Interesting post. I have never been attracted to feeding raw and prefer using a high quality complete kibble.

The balance is 80% muscle meat, 10% organs and 10% bones. If you have researched the prey model diet then you should know that because it's like a mantra to us raw feeders

I think most of the difficulties you are talking about are encountered by new to raw feeders who are introducing their dogs to a whole new way of eating and working out the correct balance for their dog.

I find your original post to be a bit vague. Sorry

great post sarah...

I also wonder if the vet friend was sponsered by hills.
lets face it many vets to tend to push one for or another

My dogs love raw and although not fed exclusively on it, they dont suffer any problems out the back end. I feed kibble but when finances allow, I like to give them raw as I think there is not substitue really for fresh meat and bones. I view raw as a top up on my dogs main diet because I feed cheap food.

This brings me on to my next point. I used to believe that the good quality foods like AG, Nutro etc were all my dogs needed for a healthy diet. I realised that I was paying top money for something they werent doing well on...itchy, flaky skin etc even though the food was hypoallergenic. I moved them onto a cheaper brand (Chappie in my case) and they did wonderfully well.

However, I realise that the ingredients are cheap and cheerful and thats why I like to try and balance that out as much as I can with raw meat, fish etc.

I was a real believer that cheap food was evil and the top brands were the best thing since sliced bread but now I just think that feeding your dog what it's most healthy on is the important factor, be it raw or kibble, cheap or expensive.

I switched to raw about a year ago, and I'm afraid I find it a bit of a minefield.

I have three shibas - two of which cannot tolerate raw chicken. Only one likes tripe. One won't eat pet quality mince.

One will eat anything, and damn the torpedos.

One will eat hardly anything.

The only thing that doesn't have an "affect" is supermarket mince - most everything else raw has a tendancy to "leave" quicker than it went in. They can't live on mince for the rest of their lives, can they? One will get bored.....

I've now started adding some tinned food to the mince to make it more interesting to the fussy one. I started with Chappie, thinking it would have the least effect. However, he turned his nose up....

It's currently driving me up the flaming wall

I'm sure your teacher wouldn't go quite that far

As I see it you have three separate issues with Raw feeding.

1. the physical passage of the food through the digestive system (you mentioned possible evolution of the domestic dog away from the ability to process raw food). Can the dogs chew it, swallow it and pass it through their system safely?

2. secondly, the issue of nutrients and their availability in raw vs kibble format.

3. the sheer enjoyment of a dog settling down to a meaty bone. At least 30mins IME of sheer doggy joy.

Does AHR consider that Hills beats Raw on all 3 counts?

If Raw falls down on point 2, what supplements would need to be given to compensate?

Nothing in a dog's life is risk-free, we can't advise them to chew their bones more slowly or look before they jump over a ditch, or slow down on short wet grass. Sometimes it's a judgement call and a sort of trade-off between perfect safety and enjoyment for the dogs.

JMHO.

When I said 'limited' ingredients I mean I have some people who are feeding their dogs just tripe all the time, or just chicken wings- I wasn't saying you do! I myself fed raw and understand variety - thats why I also fed a variety of foods when I fed it including a long list of things including rabbit, beef, chicken, various offals etc, how colourful, but it's an artistic view, not a scientific one.

Hills are striving to get money in their pocket no more than any other brand, in fact they advertise way less. Vets advocate them because they witness their success. She is not sponsored by them. Not all vets subscribe to them anyway, noone is forcing them. I do not think it is fair to assume vets are simply lining their pockets by advocating them- do you know all vets personally? No. And my teacher is not my vet so she is not trying to get money off me. I also do not think you know how or what they are taught at University, you are just adopting some of the statements you have read on pro-raw feeding websites. I am trying to be completely fair about how I formulate my opinion with this, and am weighing up pros and cons of BOTH sides of the argument so please do not launch in as though I am anti- you.
I expected this to happen though, because I 'm asking you to question yourself, and people can rarely do that- at least not straight away. I questioned myself to get to where I am now, and it is not easy.
My vet was not just restricted to Hills. She was personally convinced that it is the best diet for health, but accepts not everyone will be able to buy it, so when others put forward names of brands she evaluated them accordingly, saying that James Wellbeloved was good, as well as Arden Grange.
The bones my dog was eating were chicken bones- raw ones. She generally is not a bolter, and is a medium-large dog (GSD/ Greyhound mix). The percentages you give are not in accordance with what everyone advises, you might go to another source of raw feeding information and find different ones. I was feeding a sensible interpretation of the raw food diet, I feel- around 8 of her weekly meals containing bones. She was wretching night after night, and by the signs of various stains on the carpet she had been doing it on other occasions as well. She also chewed grass a lot and whimpered to go out frequently, but then would not do anything if we took her. She was not constipated, I can only assume she felt a bit poorly- and this did not go away over a long time.
The illnesses I am talking about are the diarrhoea, apparent nausea, grass chewing, constipation etc (wide range of digestive related things) that people encounter, and not just when they first begin feeding raw. I worked out what was best for my dog, gave her variety and her poos seemed to become consistent, however there still seemed to be some issues, like those I mentioned that would not go away.

I cannot give you figures of how many people are experiencing such problems but they are obviously widespread, as I see and hear countless tales about it. It is apparent, and if I was hoping to prove anything 100% and actually affect the raw feeding world, I would investigate it and produce such figures.
It works both ways anyway- can you give me facts and figures about how many dogs are completely without such problems?

What controversy? Have I missed a good ruck?
I doubt very much if anyone can say that a certain food is the best for all dogs. It`s a patently absurd statement.
I would also say that your argument that having bad teeth is better than constant diarrhea doesn`t make sense. Nothing in life is that simple, unfortunately.
If you are looking at Hills as an example, I should like to remind you that processed `convenience` dogfood is a very recent invention. Since it is a young and not impartial science, being funded solely by Petfood manufacturers, I think I would take these claims with a very large pinch of salt.
If you want to look at raw feeding, why are you just quoting the problems? Why, if you are going into this as a science are you not looking at pros as well as cons? I`m asking impartially as I feed both processed and raw so I don`t have an axe to grind.
eta: you seem to be basing your study on one dog. This to me proves that no one dogfood suits all dogs!

My teacher did say 'dogs do not get ill.' I am sure she did not mean they could never fall ill from something impossible to avoid, such as hereditary disease. However using such a scientifically 'perfect' diet I suppose seems to stop many things occurring or getting the better of your dog.
I do not think raw fails on point 2, that is one point I actually think it is ok on. I do not think it is necessary to give supplements, as long as they have a varied diet, however I think there is a big issue with point 1- its passage through their system, and possibly a small issue with uncooked meat having a hygiene risk. I think dogs can digest raw meat without problems, but on some occasions- not. It may depend on the dog, and the meat you are using. I think this MAY be a contributory factor as to why some dogs get nauseus/ or get diarrhoea. Most people put it down to not enough fibre, and this may be true, but does that explain why some dogs can never settle on it even though the proportions have been carefully worked out?

I have personally never had a bone last 30 minutes- 5 is probably the maximum, when feeding normal size meals such as chicken portions or rabbit. My dog relishes it slightly however she will not be depressed if she can't have it. I will probably still give her the odd bones anyway- just not as her main diet.

calm down... I think most members on here are very aware of what they feed, many will have questioned themselfs many times..

poss the whole.. 'my teacher vet friend said'... has been where the problem came in.. eg its not really your views, but someone elses view.. hence you are just adopting someone elses statement,.. the very thing you are saying we may be doing
can you see what I mean