Sometimes, I just don't know where to start...

I'm fascinated to know what happened at this seminar as you were, as you say, very much anti raw!

What changed your mind?

Indeed, I have always considered that the raw mantra falls down on their most basic premise that dogs are wolves and as my post states even if there are strong correlations, the lifestyles vary greatly.

Me either.

I don't think either of my dogs are Wolves - so I don't see why that has been brought up. As far as I'm aware neither are born with a tin opener or the ability to read packaging, wild or captive (or pet).

The only reasons I can see people not wanting/being able to feed raw are:

- it's been tried and it hasn't improved any existing condition (Like Velvet's Boxers)
- It's been tried/thought about and people have decided it's not for them.. (Vegetarians and people who can't do meat, or for other reasons)
- People don't have the room for a freezer..
- They're feeding a food thats suiting their dogs already - without needing to revert to a natural way of feeding.
- Struggling to find a supplier/bargains - making it more expensive to feed raw.
- Worried they'll get it wrong - I've found a lot of people dithering about feeding raw or not go back and forth over the idea because of this reason.

That's all I've got for now.. but it's a personal choice.. no one on Dogsey as far as I am aware has pushed raw feeding on anyone - it's been suggested as an alternative way of feeding or if a dog has a skin condition and the owners have wondered about it.. but no ones been forced to accept it is right - have they? It doesn't suit anyone or every dog but then again, nothing is one size fits all in the dog world.. (waiting for someone to tell me of something that is one size fits all ) I don't think raw is the be all and end all, but then IMO it's better than kibble and wet food - as I've seen the positive effects it's had on my dogs.

Another from back along.

Carbohydrate the cereal debate.

Over the last 20'000 or so years, in all probability, man would have unknowingly bred dogs that do well on a relatively high Carbohydrate diet. This idea is based on the premise that carbohydrates being the lowest value food in most societies are the most likely of all to be spared for feeding dogs. Therefore dogs that prospered on a high carb diet would have had better survival and so breeding potential. This was not a matter of evolving new abilities but rather the utilization of one already in place. Wolves, the excepted ancestor of modern dogs, have the ability to digest and utilize carbs and it’s this ability that that has been passed on to our pet dogs. Recently there has been an upsurge in new fashionable diets that seem to discount this useful ability and decry the use of any form of cereal. A dogs ability to convert fats etc into glucose (Gluconeogenesis formation of glucose from fats or proteins) is oft quoted as proof that dogs don’t need to eat carbs, using the theory that what the don’t need they shouldn’t have. If we were to look at the processes of Gluconeogenesis etc we will find that we can interchange the science between dogs and humans and so by this thinking say humans likewise don’t need carbohydrates in their diet. Personally I feel we are better to look beyond what we can be do without and rather we should see what benefits are gained from what we can do with.

The biological systems of digestion and energy production are older than either species and allowed man and his familiar, the dog, to dominate the earth. The ability to utilize a great variety of lifestyles and feeding opportunities allowed these two species to prosper in a great variety of habitats from tundra to desert. The remnants of their ‘wild’ ancestors still exist though only in the harshest areas, such as the Bushmen or San in the Kalahari, a few Inuit in the artic or wolves clinging to existence in the few pockets of remaining wilderness, all places that modern man and dogs didn’t really want. In my opinion just as we shouldn’t expect modern man to follow an Inuit diet because it is 'natural' neither should we limit our dogs to a diet based on, an interpretation of, what an isolated population of wolves eats today. Wolves, as with humans, had populations spread over a large part of the earth covering a great variety of habits. To base our diets on a few examples of wild groups would exclude the great variety of food sources and diets that were available to the great majority of ours and their ancestors living across the rest of the world.

Balance in dietary terms is not about exclusion but rather inclusion. To this must be added the lifestyle changes from those of their early ancestors as explored in Carbohydrate in the Working Canine diet. In exertional terms our working dogs are often expected to recover far quicker than nature intended. On a low carb diet Gluconeogenesis is he only way glucose for immediate use and for replenishment of stores can be produced. Gluconeogenesis needs a double process, lipid/protein digestion and then conversion, before the energy is near readiness for utilization and this can result in depleted stores unless there is an extended recovery period. The brain, eyes, red blood cells and to a large extent the heart use glucose and the muscles begin/increase glucose usage when contracting at speed i.e. sprinting, though arguably lactate will be used in some circumstances. If the stores are depleted then these areas are likely to be compromised which for a working dog may well reduce performance and increase strain on the body. Bearing this in mind to restrict a working/racing dog to a very low Carbohydrate diet, i.e. exclusion of any cereals just a few raw vegetables, seems to hold little merit though it is one often advocated.

In conclusion science if often used to validate an individuals point of view but it needs to be born in mind that even if the science is correct if out of context it doesn’t prove anything. The example of Gluconeogenesis being used to prove dogs and so by the same theory humans, shouldn’t have, rather than can live without, eating carbs is an examples of misinformation. It’s not that they are wrong but incorrectly used that can lead to science misleading rather than helping us. I’m sure that these examples were not meant to mislead rather that those quoting them misunderstood the information themselves. So next time someone starts spouting science, especially me, remember any information scientific or otherwise is only as good as the way it is used.

Regards Sandymere.

It has been brought up, lordy did you look at the raw food myths link.

The debate on raw and cooked food for dogs will rattle along indefinitely as there will always be followers of each preparation depending on the individual's experiences and their dog's digestive abilities.

It is commonly believed that starchy carbs. are not a good food source for dogs and should be given in small amounts because of the low production level of the enzyme amylase needed for the breaking down of starch to sugar.
However I did read a snippet somewhere that when a dog is fed more starchy carbs. it begins to adapt to producing more amylase after approx. 10 days.
Whether this is putting a strain on the pancreas leading to future enzyme depletion and possible diabetes it didn't state!!

The reason I don't feed my little dog any raw meat is the best reason I can think of. She does not like it at all and won't eat it.

I will chop up tiny bits of raw steak and other meat and she sniffs it or licks it and walks away looking miserable. I pick it up and shove it in the microwave for a minute and cool it down and give it back and she wolfs it down.

As for liver - she won't even eat that if only just 'cooked'. It has to be chopped up and cooked to death (like bits of leather) before she will eat that. And as it always gives her the squits, I no longer bother with it.

For MY part, the reason I do not want my dog to have any fancy or specialised diet is because she is boarded about 3 times a year and I do not want a total diet change at those times.

At home she gets her dry diet (Versele-Laga Bento Kronen Nutritional Balance) and also a little of whatever I eat for my meals - bits of fish, steak, carrots, fruit, bread etc.

I have tried EVERY different type of wet food I can find in the vets and shops to see if she likes any of those for a bit of variety from the cheapest to the 'gourmet'. She refuses to eat even one mouthful of any of them.

When she is in the boarding, I just take a bag of her food with her and they tell me they give her a bit of wet food too and say she does eat it there!

I've changed her diet a couple of times since she was tiny because she seemed not to be enjoying it so much. She has been settled on the Bento Kronen for a long time now so I will stick with it. She is glossy, strong and healthy, lively and happy.

I really can't understand why anyone would get upset over what someone else feeds their pet!

I found most of those articles on the raw vs processed interesting. I do remember being told by a vet many years ago that cats are more suited to eating raw meat, along with the bones and feathers, and other bits than dogs are because dogs have been domesticated for so many thousands of years they have got used to a more 'human' diet.

I have had cats that have killed prey and eaten it. I've never had a dog that did - they have chased other animals with what I am sure is the intention of killing them if they could catch them but I don't think they would have eaten them.

well,one of mine does,hunts and eats....someone needs to tell him he is used to a human diet...that or he is a cat

A slip lead

It may not suit all but it would fit