My only input into this would be when I contracted Campylobacter a few years ago, which was the result of a stool sample. The Environmental Health people rang me to ask me some questions, and because I told them I had eaten a steak the very night I became ill, it was cooked on the outside, but actually cold and raw and half frozen in the middle, she replied that raw red meat is where it's found, or faeces!!! Now I know you'll probably come back with links that say this is not the case, but this came straight out of the mouth of an Environmental Health Officer, so you can't tell me they don't know what they're talking about! I have never been so ill in my life, and thought I had died for 5 whole days, so I certainly wouldn't like any of my dogs to contract this either.

I do take the risk and give them a marrowbone sometimes but I know my bones come from a good source, my local butchers in our village who breed their own stock for slaughter, and I could probably eat one of his steaks raw, but not the steak I had in a Spanish restaurant to make me as ill as it did! I am not adverse to chucking them the odd bit of braising steak either when I'm cutting some up.

I said in the other thread, I am well clued up on health and hygeine having gained various certificates as I've been in the catering trade most of my life, and because of this reason, yes, I do think feeding raw meat does have it's downfalls, I would much rather cook my dog's meat and know that I've killed everything off during the high temperatures involved.

I know dogs do well on it, I know their stomachs are capable of killing of MOST bacteria, but I don't think you can say ALL. That's my opinion. I think it's a risk, but then again isn't everything in life.

To my mind and the research that I have read to date raw feeding is great if you can, and do it properly for certain dogs. It is certainly not for all and I think that there are definitely risks. That being said there are risks in everything, its up to us to do the research and make an informed judgement. IMO most of the arguments both for and against are reasonably valid; i.e.

For raw feeding - dogs are designed to eat raw meat, their teeth are made to rip large chunks of raw meat and so on. Dogs are carnivores. They can cope with most of the bacteria that is present in raw meat. Cooking foods destroys many of the vitamins present. Raw bones are less brittle than cooked.

Against – Salmonella, and other bacteria are present in all foods, and cooking them thoroughly destroys them (however it must also be stored at the correct temperature and so on). Convenience.

Well here’s a very extensive study, which to my mind destroys the myths about raw feeding. (very long again…sorry). Credit to my friend Karen who has done most of the research here;

The myths; Dogs have been domesticated for so long that they have adapted to cooked diets.Yes, dogs were domesticated from wolves thousands of years ago, and then selectively bred by humans for desired sizes, shapes, and characteristics. However, they have NOT adapted to a cooked food diet, as evidenced by the millions of pets sitting in the waiting rooms of veterinary clinics with periodontal disease, skin diseases, cancers, organ diseases, diabetes, obesity—diseases that have strong connections to cooked and processed foods. No, a cooked diet has not been kind to our animals.
Kibbled foods (which are cooked and highly processed) have only been around for the last 100 years. Evolutionary adaptations require much more time than this. The evolutionary changes—from gross anatomy down to the molecular level—that would be required for the development of such different digestive capabilities would take MUCH longer than the time that wolves have been living with humans.
So what were pets eating before the advent of cooked, processed, kibbled pet diets? They received hardly any cooked food, as food was a precious commodity that very few people would waste on something like a dog (remember, dogs have not always enjoyed the same social status they enjoy now). Instead, they received the human "waste food"—things people would not use or eat, which may have included a small portion of table scraps. By and large, however, the dogs foraged and scavenged on their own, or hunted small prey animals to supplement what little food they received at home.
And before this? Wolf-dogs hunted with their masters and hung around the camps, knowing they would receive whatever raw meat, bones, and offal were left over (Feldhamer, G.A. 1999. Mammology: Adaptation, Diversity, and Ecology. McGraw-Hill. pg 472.). Thousands of years ago, people did not cook for their pets. Why should they? The animals were fully capable of obtaining their own food and moreover were a good "disposal" for unused parts of animals. The dogs ate what they were designed to eat, and until the 1950s (some argue as late as the 1980s and 1990s), dogs were recognized as the carnivores they are.

Humans have changed dogs. BUT, we have only changed their external appearance and temperament, NOT their internal anatomy and physiology. The claim that dogs cannot handle a raw diet because they are so domesticated is only true in that we have been feeding them commercial diets for so long that a dog 's system is not running up to par. The result of feeding dogs a highly processed, grain-based food is a suppressed immune system and the underproduction of the enzymes necessary to thoroughly digest raw meaty bones (Lonsdale, T. 2001. Raw Meaty Bones). This does NOT mean, however, that the dog does not "have" those enzymes. Those enzymes are present, and once the dog is taken off the grain-based, plant matter-filled food those enzymes quickly return to the proper working level that allows for optimal digestion of raw meaty bones.
Dogs are so much like wolves physiologically that they are frequently used in wolf studies as a physiological model for wolf body processes (Mech, L.D. 2003. Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation). Additionally, dogs and wolves share 99.8% of their mitochondrial DNA (Wayne, R.K. Molecular Evolution of the Dog Family). This next quote is from Robert K. Wayne, Ph.D., and his discussion on canine genetics (taken from http://www.fiu.edu/~milesk/Genetics.html).

"The domestic dog is an extremely close relative of the gray wolf, differing from it by at most 0.2% of mDNA sequence..."
Dogs and wolves can freely interbreed and produce fertile offspring—even little dogs like Westies and Chihuahuas are capable of this! This is a dramatic indication that dogs and wolves are very closely related and are compatible in terms of genetics (incompatible animals do not produce viable, fertile offspring, such as donkeys and horses. Their offspring—the mule—is a sterile animal.). The genes for different coat colors, lengths, conformations, and structural differences are present in the wolf population to a certain degree (otherwise wolves would not have been able to give rise to the different dogs we have today. In order for a phenotypic change to occur, there has to be a genetic basis off which to work. If the genes are not there, then the phenotypic change is not going to "magically" occur), but are selected against by nature because they are not advantageous to wolf survival. Humans are the ones that manipulated the breedings to "create" smaller dogs and dogs of varying colors, shapes, and sizes.
Additionally, dogs that are left to their own devices in the wild will form packs and hunt other animals, exhibiting a similar range of behaviors like those seen in wolves. Phenotypic differences like size, ears, etc. will often return to a more "wolf-like" state as the animals outcross and breed freely (for example, Chihuahuas will increase in size if left to breed without specific human selection for size); breed characteristics have been specifically selected according to human whim, and in order to retain those characteristics like dogs must be continually bred to like dogs until the genes for those characteristics are sufficiently 'fixed' within that population of dogs (which is how we came upon the different dog breeds today). One can rightfully question what dogs would end up looking like if they just bred for generations without human interference. Would they gradually look more and more like their ancestral predecessors?
Dogs have recently been reclassified as Canis lupus familiaris by the Smithsonian Institute (Wayne, R.K. "What is a Wolfdog?" http://www.fiu.edu/~milesk/Genetics.htm), placing it in the same species as the gray wolf, Canis lupus. The dog is, by all scientific standards and by evolutionary history, a domesticated wolf (Feldhamer, G.A. 1999. Mammology: Adaptation, Diversity, and Ecology. McGraw-Hill. pg 472.). Those who insist dogs did not descend from wolves must disprove the litany of scientific evidence that concludes wolves are the ancestors of dogs. And, as we have already established, the wolf is a carnivore. Since a dog's internal physiology does not differ from a wolf, dogs have the same physiological and nutritional needs as those carnivorous predators, which, remember, "need to ingest all the major parts of their herbivorous prey, except the plants in the digestive system" to "grow and maintain their own bodies" (Mech, L.D. 2003. Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation.

What about the argument that dogs may have weaker digestive enzymes than wolves? Some argue that dogs may not be as efficient as wolves in digesting raw meat and bones. This argument has been recognized by wolf researchers (Mech, L.D. 2003. Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation.) but is generally not considered in their dog model studies. Why? From mouth to anus, dog and wolf physiology and basic anatomy are almost precisely the same. What is the significance of this? This means dogs should still be fed a carnivorous diet to meet their needs. What does it matter if they don't have the same digestive capabilities as a wolf? How does that justify feeding them an even harder-to-digest meal of commercial pet food or cooked food? How does that justify feeding them any differently from a prey model diet that has been proven by nature to be completely sufficient?
Let us forget the wolf-dog relations for a moment. Let us just look at the dog itself and listen to what its body can tell us about its diet. The dog has the anatomy and physiology of a predatory carnivore, of a hunter designed to subsist on other animals. It has the skull and jaw design of a carnivore: a deep and C-shaped mandibular fossa that prevents lateral movement of the jaw (lateral movement is necessary for eating plant matter). The jaw muscles are designed for crushing grips and powerful bites, with a jaw that hinges open widely to help gulp chunks of meat and bone. The teeth of the dog are pointed and specialized for ripping, tearing, shearing, and crushing meat and bone. Their saliva lacks amylase, the enzyme responsible for beginning carbohydrate breakdown; instead, they have lysozyme in their saliva, an enzyme that destroys pathogenic bacteria. They have highly elastic stomachs designed to stretch to capacity with ingested meat and bone, complete with incredibly powerful and acidic stomach acid (pH of 1). Their intestines are short and smooth, designed to push meat through quickly so that it does not sit and putrefy in the gut. Their external anatomy also shows development as a hunter. They have eyes situated in the front of their skulls rather than to the side like an herbivore. The body (prior to man-made manipulation of things like size and angulation) is built for chasing down prey, and its senses are acutely developed to help locate prey. By all accounts, this is an animal designed to eat other animals.
Dogs still are carnivores. They still need meat, bones, and organs. They still cannot utilize vegetables as efficiently as meat. Their nutritional needs have not changed much over their years of domestication. Do they need supplemental enzymes, then? The small amount of stool coming out the other end of a raw fed dog clearly indicates that there is no need for extra enzymes (medical conditions requiring extra enzymes not included here). The best, most highly digestible diet for our domesticated carnivores is a prey model diet based on a variety of raw meaty bones and whole carcasses.

These are only my observations and its interesting to hear others view, opinions and experience. As stated earlier after many years I too feed ‘some’ of my dogs raw and I think they are doing extremely well on it, why shouldn’t they be? But, I also feed the oldies on good quality home made cooked food, as they weren’t brought up learning to eat raw. I also use very good quality dried food.

Sorry about the epic, but I thought there are some very sound arguments in there!

I feel having been shouted down and accused of being a scaremonger and alledgedly talking cr*p, I have to be very factual about what I am about to state.

There is no doubt by the results that Raw feeding is of great benefit to a dog. You cannot deny the logic behind it and you can see why this trend has so much faith behind it. No doubt it has been well researched before anyone has plunged in and started raw feeding. Yes, there is no doubt there are risks involved but does the means really justify the end?

We feed a small amount of kibble, with cooked meat, fish and veggies with pasta and rice to our year old Dobes, the two older dogs get kibble with occasional added food.

Uncooked meat however is a no go area. Our reasons are plain and simple. Its really is not worth the risk.

http://www.workingdogs.com/vcbarf.htm
http://www.secondchanceranch.org/tra...eat/index.html
http://home.att.net/~wdcusick/raw.html

http://www.canine-epilepsy-guardian-...s_Raw_Food.htm
Caution to epiletic dog owners but nonetheless applies to all...
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...i?artid=339295
I draw your attention that the control samples were negative for Salmonella.

I want to point out that feeding kibble does not mean that is not infected with bacteria, however the content due to the dried nature and extrusion process is likely to be much less than raw unprocessed food. Small infections do not tend to result in illness or result in bacteria being shed by the animal.

Because of the recent upsurge in raw feeding and the pro lobby, there is more and more pushing the virtues of the raw diet and whilst many consider the implications these are often swept aside as being pet food companies peddling their wares or vets that should know better and scaremongers predicting the next apocalypse .

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0218143832.htm

The facts are as I have concluded is that much of our food contains pathogens and in some cases parasites. Cooking eliminates most if not all of these. Dogs are better equiped for dealing with these than us, but they do pass them on more readily than humans, however they can become ill, they can die.

With this in mind I chose not to feed raw, I feed fresh cooked food with kibble that contains other sources of minerals and vitamins to ensure the dog has the well researched balanced diet.

Last but not least I would strongly urge anyone that are considering a raw diet or are feeding a raw diet not to do so if they have children under five, old or sick relatives that may come into contact, or are pregnant. The health implications far outweigh the benefits to your animal regardless of the positive attributes of raw feeding.

Like Garfield says.... Diet is die with a 'T'

Food for thought.

Can I just ask, when feeding raw diet, is the chicken wings whole? or minced, what food comes whole and what is minced?

Depends on what you prefer really. Some people mince everything if they're worried or if their dog won't eat bones. The majority of suppliers, will supply chicken/turkey mince including bone etc.

Normally though the dog is fed a proportion of raw meaty bones, these are what consists of "bones" in the diet. Anything from chicken wings, carcasses, turkey necks, whole rabbit and breast of lamb to name but a few. This should only consist of 10 - 15% of the whole diet though, so muscle meat, offal (again only about 10%), fish (tinned pilchards etc), eggs etc comprise the rest of the diet.

Here's a link to a thread posted recently to show what my raw fed dog gets in a week:

http://www.dogsey.com/showthread.php?t=55561

Srcoll down on the first page.

QUOTE "There has been a significant increase in a variety of illnesses due to a raw meat diet. Some dogs become ill right away and others have severe pancreatic, kidney, heart and brain illnesses due to a long-term raw meat diet. Most dogs that die from a raw meat / bones diet do not show signs of illness until a few days before it kills them. This is true with Pancreatitis and with the raw chicken or turkey necks and backs that injure the stomach and intestinal area.
On the other hand, as more people experiment with raw meat diets, veterinarians are seeing frequent cases of pancreatitis, ulcers, malnutrition, injuries due to the raw bones, systemic bacterial poisoning and other conditions. I continue to receive frequent emails from people who once swore by barf, and have now left the discussion group with very sick dogs." UNQUOTE

Sorry but I don't agree with this 'fact' taken from one of the above mentioned links. The health site that I joined when Maddie got EPI - which is one step up from pancreatitis - the majority - a big majority - will tell you their dogs have fared much better since changing them over to a raw fed diet. None of them have ever suggested it was raw feeding that started it, only that since feeding raw their dogs gained weight and became healthier than they were before. Not all of them raw feed but those that do, like me, swear by it. And on the other two raw feeding sites I'm on, no one has had their dog die from eating raw. I'm not saying it doesn't/hasn't happened, can't/won't happen, but Pancreatitis is a killer if left untreated and it isn't caused by raw feeding. http://www.vetinfo.com/dencyclopedia/depancrea.html

Cooked food is "dead food" - killed enzymes, killed vitamins, killed anti-oxidants. Dogs need and are designed, to digest enzyme-rich raw meat (including poultry and whole fish, some whole eggs) - not much in the way of dairy products, fruits, vegetables, or grains. ...Grains are especially difficult for them - they don't have enough of the amylase enzyme to digest carbohydrates. (The only grains that work well are pre-digested via fermenting - as would be found in the stomach of a carnivore's prey. They need some raw fat - don't feed only lean meat... just not lots of fat.
This is one of the sites I found interesting when I started out
http://www.rawdogranch.com/index.html
and this one
http://caberfeidh.com/NaturalDiet.htm
and
http://www.belamba.co.uk/barf/index.html

I don't feed raw, but I know that it is frowned upon over here, because of the diseases and so on that the raw meat can carry. I have never known anyone to feed raw until I joined Dogsey last year. It is just what we have been taught, so I don't know if it is dangerous or not, but what I do know is that there are quite a few people here that feed raw and haven't had problems with it, but I just wanted to put in my two cents.

A lot of the articles that advise against feeding a raw diet refer to "this new fad" of feeding raw meat to dogs. It isn't a new fad - dogs have been eating raw meat for millions of years.

The new fad which began around 50-60 years ago was to feed dogs a commercial diet of cooked meat available in "convenient to humans" tins or as a dried processed kibble.

I am convinced that commercial food isn't a result of someone thinking to themselves "I must find a healthier product for dog's to eat" but was purely a business venture that has grown into a multi-million pound business.

So many of the anti raw feeding articles are written by people who have connections with the commercial pet food business that I am sceptical about the balance of their content.

Very well put

If a dried complete food is fed the addition of other foods to it surely must upset the balance of the diet? According to the commercial pet food nutritionists their food contains everything a dog needs for it to receive a balanced diet - which IMHO must surely become unbalanced if other sources of nutrition are added to it?