get you instead of reading what was in front of your face. It's hard to reason with someone who is looking for spooks over her shoulder.

 

Several impolite comments have been made in general because not everybody who has participated in this discussion has immediately fallen down on their knees before the raw food god.

Since you make the "raw god" quip, you don't actually mean "in general," you actually mean "by raw feeders" - so why pretend otherwise?

 

How many times do I have to say in my posts that I agree people should feed what works for them, and that may not be raw? How do you miss me stressing in every post that I do not preach raw, but will explain why I am comfortable feeding it?

 

Is it because you ONLY read what you want to see? It must be.

 

Closed-minded you said?

 

Here it is again for the record: Raw diets for dogs make sense to me. I don't require scientific proof of any kind to feel comfortable feeding it to my dogs. The reasons the studies do not, for the msot part, exist is because the pet food industry is controlled by ... the pet food industry. They have no interest in providing research on the subject that does not benefit them and their product.

 

I do not believe that everyone should feed raw. I think people should feed what they are comfortable with and I do not belittle anyone for feeding kibble, if that's what they want to feed. However, I will happily engage in discourse on the topic and tell you why *I* feed raw. I do not understand why many kibble-feeders insist on asking me to give them reasons why they should switch, given that I have never told them that they should in the first place.

 

I have asked for reasons why I should feed kibble, based on the same questions that people have asked me to provide them about raw. I have not seen the studies I asked for yet.

 

As an aside, I have done focus group testing for numerous pet food companies and the amount of importance that is attributed to how healthy a food sounds based on the way the ingredients are listed, and how healthy it appears to consumers based on carefully worded statements about "hearts" and "skin" and "coat" is truly amazing.

 

I know it's this way for the entire product market, but it really did make me want to look further at my own reasons for feeding what I was feeding, and how influenced I was by marketing. This is, in part, what prompted me to switch. Watching Sander live through his "death" diagnosis from a rare aggressive form of cancer and watching Tobi come back from the walking dead after his diagnosis of Lupus (both of which I have discussed in another thread on the subject) was enough to convince me to make a change. it may not be enough to convince any of you, and I respect that. More than some people here respect that I don't HAVE to tell you why I feed what I do.

 

 

RDM

[airbear]

Originally posted by PrairieFire:

As far as more grippy, I know lots of folks who feed a kibble with high corn content, and I have yet to see thier dogs out amongst the stalks attacking the cobs...

Darn it. I was hoping that this was not a training issue. Drats. Thanks Bill, just another theory that I have to throw out.

 

Kristi

[Eileen Stein]

Jeepers. Yes, this is a little bizarre.

 

>

 

I dunno. I never suggested you should, and I didn't see anyone else suggest you should. I don't think veterinarians' opinions (or non-veterinarians' opinions) about nutrition are worth all that much, unless they're based on sound evidence.

 

>

 

Okay, but if there were proof that raw was better, I would want to feed it. That's why I asked if there were any comparative studies. I gather there aren't (thanks for the cite, Kim), so I'll stick with the kibbles. No hard feelings -- it's not a subject I can work up that much emotion about.

 

>

 

My favourite scientist??

 

I wouldn't tell you what you believe is false, in the absence of evidence. I would just tell you that there's no way to know, in the absence of evidence.

[MrSnappy]

Originally posted by kajarrel:

YOU implied that a raw diet is better than kibble and that owners who feed commmercial diets don't have their dogs best interests at heart (i.e., YOU wrote, "I do find it strange that people hang on to kibble though, given kibble is nothing more than a fake food. Why we put so much faith in a company that also makes razor blades and laundry detergent is mystifying to me. As if they have your dogs' best interests at heart."). . .

So are you telling me the company DOES have the dog's best interests at heart then? I don't understand your argument ... although this is a public forum, I am not allowed to muse on subjects??

 

I DO find it strange that people put faith in a product that is relatively new, given the very long history humans have with dogs. And I believe that a company that also makes dish soap and air freshener has profit on the brain, not the welfare of dogs. It's a pretty big leap in logic though to then suggest I implied that people who feed kibble don't have their dog's best interests at heart, from my curiosity on the nature of kibble and the corporate machine.

 

Why the anger? The questions aren't a personal attack on you, or anyone that feeds raw food for that matter . . . I'm confused.

There's something we have in common, because so am I. Because not only have I never said "Boy, am I angry about this subject" but I am not, actually, at all angry. I am a little frustrated at some of the reiterated merrygoround . I am bemused by people who don't read my entire post. And now I am confused about people applying emotions to my posts that I am not experiencing.

 

I also have to go back to work. So I can only reiterate - feed what you're comfortable with. That's what I do. If you don't like my reasons for feeding raw, be glad you aren't one of my dogs then.

 

RDM

[kajarrel]

Actually, I'd be quite happy to be one of your dogs. I have no doubts that you care about them.

 

Kim

[Eileen Stein]

RDM, FWIW your posts sound pretty angry to me. If it was my asking about scientific studies that made you angry, I regret that. My question certainly wasn't directed at you specifically, it was a general question to raw feeders, or anyone else in the group who might have knowledge of published data.

 

>

 

I took this as implying that people who feed kibble are simple-minded dupes, doing so because they have a touching, misguided faith that its manufacturers have their dogs' best interests at heart, and because they're too dumb to notice that kibble is "fake food." Didn't seem worth a response, but since you've reiterated it:

 

>

 

I'll reply. No, I don't believe the company is governed by an altruistic interest in my dogs' welfare, or the well-being of my husband's chin or my laundry. But I believe it's in their corporate interests to make good quality dog food, good quality razor blades and good quality laundry detergent, because doing so is likely to increase sales and decrease complaints. I also don't believe it's accurate to term kibbles "fake food." Given that many, many dogs have lived to a ripe old age with kibbles as their only nutrition, I think kibbles must be considered as real food.

 

>

 

Well, I suppose razor blades are relatively new compared to sharpened stones, knives and straight-razors, and laundry detergent is fairly new too. But I don't see anything strange about adopting them, even so.

 

>

 

Do you think it's possible people are influenced to think raw food diets are better because of how healthy they sound -- fresh, natural, real food, etc.?

[Northof49]

"But I think a lot of what's being said, along the lines of "double blind hey look as us go and skew evidence to fit our premise" shows a real misunderstanding of the scientific method and what we owe to it."

 

Eileen - I am very well aware of scientific methods and what we owe them - very much aware.

 

However, it is very interesting to sit through a seminar with professionals who do these studies and can show you on paper how you can take the exact same results and by juggling them around, you can either prove or disprove different premises all with the same data collected and sometimes prove and disprove at the same time. None of these examples were done in relation to dog food analysis, but it applies to anything that you are collecting data for.

 

I am not for an instant trying to say anyone wanting scientific proof of anything is being silly - but again it still has to be taken with a grain of sale.

 

Many scientific studes have been blown apart in the water as the methodology has been proven to be flawed and does not hold up to scrutiny. In the meantime, the published results of these scientific studies have been taken as the gospel truth - sometimes with disastrous results.

 

The problem with a lot of these studies, no matter what the subject is, is that an entirely disinterested third party is never used, who couldn't care a less what the final finding was - there is always some bias, and that skews results. I don't care in this instance if it was done by the dog food companies to show how crappy a raw diet is, or by raw food proponents who want to prove it is far superior to a kibble diet.

[SLJ]

"However, it is very interesting to sit through a seminar with professionals who do these studies and can show you on paper how you can take the exact same results and by juggling them around, you can either prove or disprove different premises all with the same data collected and sometimes prove and disprove at the same time. None of these examples were done in relation to dog food analysis, but it applies to anything that you are collecting data for."

 

Wow- is that what you guys think scientists do? Sit around and devise ways to manipulate data to deceive the public? I guess you have never been involved in the design or interpretation of data from a clinical trial. There are rules and protcols that are to be strictly followed. There are ethics in science believe it or not.

[RobDick]

Hi all

 

I think the point was that without some form of repeatable methodology there is nothing to back up any side of the discussion. It's all opinion based on anecdote.

 

I have no doubt that there's a Yahoo Group full of people who feed raw with excellent results, but where is there a control group that feeds commercial, or a mix of commercial and raw and other bits (as we do), and ideally another group who are fed one or the other (or a mix) in a blind? Of course there isn't, so there's no value in extolling the virtues of that group as proof that feeding raw is best, but it's great to have opinions and share ideas. It's not so great to hold up anecdotal evidence as proof positive that there is only one way to feed any dog. To balance this, and to help those of us with less experience and knowledge we call on the services of university trained practitioners in animal medicine... vets.

 

 

I read somewhere recently of a belief scale used in medicine, and it's applicable to life in general methinks!

 

Class 0: things I believe

Class 0a: things I believe despite the available data

Class 1: randomized, controlled clinical trials (RCCTs) that agree with what I believe

Class 2: other prospectively collected data

Class 3: expert opinion

Class 4: RCCTs that don't agree with what I believe

Class 5: what you believe that I don't

 

Rob (whose bc's have white poop when they've been eating raw chicken frames and Dentabones!)

[swampthing]

I said: "The only thing that really bothers me is that a lot of BARFers have an attitude that says 'If you feed commercial dogfood, you're lazy and don't care about your dog. That's too judgmental for my taste."

 

Sue replied: "We just call them as we see them."

 

There's that judgmental thing again. Look, if you're busy, just skip this post because nothing I say will mean much to you.

 

First, I am truly sorry that you were losing dogs at an early age. It's heartbreaking to lose even a senior canine and much more so to lose them in what should be the prime of their life. Second, I am not a breeder and never have been. Too many heartaches there also. I have, however, owned dogs for all of my life. During the almost forty years that I've owned dogs as an adult, I've never had a dog die before the age of twelve, but I honestly don't believe it had much to do with what I fed them. Back in the 60's and 70's, my dogs ate canned food, usually Kennel Ration, and cooked table scraps. In the 80's, they ate Purina kibble and table scraps. Now they eat a more premium kibble (Solid Gold). All my dogs see a vet twice a year even if they don't need to. All are vaccinated yearly for everything that has a vaccine, including Lyme Disease. (But that's another discussion ) With the exception of the twelve year old who had a benign abdominal tumor that ruptured, every other dog has lived to at least fourteen. All were healthy and in peak condition until the last year or so of their lives. Usually arthritis diminished their quality of life and the vet and I eased them on home. None of my dogs has ever had any of the diseases that you so often read about now. None ever even had to have their teeth cleaned.

 

So what does all this mean? Nothing, nada, zero, zip, squat. Except that maybe I've been fortunate enough to own dogs that have GOOD GENES . Does a healthy diet have an effect on over all health and quality of life. Absolutely. Will it change your genetics? No.

 

With that said, I'll go on being my lazy and uncaring self. It's been working for me. Have a good day.

[Shawna]

So what does all this mean? Nothing, nada, zero, zip, squat. Except that maybe I've been fortunate enough to own dogs that have GOOD GENES . Does a healthy diet have an effect on over all health and quality of life. Absolutely. Will it change your genetics? No.

There's the biggest thing right there. If the genetics are poor a person will have to make adjustments to compensate for what the dogs body is incapable of doing itself.

 

My shepherd mix was a prime example. My other dogs did exceptionally well on the premium food I was buying them but she would vommit just about every thing up. We finally found a brand she could tolerate. The problem wasn't the food but the dog. This was a dog that wouldn't have been able to tolerate a raw diet. Any human type food was rejected by her system, even small bits of beef and chicken came back.

 

A couple of years ago a debate developed between two dog people I know over whether or not a certain kind of kibble was "crap food" or not. I happened to be in to see my vet the day after their discussion and so asked his opinion on food. He smiled and said that he tried to stay out of the food debates. He said that he has seen some dogs that thrived on the premium brands but did poorly on the ultra cheap feed but he has also seen dogs that did just the opposite, dogs that couldn't tolerate "the good stuff" and yet did fabulously well on what some would consider to be pure garbage.

 

His opinion was, after years and years of looking at dogs, healthy and unhealthy, that what made a food "good" depended mostly on the individual dog.

 

With good and bad reports on the raw diet, it would stand to reason that the same wisdom would apply, some dogs will thrive on it and some dogs won't.

 

(I deleted my previous post. In my anger I succumbed to nasty sarcasm and I wish to apologize to everyone. Such behavior is uncalled for no matter what the provocation.)

[Guest PrairieFire]

Ah, Shawna, a little sarcasm is good for the soul...at least the soul of a warrior-poet, eh Margaret...?

 

Interesting comments on genetics from the last couple of posters...

 

It's quite interesting, as an observation, that very few "traditional" herding folks feel it necessary to feed anything special - many in the states feed the cheapest crap they can find and many of the "true" shepherds in many parts of the world feed whatever is handy - handfuls of corn, some oats, some milk skimmings, etc.

 

And that many of the posters defending "VSD" (Very Special Diets) are folks with rescue dogs, versatile breedings, or foo-foos.

 

Just an observation, darlings.

 

Now that is "veiled", rdm....

 

Well, really, more "tongue in cheek"...

[UpNatEm]

Jeez you guys get so worked up.Now first of all through out the whole thread not one person said "my diet is the best and that's that." In fact we all kept saying to each his own.With the raw diet you either believe in it or not.And yes the comments above about maybe it was the genes could possibly be true.I'd hate to think so when I owned the grandaughter of Wiston Cap or Carole Hall's lines which were awesome and maybe it was just bad luck against me I ended up with four dogs who died young.For your info-one was found with an undeveloped heart,one had an undeveloped liver,one had brain chemical imbalance and number four died of septecemia from a ruptured abcess inside the prostrate(of course we can't blame kibble).You talk about genes and the odd thing was these 4 dogs all had entirely differant genes and all came from heavy working/trialing lines.Absolutely no foo foo show lines.But anyways the entire thread started with someone who decided to start feeding raw and had good experiences.As far as Kim's link to the AVMA analysis that page could really be picked apart-

 

the diets they analyzed were not compiled by them based on any

raw diet plans. They were *single* *meals* (not averaged over time)

made by a *single pet owner* (a different one for each homemade diet)

and the article says the people were chosen because they were nearby

(i.e. not because they were experienced raw feeders). So each diet

analyzed is one single meal made by some unknown pet owner.

Worse, the authors did NOT ASK what was in each meal. They just had

it ground up and analyzed. So they (and we) don't know WHAT was in

those meals and whether they would meet the recommendations of raw

feeding experts.

There was an article in Whole Dog Journal about this article by Dr.

Jean Hovre and in the article she said (without any documentation

though) that she had heard that one of those pet owners providing the

diet ahd NOT given a meal as she would have fed it to her dog, but

instead had put in the different items she would have fed, but not

necessarily in the usual amounts. If this is true (again, only Dr.

Hovre's comment is available) it invalidates the analysis completely.

Two links I can provide for analysis of chicken backs and such is http://www.serve.com/BatonRouge/chicken.htm

http://www.barfworld.com/html/barfworld/analysis.html

But anyways the discussion shouldn't turn into a war of foods because everyone has their own beliefs.I wanted to provide the links above for those who are still interested in learning more and not turning this into a cat fight.My attitude is if you really want to have a discussion about it for those who do want to learn that's fine but we all know by the posts who can't logically contribute to the discussion.

 

Sue Barta

Bartas Border Collies

www.bartasborders.com

[J.E.S]

UpNatEm - "Jeez you guys get so worked up.Now first of all through out the whole thread not one person said "my diet is the best and that's that." In fact we all kept saying to each his own.With the raw diet you either believe in it or not."

 

RDM - " I do find it strange that people hang on to kibble though, given kibble is nothing more than a fake food."

 

UpNatEm - "There will be those who are open minded and listen and question and realize it sounds sensible and there will always be those who are skepticle,close minded and not open to a change for the better."

 

UpNatEm - "First of all I never insinuated anyone is ignorant just because they choose to feed "crap in a bag".I choose that choice of words just because to me it's humerous but true ONLY because I feed fresh foods."

 

UpNatEm - "The only thing that really bothers me is that a lot of BARFers have an attitude that says "If you feed commercial dogfood, you're lazy and don't care about your dog." That's too judgmental for my taste."-- We just call them as we see them."

 

UpNatEm - "Those of us who choose to feed fresh raw food as opposed to garbage crap in a bag already know we don't need to analyze the diet to death.And we don't need to prove it to the skepticle ones.We only educate the ones who are interested."

 

MrSnappy - "I don't need my dogs to be dying before I decide I want to feed them the healthiest diet within my means."

 

JES - hmm...these quotes from this thread sure seem to indicate the posters think their raw food diet is the best. I am not promoting either a raw food or a kibble diet here. But I don't like the insinuations that if I am not feeding the raw diet that I am somehow not giving my dog the best.

JES.

[UpNatEm]

Hey J.E.S-

"My attitude is if you really want to have a discussion about it for those who do want to learn that's fine but we all know by the posts who can't logically contribute to the discussion.

Sue Barta

Bartas Border Collies

[diane allen]

Can't believe I'm joining in this discussion....but here goes. I

 

 

1) Someone asked for scientific studies of a raw diet (I'm differentiating raw from Billinghurst's BARF). There ain't none - period. So, those folks who insist on it simply can't have it.

 

If that means feeding kibble, I hope that you at least get some decent stuff (check out the book, "Foods Pets Die For" by Ann N. Martin, and her follow-up book, "Protect Your Pet." She, BTW, trashes the raw diet, but does recommend a NATURAL diet, albeit cooked. And ya know, while I'm not doing it, I have no problem with that idea - kill the little bugger bacteria if you're worried about 'em. But I am too "lazy" and time-constrained to do that. If I had to, I'd feed a good quality kibble - Solid Gold, Innova, or the like. I just chose to use a natural raw diet - and have one dog who's done better (gastrointestinally) on it than any kibble I could find. My private testimonial - no science!

 

2) Kim's link was very interesting - thanks for it - but comparing three homemade and two commercially prepared raw diets, one meal each, does not quite qualify as a scientific study (and the authors don't claim to). I found the the "disclaimer" about AAFCO most interesting.

 

"In this case, we chose to use the AAFCO nutrient standards. We selected them because they are the standard that is currently used by the pet food industry....A discussion about the limitations of the use of AAFCO standards or formulation of complete and balanced diets for pets is beyond the scope of this report."

 

I guess! Granted, there are no other standards, so it was logical to use AAFCO's. But who funded them in the first place? I believe the pet food industry. So, as someone else said, who would fund a raw vs. kibble study? Only a very wealthy benefactor interested in "THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH." Guess we'll all just wait till that one comes around.

 

 

3) For TwoDevils - I don't go 'round trashing the commercial pet food industry, but MOST of them (certainly the "quality" ones are exceptions) definitely deserve to be trashed. Big conglomerates that utilize non-human grade products, slathered with used grease from fast food places (I am NOT kidding1), etc. etc. etc. See book citation above.

 

4) Eileen: "Do you think it's possible people are influenced to think raw food diets are better because of how healthy they sound -- fresh, natural, real food, etc.?" Well, I certainly admit to leaping to this conclusion! Nope, ain't scientific (though I'm following Dr. Pitcairn's diet....and he has issued a supplemental piece of information, concerning the calcium/phosphorus balance, how much more bone meal to add to certain recipes of his, etc. - so ain't exactly guesswork!), and ain't been studied forever, but geez, does common sense mean anything anymore?! I agree that I like OJ with my breakfast, and its better than some sugary soda - I don't need a study to tell me this! (OK, OK, maybe I've been subliminally influenced by all those "eat your fruits and vegetables" pronouncements!) So - fresh and "natural" does seem better. Yup. And granted, the study Kim cited does mention that many folks feeding raw have done considerable self-education - that, I think, makes a huge difference, given that the resources available to study are somewhat limited.

 

Anyway, from a simple question ("Where is the science?"), to which there is no answer ("There ain't one."), to the philosophical, verging-on-religious-zeal discussions....it has been most interesting, nonetheless!

 

diane

[Eileen Stein]

>

 

Thanks for the reply. I did finally find out that there aren't any from the study Kim posted, which said so. I'm not really interested in whose "fault" it is that there aren't any studies. I'm sure there are people who would say that the reason there are no studies is because the pet food industry won't sponsor one because they're afraid of what a study would find. Those are the same people who would say, if the pet food industry sponsored a study and it showed no benefit to the raw-fed group, that it was because they skewed the results, and would say if the government sponsored one that they are just in bed with the pet food industry, etc.

 

If the pet food industry sponsored one, the interest of the sponsor would be one factor I'd take into account in evaluating it. But at least I would have some evidence to evaluate. In the absence of such evidence, I have to go by my own experience and that of my friends, which is that our dogs are doing well on kibble.

 

>

 

Is OJ better to drink during/after a marathon or other physical exertion than Gatorade? I have no idea, and I couldn't answer the question without some kind of evidence. I couldn't answer it just because OJ is "fresh, natural, real food," but I'm sure those adjectives have lots of sales appeal. (I suspect the answer here is the same as for kibble vs. raw -- except for a few idiosyncratic cases, theres no real difference to health -- but of course I can't pretend to know.) Is St. John's Wort better than Prozac for depression? Would you say yes because it's "natural," or would you rather see some evidence?