Sorry complicated response...my answers to most of post are in pink above....
I'm not anti raw...I'm not anti bacteria (you should see my house...:smt002 ) I don't like my boys drinking from stagnant water though...I don't want dogs systems weakened.
Everyone should choose what to feed their dogs by what suits them and their dogs the best....they need to be aware of the problems of bacteria and cross contamination, they need to be aware of the problems of bone splinters, that isn't a criticism of feeding raw, it's just something to watch out for, just like they should be watched when eating kibble incase they choke on a piece. People should be able to make an informed and educated choice for them and their dogs...there is no right or wrong here, just educated decisions for that person and their dog(s).

"It would seem obvious that 250,000 years of evolution for us from when we became homosapien compared to when our dogs ancestors became Canis lupus familiaris 15,000 years ago, that this is a big time difference - even if you do want to think that the early 'domesticated' wolves were getting mostly 'table scraps' (whatever they would have been?!) from that point in time...Also take into account how long it would have been until we got our first type of ancient breeds - dogs as we know them today... So you may like to think evolution has been a similar time frame for both in terms of when we / they would have stopped generally eating most raw meat but it's just not. "

Hi Mys

A point to remember in the evolution timeframe is the huge difference in generation time between species. The shorter the time between generations the quicker ther species can adapt to environmental change.

The peppered moth is an example often used for this. The original colour is light mottled but with the industrial revolution in the north, a black form has evolved to facilitate camouflage. This happened in a matter of decades.

Humans do not have the same potential to adapt to dietary change given that their generation time is longer and the restricted fecundity of only one offspring per breeding compared to the litter size of wolves.

Also, a huge generalisation to say dogs have not stopped eating raw. The many and various lines of descent of dogs are too diverse to be grouped as one. For instance, the ancient Sammi tribes of Lapland first domesticated the reindeer >3,000 years ago. I'm not sure when exactly they first started using dogs as herders but the diet of the dogs was said to be that of cooked stew consisting of rye grain and reindeer blood. Every other part of the reindeer was used for their daily living down to the gut for sewing cloths and the antlers for tools.

Come on Pod where's the credit for that I read the exact quote too! I fully understand how carnivores are classified, but again the fact is a dog isn't a bear or a panda, and as stated previously it's anatomy is that of a carnivore too. I think we're in agreement that they can and do survive on a diet as an omnivore but, the subject of this thread is "is feeding raw - is it dangerous" I challenge anyone to prove that a dog isn't a carnivore or that it doesn't have the anatomy of a carnivore, or to come up with any qualitative data which proves that feeding raw is dangerous. We all are aware that bones may splinter in the gut, but that is far more likely from cooked bones and many ruptures of the gut are caused by all sorts of rubbish including sticks and plastic and so on. Regarding the risks of bacteria, just think about what a dog eats on it's own, and drinks from given the chance. Good hygiene is essential whether cooking food or feeding it raw. By contrast the benefits of feeding raw are there for all to see...scientific fact that cooking destroys many nutrients and enzymes, not to mention the benefits from cleaning teeth and so on.

I cannot see any dangers, in fact see more dangers with commercial dog foods, just look at some of the recent recall lists Personal observation; raw fed dogs I have seen have the best coats, look to be in the best condition and I haven't seen any overweight ones.

I say this from a view point of absolutely no bias as I've stated before, I use cooked and commercial (good quality..whatever that means) dried food as-well as feeding raw to the youngsters. Most of you know we have a toddler who plays with all the dogs..the young ones are fed raw chicken everyday and have not once had any diarrhea or sickness. If I had the slightest doubts I assure you I wouldn't let her play and get licked) by the dogs that been fed raw.

Always willing to learn though, so if anyone has any data which proves otherwise

There's this small study in Canada that shows that dogs fed raw chicken have salmonella spores in their stools. It was conducted by an Animal Welfare Organisation....all the raw fed dogs had salmonella spores...none of the kibble fed ones.

Can you show us where it is. Would be interesting to see how many dogs were tested and what conditions were taken into consideration...Likewise I have heard that their is salmonella in the stools of kibble fed dogs the same as their is in raw fed dogs ...

Interesting in that it shows how well dogs deal with salmonella - the fact that it passed through leaving the dogs unharmed.

Huh? Please explain

The point is that an animal that's classified as a Carnivore can adapt to diet different from its ancestors, just as the Bears have done. The giant panda is classified as a Carnivore but survives on an almost exclusively vegetarian diet. Its dentition is that of a carnivore in the process of adapting to a new diet. The domestic dog already has reduced tooth size compared to the wolf. Evolution before our eyes!

I know.... we've gone horribly off topic again


Ok, where can I see the benefits of raw feeding?

Feeders of complete food will tell you that they notice the opposite... that their dogs have better coats, look in the best condition. Who am I to believe

What is probably true is that there is a vast range of tolerance levels to various food within the dog population. If your dogs appear to do well on raw, then that is the right diet for them

I agree with you here

Hello Pod. You could have made the same point when ramble was making a point of how humans have evolved from eating raw meat to cooked meat.

I think there have been many huge generalisations throught the entire thread Just as easily you can reverse the same sentiment and come up with a generalisation of equal proportion.

But 3000 years...a drop in the ocean isn't it though...In your opinion is that long enough for the digestive system of an animal to change. So the dogs never fended for themselves ate raw prey in enough quantity to keep them from evolving far away from the diet of wild dogs? They simply got stew and rye grain and blood?...Would you reccomend that diet?...infact would a diet of scraps be reccomended??...What was in the diet of these peoples dogs that provided them calcium? Or did they do without it? People say dogs evolved to basically eat our left overs, so if I let my dogs loose on the kitchen bin once a day they will do well on that? Or if I share what's on my own plate the dogs get all they need? Cooked diets need supplements - the dogs arn't eating the bones where do they get calcium for instance?...Does anyone here feed a cooked diet and not provide supplements? What did dogs do pre supplements? What was in the diet of these peoples dogs that provided them calcium? Or did they do without it?

There is so much heresay...I wanna see proof that a dogs digestive system has or has not changed...I keep looking but can't find anything of concreat evidence. I will keep looking.

If the digestive system has changed, not just of the whole species but even amongst different breeds why are all sorts of breeds doing so well on raw diets.

If dogs have evolved far away from eating raw prey animals why do they still have prey instinct? Why do the more natural looking dogs amongst our breeds still look like a predator of other animals and act like one? Why do all dogs no matter what shape or size still have the teeth of an animal able to tear and rip flesh or do we believe the ability to thrive on raw prey has become lost in time but all these other things still remain?

To me there is no doubt that dogs are able to survive on a vast array of foods or else they wouldn't have got this far but there are people on all sorts of odd diets where they make exclusions and exist on things I probably never eat, other people survive mostly on junk food but it doesn't mean to say that is an appropriate diet or the most benificial.

Mys, the digestion may not have changed dramatically, or maybe not at all. Maybe wolves as scavengers always had the ability to digset carbohydrate, just as foxes do.

The change in the European human digestive enzyme lactase, that enable milk digestion into adulthood, is through the muation of a single gene and could have happened a little as 3,000ya. In that time it has spread through a massive area as a result of strong environmental pressure.

The diets fed to the ancestral dogs were through necessity, not as we do today. Any dog that didn't thrive, didn't survive. Not as today where we would use medical intervention, specialist diet, to artificially promote the genes that would have been eliminated.

I don't think dogs (as a species) have evolved away from eating raw prey animals. Some do very well on it, others not so well.

When you say they don't do well on a raw diet, it may be hard finding any two the same - not doing well on the type of raw diet they are given is more appropriate. Don't blame the fact that it is raw take into account how it what form it is offered. Not enough bone - too much bone, to much veg, not enough meat - there are many variables to take into consideration...The fact is many people will get a scare when they have gone slightly wrong and blame raw meat and bones when it could be any number of things.

When I found kibble wasn't working for my dogs I went through practically all the 'top' brands to no avail from which I kinda get the picture that try as I might I can't find a kibble they digest well. When people decide raw in the way that they have been feeding it isn't for their dog after all they either look to make improvements and further shape the diet and make adjustments or they make a generalization that it's just no good without a second thought.

Alot of people may chuck their dogs a little raw meat while on a different diet and see the dog is sick later and believe their dog can not tolerate raw meat without taking into consideration that especially when fed on some kibbles a dogs system may well take time to adjust and work efficiently - this is less of a problem with dogs that have been fed a 'good quality' kibble and more of a problem when the dog has to go from dealing with all sorts of artificial additives to good old raw meat and bones which is quite a contrast.

Would be wouldn't it - likewise with all other statements that have been made by various people.

Stats are hard to find sometimes when looking on the 'pro' side of raw feeding because it seems to be the industries with money that mostly churn out 'stats' to make the impression that raw feeding is a bad thing. People who feed a raw diet and believe in it have nothing to prove they just get on with it and more to the point they are individuals with no backing from multi national companies to assist them in processing statistics.

I base my opinion that dogs don't process commercial diets as well as they do raw as I see so many people on just here alone talking about their dog constantly farting, smelling gross, clearing the room! - If these dogs were doing so well on thier diets they wouldn't be doing this and what comes out would be of much less quantity of what went in but when fed even the best of kibbles that claimed that waste is greatly reduced I honestly saw no difference and if there was any it was marginal. Even people who don't agree with raw food but provide cooked agree that dogs do not need all those fillers found in 'dog food' and that it is far from nutritionally ideal for any dog.

Thanks Ailsa, I seem to remember reading that but if it's the one I'm thinking off it was only about 6 dogs wasn't it?, and I think it didn't really prove other than the fact that the salmonella was present, but as we already know salmonella is present in chickens anyway, it's all about the amount of bacteria. Of course a lot would depend on your chicken source and storage to make a comparable study wouldn't it? i.e where one person sources their chicken from and how it's handled etc. will probably not be the same as another person making a comparable study impossible. Whereas presumably the kibble tested would all be from the same source, and I think it was only one Brand too? i.e. not the one with the rat poison and so on in it Be interesting to tread again if you find the link though..thanks