Indeed research can be cherry picked but in this case there isn't much supporting research but there is a growing body of negative. So in my opinion there is a place for raw food as part of the diet but it is with the acknowledgment of the risk rather than denial.
Do you feel the link re bacterial load is poor research?
Do you feel that such information should not be publicised to those considering raw feeding?
Do you acknowledge the shortcomings of anecdotal evidence?
I like informed choices.
Its dietician not nutritionist, one is a profession the other a self given label .

Ps for those who attack the poster rather than what they post; it’s usually a good sign that they have no valid augment with which to make an honest rebuttal to the post .
I note there are many who are happy to make negative response on the Why Not Feed raw thread but don’t like it on the raw one .

RE; bacteria. Why then do you think its ok to feed a part raw diet but not a diet based on raw feeding? Especially as the two digest at different rates...

what are you on about? So all the NHS employed nutritionists in the UK have just taken it upon themselves to take that label??

No one is denying there are risks involved, however, there are risks involved in everything and these must be weighed up with the benefits.

I think the reason people are becoming defensive is your posting style is a wee bit patronising, and alarmist at that, e.g. you found a research article looking at bacterial contamination, so what? Isn't everyone aware of bacteria on raw meat??? Same with the garlic thread.....like I pointed out on that thread, given the right circumstances, water can be dangerous!

Don't take this the wrong way, but you remind me of the phrase "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

Look at the wider picture when reading research articles, one study on one thing does not mean a thing. Read the article critically, think about when it was published, who published it, what journal it was published it etc etc. For all you know it was a 3rd year PhD student desperately trying to get to their final year?

I don't even know why I'm posting since I feed a mixture of raw, canned and kibble!!!

Anyway, I like it when people post links, I shall read more when I have time

... What is 'the raw one'?

Excellent post!

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here!
At least a 4yrs bachelor's degree is required for a dietitian.
A nutritionist can hold a qualifying masters degree in nutrition and be called a nutritionist.
Your reference to nutritionists are the ones with a self taught interest in nutrition and who call themselves nutritionists.
Not quite the same thing but there is no law against the unqualified calling them selves such.
I can't see what bearing your statement has got to do with anything on the thread's topic.

I didn't really get that random dig either?

But thank you for clarifying - since I'm neither a dietician or a nutritionist I'm not really sure what the difference is!

PS sorry forgot to add Sandymere - I agree that anecdocal evidence isn't particularly useful. That's why I'm saying at the moment, if we are talking from a *purely* scientific point of view, we really only have anecdocal evidence and no real proof that raw is any better or worse for a dog than any other decent quality diet, so we can't make bold statements either way.

One thing I will point out. Every dog is different, just like people. It's genetic background, nutrition and maternal imprinting in the womb, environmental stressors, exposure to pathogens....the list is endless, these all play a part in how an individual reacts to anything. There is no Nature Vs Nurture arguement - everything is very much a mix of nature AND nurture together. This is why laboratory level testing on genetically and environmentally controlled animals is so very important to research, but that's for another thread

Anyway I've been at work far to loong and I'm tired and I'm rambling, my point was what works for one animal may not work for another animal...........e.g. one dog may not be able to tolerate garlic, whilst another eats it like it's going out of fashion and suffers no ill effects.

Or another good example - do a bit of googling and you'll see published research on how toxic grapes are to dogs, yet I once (accidently) fed a 5 month old puppy a huge load of them, with no ill effects.

So, are grapes toxic or not? Depends on what dog you happened to carry out the study on!!!

P.S. I am in no way suggesting anyone ahould risk feeding grapes to their dog

J&C, so back to the point, there are risks, more than many would like to acknowledge and any discussion should include those risks and methods of managing them. It always sounds warning bells when one hears of wonder cures for multiple ailments, claims that have little standing when examined beyond the cursory glance. Dietary imbalances and bacterial contamination are just two areas of concern and both potentially dangerous.
(what does an accidental feeding of grapes prove?)

Doberman, the whole different digestive times doesn't hold water, it’s not really used as justification anymore, basically bad science, sorry.





Ps re nutritionist it’s a bit like a sports masseur and a physio, one is very different from the other. Anyone can call themselves a sports massager or nutritionist but only someone registered and having undertaken the relevant training can call themselves a physo or dietician. In the hospital setting it could be care assistant and registered nurse or Doctor and Reiki healer

tbh, not much of what you are posting on here holds water either

I really don't know why you have such an issue with people who feed a raw diet....

This thread actually has no place for telling people why they shouldn't feed raw. See below.

Why is this even being discussed in this thread? This thread is not the place for this to be discussed