Mom is refusing to belive me about raw.

[cali]

There is no benefit of feeding raw over a high quality commercial dog food

tell that one to Shadow, now 10 years old after being on her deathbed at 4 years old, vets said she would notlive to be 5, she could not even stand up, rather then put her down like reccomened we switched to raw, she is currently 10 years old and showing zero signs of arthritus, her intestinal problems caused by her spay also vannished. every one of my dogs has benifited greatly from the switch. I have alos heard many people talk like you then when they ran out of ideas they tried raw and their tune changed real fast.

[Vela]

tell that one to Shadow, now 10 years old after being on her deathbed at 4 years old, vets said she would notlive to be 5, she could not even stand up, rather then put her down like reccomened we switched to raw, she is currently 10 years old and showing zero signs of arthritus, her intestinal problems caused by her spay also vannished. every one of my dogs has benifited greatly from the switch. I have alos heard many people talk like you then when they ran out of ideas they tried raw and their tune changed real fast.

I agree, raw has done wonders for my crippled dog, she's like a whole new dog. My "perfectly healthy" dog, who had no apparent health issues, also has more energy, better stools, better haircoat.

There is no benefit of feeding raw over a high quality commercial dog food. If you wish to feed your dog a balanced raw diet then that is a choice being made by you. It is a human decision based on human perceptions about food. Night after night when my dogs finish their Propet dry dog food in 20-30 secs for one dog, and about 1.5 minutes for the other I do not worry too much about them liking the taste. When I ask them if they want to eat the female lets out a woo woo woo, while the male runs into the kitchen and stands by his bowl. I interpret that as a positive sign that they enjoy their food. When they come upstairs after they are done eating and proceed to come over to me for pets wagging their tails, I do not suffer any guilt for having fed them that nasty commercial dry dog food. I'll side with your mommy-person. Iams or some other high quality dog food will do just fine.

In actuality, KIBBLE is what is perceived by humans to be dog food, if you were to put both down, most dogs would choose the meat, at least once they realized they could eat it. PEOPLE make kibble and people are the ones who decided it was the best food for dogs. So saying raw is human's perception of what a dog should eat makes no sense to say, since kibble is also a perception of what humans think a dog should eat. I don't care if someone feeds raw or not, but don't bash it just because you choose not to feed it. Nothing makes you right more than anyone else. PERSONALLY my dogs do much better on raw and the health problems they DID have, while being fed a high quality dog food, Chicken Soup and Canidae, have virtualy disappeared. If you don't want to feed it fine then don't, but that doesn't make it wrong to do and many many many dogs get nothing but great benefits from it. You can try to dispute my dog's health to me all day, but I'm the one who lives with them, so I see for myself and your "refutations" about raw feeding mean nothing to me.

[Glacier]

PERSONALLY my dogs do much better on raw and the health problems they DID have, while being fed a high quality dog food.

Really, isn't that what matters? It works for your dogs! We all need to do what works best for our own dogs, our lifestyle and our budget. I feed my dogs a half raw-half kibble diet. Last night they ate moose, tonight I feel lazy and they are getting kibble, a good quality kibble, but just kibble! I get told all the time that mixing them is simply terrible for any dog, but every musher I know feeds the same kind of diet and my dogs are all generally in dang good health. They have shiny coats, bright eyes, enough energy to pull a sled for 1000's of kilometres a year, ect, ect.

I have a dog who was starved by her first owner. Kayleigh weighs 108 pounds now, which is perfect for her. She was below 70 pounds when I got her. It's taken years to undo the damage her first owner did to her in other ways. She will never forget being hungry. Five years after I adopted her, she still hides food in her doghouse, just in case I suddenly forget to feed her one night! She lives alone because she'd kill another dog who got too close to her bone or anything else she thinks might be edible. Since I got Kayleigh, I find it difficult to care too much about what other people feed their dogs...Just feed them...feed them the best quality food that you can find, afford and that fits in with the rest of your lifestyle!

[Lady's Human]

My issue with many of the posts about RAW isn't with the raw diet itself, but rather with the perpetual myths that are posted in defense of it. There are possible microbial and other health issues involved, and takes a lot of research and effort to do properly.

Another irritation I have with many of the raw posts is the continuing myth that commercial dog food is bad. The evil additives that are constantly harped on are nothing more than a chemical replacements for vitamins and minerals that an animal needs for good health. Do you take vitamins? "Natural" supplements ? You're ingesting the same chemicals listed on a bag of dog food, in the saame form, with a different label. Preservatives? preservatives are present in food in such minute amounts that they have little to no biological effect. For example, (from the human side) a batch of syrup for soda contains 20 lbs of sodium benzoate. sounds like a lot, right? Not after you do the math, and figure out that that benzoate is distributed through 192000 pounds of product. It winds up in the parts per million range. How does it wind up on the ingredient list before flavoring? It doesn't take much orange oil to flavor the soda by weight. ANYTHING put into the product by the manufacturer has to be listed, which is why something that may be in the parts per million or parts per billion range is listed. Media reports showing that benzoate, for example, is a harmful additive don't give you the whole story. The amounts tested are frequently far in excess of what one would normally encounter in a diet. The most infamous example of this is saccharin. Yes, it can cause cancer. However, at the levels tested in the study that essentially pushed it off the market damned near ANYTHING would cause cancer. (It worked out to drinking 20 cases of soda containing saccharin per day for the rest of your life, IIRC. By that time you'd be in severe abdonminal distress from the acid you consumed, never mind the saccharin)

I can find studies proving that sugar is lethal (not over long term, lethal as a short term effect), water is lethal, the list could run forever. Just because it's published doesn't mean it's accurate or realistic.

False "scientific" claims drive me nuts in any form, whether involving dog food or nuclear power.

If your dog is doing well on a diet, that's fine, continue feeding it. Please don't try to push it on others or make others feel bad about what they are feeding their pet with dubious scientific claims.

[CagneyDog]

If your dog is doing well on a diet, that's fine, continue feeding it. Please don't try to push it on others or make others feel bad about what they are feeding their pet with dubious scientific claims.

I wouldn't really say that "pushing" is the right word. It's a recomendation, as are most things on a forum. You promote things that work, whether it be toys, food, kennels etc. I've learned a lot from people such as .sarah and bckrazy explaining the diet and I can't comprehend how you could see information as "pushing" it on others. After all, if you don't want anything to do with raw, don't even open the threads!

[Lady's Human]

I would say pushing is the right word. How many dog food threads asking about a good kibble have turned into a raw forum, inevitably with the comment that commercial dog food is bad?

[dragondawg]

I agree, raw has done wonders for my crippled dog, she's like a whole new dog. My "perfectly healthy" dog, who had no apparent health issues, also has more energy, better stools, better haircoat.




PEOPLE make kibble and people are the ones who decided it was the best food for dogs. So saying raw is human's perception of what a dog should eat makes no sense to say, since kibble is also a perception of what humans think a dog should eat. I don't care if someone feeds raw or not, but don't bash it just because you choose not to feed it. Nothing makes you right more than anyone else. PERSONALLY my dogs do much better on raw and the health problems they DID have, while being fed a high quality dog food, Chicken Soup and Canidae, have virtualy disappeared. If you don't want to feed it fine then don't, but that doesn't make it wrong to do and many many many dogs get nothing but great benefits from it. You can try to dispute my dog's health to me all day, but I'm the one who lives with them, so I see for myself and your "refutations" about raw feeding mean nothing to me.

In actuality, KIBBLE is what is perceived by humans to be dog food, if you were to put both down, most dogs would choose the meat, at least once they realized they could eat it.

One could also put down a half rotting dead Possum next to their evil commercial dog food, and the chances are they would dive into the Possum without hesitation. In fact they would probably even forsake the raw chicken for something smelly. After all wolves scavenge for carion, the argument goes that centuries of wolves makes it ok for our dogs. I'm not sure if carion would be all that healthy for dogs, but at least by your logic it would be- after all it's the smell and taste that matters. Dogs will always eat what instinctly they know is best for them?

I don't care if someone feeds raw or not, but don't bash it just because you choose not to feed it.

Any time someone says that raw is superior to commercial dog food, then that is a bash towards those of us who choose commercial. And as I just pointed out in another post one is even labeled as crazy, and for feeding bad dog food. But of course commercial dog food owners deserve such bashing - don't they? It's just terrible what we feed our dogs.

Nothing makes you right more than anyone else.

Outside of knowledge- nothing.

Your dog(s) are having less health problems on raw since they got away from their food allergy. Mine have never had health problems on commercial dog food. So goes the testimonials.

It's one thing to post the myriads of "what did I feed my dog today". It's another to present misconceptions as fact.

[Vela]

My dogs never had a food allergy, my dog has crippling arthritis, which has nothing to do with a food allergy. She no longer needs medication or pain releivers for her arthritis and can run and jump and play, this is from changing her diet. So please don't proceed to tell me my dogs are doing better because they had a food allergy, because they didn't. I certainly never told you not to feed kibble and for ME raw is best. I don't give a rats behind what you feed your dogs, but it doesn't mean it's the best thing for them and it doesn't mean it's the worst thing for them, and I never said anything about it. You bash raw because you don't agree with it, well your way doesn't make you right just because you beleive it to be true. MY dogs do better on raw, and has nothing to do with a food allergy whatsoever. I never told you to feed your dogs raw, ever, or even that you should. I have ALWAYS said people should feed what they feel is best and what they can afford as long as they feel good about it, I personally beleive raw is better, but I'm not trying to make you feed it to your dogs, feed whatever you want, but stop bashing raw just because you don't do it or like it. Yes I do beleive raw is better, but I'm as entitled to think that if I like. That is not a bash to you because you don't feed it, but take it how you want. That's your chip on your own shoulder, not mine. I am not trying to make up your mind for you, but there is no need for you to put down those who do feed it and prefer it as better food for their dogs. Just because your dogs get excited about eating kibble doesn't mean they WOULDNT get just as excited about eating raw, they just don't know that it eixsts as food because it's not provided. Wheter a dog chows down their food or not is no indication of it being healthy or not for them. Most dogs eats whatever they are given, raw or kibble, and most get equally exicted about it, so if you are basing your dog's happiness at being fed on whether or not it's the best food, that's rather unrealistic. You seem to have this huge ego thing about your "knowledge" but OMG you don't know everything! Surprise!

[zoey]

I don't think people who talk about raw food are taking over posts as was eluded too, earlier in this thread.
It's just that there is so much to raw feeding.
A kibble diet is simple. Poor 2 cups of kibble in a bowl. The dog eats it.
But with raw it's completely different. There's lots and lots of info. to learn. How to buy it. how to cut it up. Portions. Proportions. Sources, vitamins and mineral content, etc. We just want to do it right and as healthily as possible. We are here to educate and inform each other what we've learned and what is working for our dogs.
We can do that w/out begrudging kibble feeders. Honestly there is no time for that. What we should all begrudge are the folks that starve their dogs.

[bckrazy]

I think you missed my point completely, Dragondawg. We've disagreed before... not because of what you feed your dogs - they sound very healthy, and that is AWESOME - but with the "tone" that you use in your posts. Talk about belittling.

My quote about grocery store kibble had nothing to do with kibble, and everything to do with educated dog owners. The fact is, I've seen you reply to many threads about people who feed lower quality brands who are unhappy with it and feel their dogs could do better, and your replies many times have simply been advocating the grocery store brand and telling them to stick to it. Yes, we are doing this for the love/health of our dogs, and they should eat what works for them. But, to discourage people from looking beyond the mega-massive "grocery store" kibbles, to me is what's crazy. People should know what is out there & make an educated choice on what is going into their dogs, beyond Iams and Beneful and the convincing commercials, as the vast majority of dog owners DON'T! If [insert brand here] kibble works for your dog and you are totally satisfied, that's great. But I know that I, as a young person who has learned a lot since getting Gonzo when I was 13 & fed him Nutro and similar brands, did not even know how healthy he could be with a better diet. We should all strive to improve our lives and the lives of our pets as much as we can, don't we agree on that? Why does it threaten you when people want to improve the diet & therefore the health of their dog?

Ucka. What Vela said, I'm getting too involved in this, when I know absolutely nothing I say will change anything.

[wolfsoul]

I think you missed my point completely, Dragondawg. We've disagreed before... not because of what you feed your dogs - they sound very healthy, and that is AWESOME - but with the "tone" that you use in your posts. Talk about belittling.

I completely agree. This quote says it all -- "Outside of knowledge - nothing." Honestly I'm scared to post in the dog health section because of the amount of times I've felt like my advice has been belittled, and now I have to worry about it in dog general. I'm tired of the arrogance.

The only food I'm against are low-quality kibbles. If you want to feed a high quality kibble, go ahead. If that's what works for you, great. I'm ecstatic to see so many people on PT interested interested in higher quality kibbles and raw. But I'm against the whole idea of lower quality dog foods -- I think it's wrong. I think that even if the dog appears to be doing well on it, things are going on insid ethat you can't see. My GSD died of cancer on a low quality dog food. Her sisters are still alive at 12 years of age with nothing but some arthritis. Everyone thought she was healthy --- sure, she had a doggy smell, she was overweight and had dandruff, and she chewed her one leg to pieces. But nobody made the tie to diet. Because that is what is normal these days. Dogs smell, dogs are greasy, dogs chew themselves, and when a dog is altered it gets fat. It's never the food, oh no.
Just because I feed raw and recommend raw does NOT mean that I'm against all kibbles and will belittle someone for feeding kibble. Even if they feed a low quality kibble I will not make any snide remarks or pound them with a bunch of textbook studies. If they are looking for something better, I will tell them what I believe is wrong with the food they are feeding, and what they should avoid in the future. As soon as someone sees me telling someone that raw is good and kibble is bad and all kibble owners should basically rot, call me on it. I tried dozens of kibbles, none of them worked for MY dog, and I don't want to feed kibble, that is ME, do what works for you. Raw is not for everyone. I've seen needless deaths and illnesses on raw because the owner didn't research properly --- I've also seen it on kibble.

[cali]

My dogs never had a food allergy, my dog has crippling arthritis, which has nothing to do with a food allergy. She no longer needs medication or pain releivers for her arthritis and can run and jump and play, this is from changing her diet

yup same deal with Shadow, the vet called in premature aging, at 4 years old she had arthritus so bad she was unable to stand, she looked like a 13 year old dog rather then a 4 year old, all the vets said she would not live to see 5 and because she was already suffering so much we should put her down. we switched to raw because of Happy who had an allergy to grain(note the past tense, since the switch her grain allergy is gone, grains are no problem to her now) the switch took longer to benifit Shadow as she had been on kibble for 4 years and she was in such horrable shape, but after several months things started to clear up, her teeth got better, her arthritus vannished, and her intenstnial problems caused by her spay vannished never to return. she was on raw for 4 years, when we had to rehome her, by then all her problems were gone, she has been back on kibble for 2 years now and the effects of the raw have lasted, at 10 years old she continues to show no signs of the arthrtius that once crippled her. Raw is not a cure all however. when researched and fed properly it can be the best thing you can feed, but it not researched and fed right it can cause more harm then good .

dragondawg most of us raw feeders have fed both raw and several kinds of kibbles, you have fed only kibble and bash something you have never tried. when raw feeders complain about problems from kibble its from EXPERIENCE. you are bashing raw based on your own theorys.