Raw Feeding Controversy
I decided to feed my dog raw about a year ago, but have recently decided to stop due to growing doubts about its suitability.
I have been honest with myself and realised that a lot of the appeal in the image it creates in your mind of something 'natural', it is not based on sound scientific evidence, most arguements are those created after someone had already decided they liked the idea, and they are trying to prove themselves right.
I joined a raw feeding mailing group on yahoo, and received streams of emails each day, 75% of which are along the lines of 'my dog has diarrhoea,' 'my dog is being sick,' 'my dogs is constipated,' and some sounded frankly quite serious such as the appearance of blood. The other 25% are mostly about what is right or wrong to feed. There are loads of people feeding very limited ingredients, eg tripe 99% of the time, which is not right, yet you cannot stop this kind of misinterpretation whe you leave people to do things themselves.
I personally do not believe you have to have a 100% scientifically balanced diet to be healthy, however it is not necessarily 'optimum' health-that is a myth- something that can only be achieved through a perfect balance of all nutrients, and that is what the scientists behind foods such as Hill's are striving for.
Dog's lives are lengthened by science diets when they fall ill and according to my teacher (who is a vet) dog's rarely if ever get ill if fed on a Hills maintenance diet. She has experienced the truth of that statement through her work- however if I was attempting to stick up for how raw feeding helps a dog live a longer healthier life- what would I say? 'Well other people tell me it works...' I really don't know do I?
Maybe for the majority of dogs 'very good health' is more than enough... Is 'optimum health' necessary- are scientists and vets becoming too obsessed with trying to make everything
perfectly healthy?
The whole 'vets don't know what they're talking about,' is commonplace, but really, they probably know more than you or I, for having read a few books, and gained a very possibly flawed opinion. How can you deny all the widespread digestive problems people are having with raw feeding? Some statements people use are also very sweeping- eg, 'all vets are trained by people who manufacture science diets, so they are deliberately made biased towads them in an attempt to make money.' How do you, personally know that? You read it on the internet?...
I am still against the large amount of carbohydrate put in dog foods, that, along with cheap ingredients may well have an affect on lots of dogs causing allergies/skin conditions etc. I do not think carbohydrate is necessary in such amounts nutritionally, however it is not really there for a nutritional purpose- Iams have said that it is necessary to form kibbles. It also acts as bulk and fibre. If omitting carbs you would have no choice but to supply a loose food, containing bits of veg, meat, and bone and stuff- which could cause problems as dogs may not want to eat certain parts of it, especially the non-meat components. The fibre and bulk help create healthy poos too, therefore you don't end up with a constipated dog if you feed too many bones, or diarrhoea if you feed too little. The content of dog food has been worked out so it passes through the dog in a reliable, healthy way.
My teacher suggested that raw bones could be dangerous because they could cause obstruction, and that wild dogs/wolves may die of this all the time. Personally I don't know about that, I would say its more likely wild dogs and wolves are more hardy. They will have evolved to stomachs of steel to take large hunks of bones that they gulp down, whereas our dogs have 'evolved' or been selectively bred to be weaker. Even if obstructions isn't common, as mentioned its hard to judge what is the right amount of bone to give which won't cause other digestive problems.
My dog a few weeks ago started hacking up shards of bone in the middle of the night, crunching them and reswallowing them. I am not happy with this- it is not healthy.
Maybe some dogs have their tartar reduced or prevented from chewing raw stuff, but this could be helped by brushing if you feed kibble. I have not noticed any major differences in my dog's teeth, and her breath smells quite gross actually, probably due to all the festering bacteria which is growing in her mouth from raw meat. Her saliva seems slimy with it too.
Maybe dogs do have a good defense against salmonella and other things you may find on raw meat, however I don't think that they are completely protected against it, and maybe some of the diarrhoea and sickness is caused by that too- unless you have veterinary level knowledge of how a dog's body works, and have studied this you can't really say...
I will finish by saying I am not 100% against raw feeding at all, however my main issue isthat the digestive problems seem widespread, and fairly serious. You can't advocate a diet responsibly that causes such illnesses, so it needs to be studied and addressed. There are some real, noticeable benefits from feedig raw, eg I orginally noticed that my dogs coat seemed shiny, and she seemed a bit calmer- maybe due to not having carbs or processed food- THAT aspect of the diet may be benefical however it is the raw form it is in and how you balance the bones which is a major issue.