wow thats quite a claim... I dont believe there is a 'perfect' diet..

Maybe dog foods began as a convenience thing however I do feel that science diets are not simple convenience foods, even if some of the cheaper ones equate to such. If they would be improved by returning their formulations to a raw state then I am sure they would do so.
Personally I would rather have a few crowns than constant diarrhoea.... but that statement I made was merely an observation.
Finally aaaaaarrrrrrrgh!!!!! How many more times do I have to say I AM weighing up the pros and cons of both sides, and this is my conclusion!!! I have said raw food is good in some ways.

Stop picking part what I say. I am sure you know what I am inferring, but it helps you to break me down I suppose if you are pedantic about things... I am not implying there is a perfect diet. Nothing is perfect, however they are striving to make their food as refined, and scientifically accurate based on current research as they can.

Can I ask how many dogs you have studied as yet? would you be intrested in adding to the amount of dogs you studied?

I dont believe I am being pedantic I just felt its a fairly big statement..often posts read slighty diff to what we intend when we write them, it can be helpful to be more detailed in what you mean.

I have not been warped. I was inspired to question myself in an unbiased way, not just have my opinion changed to something another person is telling me to. I weighed up both sides, not simply taking what she said as gospel, and came to my own conclusion. I do not think that simply because she is a vet she is better than me, knows everything, has to be obeyed...What I experienced was that by talking with a qualified person like that face to face, they can actually elaborate on some of the issues you bring up-some of the common arguments, eg 'when we want to be healthy, we don't go out and buy a bag of human food.' and explain them on a higher, more scientific level- sometimes something you were sure made perfect sense then is shown to be flawed. I considered the things she said, and do not buy the whole 'carbohydrate is natural/necessary' or that a totally balanced diet is necessary or achieveable, however some things I do.

I have my own dog, and I also have knowledge of many others who have had similar problems as I. How many dogs have you studied to decide it is safe?

I have not studied any dogs... I have however talked to my vet at some lenght about feeding..
that said Im not the one starting a thread on the controversy of raw feeding...

I had wrongly assumed you based your info on a group of dogs you studied...

FWIW.. I dont feed raw... I feed a varied diet to my dogs.. as a breeder I would say I have based my choices in feeding due to the health of my dogs... and my pups.

the results talk for themselfs...

must you be so nippy.... I had thought poss you had started this thread to widen you knowlage...

I don`t really understand what you are asking then - or stating. You are either considering and evaluating OR you have reached a conclusion. You can`t really do both.

To me , it seems that you seem to be supporting this tutor`s views that Hills is THE best diet for dogs. I`m sure you said that. And of all the views from the Raw Feeding site you only quoted ones who had found it problematic. And then you said your own dog didn`t do well on it. It seems that you have indeed reached conclusion that raw feeding isn`t for you. However, I don`t see how you can generalise from that very subjective evidence.