raw feeding

HighCoastHiker · Jul 23, 2010

Texasbulldogs said: ↑

Please tell me where in this thread I said raw was better than kibble?
You didn't but isn't that the reason you and others are feeding it-cause it's supposed to be better? You saying you feed it because it's worse and reason you recommend it?

i didn't post here to debate. You called me out so I just defended myself and my beliefs.
If you look -you're the one that responded first to my initial post.

You shouldn't act like everyone who disagrees with you is incompetent lol. I'm open and willing to learn so if you want to teach, then do it. Don't call me a fool.
I don't they do it for me! It has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with me. It's just common sense if you're clueless on a subject...you don't go giving out information on it to others. Just look throughout this thread and it's very clear. Multiple people stating they feed this or that, how raw is better, cheaper, better for teeth, etc. Yet not a shred of evidence to back up their outlandish claims. Majority are clueless in regards to canine nutrition and only logical they can't prepare a diet plan better or even equivalent to average run of the mill kibble, let alone a premium one.

So answer this for me then dog nutritional professor, since raw is apparently not correctly fed to our dogs by us owners and that they are receiving so much less then they should be receiving, who brought all the "premium" kibble out to the dogs in the wild and fed them the exact ratios that your listing here if they decided to hunt and eat their dead raw food?
Ummm...same person that went out to the field and feed those prey items? Your argument is weak and doesn't hold up as you're trying to pretend you're feeding your dogs the same quality of ingredients as a wild prey item and allowing your dog free range of the world. So that when his body is telling it to eat/scrounge on x,y,z to make up for it...your do has the same ability. I factually gave you information on the crap you're calling a meal and it's anything but. You are ignoring and trying to act like it's a complete meal or will be over a course of time. Which is hularious, you're trying to debate a topic you're clueless about. It's evident by your post within this thread.

which we all know now is actually killing our dogs instead of feeding "premium kibbles" that have "chicken, beef, lamb, horse, buffalo, etc" in them anyways
How much crap are you going to make up? Please show use those studies on the harmful effects of premium kibbles! You can't can you given you made it up?

they add ONLY everything else to make them the golden dog foods with NOTHING but everything if not 99% of only what a dog needs all that processing and grains and carbs I am sure that doesn't harm them the slightest bit compared to an actual dead chicken, rabbit, lamb, beef etc.
Again more made-up, fictitious crap from you! You mentioned your meat sources in post #12 and proved your idiocy. You're not feeding anything remotely comparable to Purina Dog Chow, let alone a premium kibble. You make up a lot of crap, still waiting for you to actually back up what you're claiming. Please show us your dogs diet and tell us why it's better-like you claim. I know that's asking way too much of you and something you couldn't do if you wanted to nor will you be able to 10 years from now.

Tell you what you can continue to be professor dog nutritional and act like we are harming our dogs for feeding them something natural to their diets and we will call it a day because there is absolutely no way on earth I am going to agree with you and your professionalism on "dog food" because you already have the mentality that only you will be right and only you know what is best for a dog's nutritional need and that's fine in your own little world, but not when your going to come in a direct manner and act like I am actually harming my dog by feeding her raw food
Again with the "natural" crap...how is it natural? A question as basic as that, even you should be able to answer...what you can't cause you made it up and it's factually inaccurate. Of course it's me and my mentality...that makes you clueless and unable to even back up the crap you're claiming. It couldn't be you're just clueless and know nothing about canine nutrition all the while living in a fantasy world of your dogs diet is better cause it's "raw".

As much as I admire the tenacity and sticking to your failed argument, all that really needs to be said is that anyone who has done even a half-assed raw diet for a little while knows better that what you're trying so hard to argue.
Yes, clearly everyone see can see you and others in this thread make crap up and are incapable proving your argument. If so much better..surely you can factually prove it? Can't you state your diet, give your reasonings behind it being better compared to the two kibbles I mentioned...heck use Diamond green bag. You keep saying how it's this or that...your opinion is useless and doesn't make it better. I gave very basic reasons why it's not and can give many more. Can't you give...one reason why or something to back up your claims?

anyone who has tried it, and stuck to it knows that your argument is so full of......holes, it isn's worth getting insulting over.
Again...making up crap? Please I'm still waiting to hear and see you show us all how a raw diet is cheaper-like you mentioned. I clearly broke down the cost per cup for 2 premium kibble brands based on a price anyone on this board could get. Since their is so many holes in my argument-point them out? You can't cause you make crap up as you lack the knowledge and facts to support your claims.
Click to expand...

Prove what bud? Prove that the cost per cup of dried shit, the bag it comes in, the shipping and the cost of advertising to dumbasses just to convince them that the shit with the five-year shelf life they're feeding their dog is better than working a little harder and feeding the dog meat?
Seriously now. For the price of a bag of food that feeds my dogs for three days, I feed them raw for five. Also, I live in a place where I pay by the kilo to take away trash, (dog-shit included). If I am unfortunate enough to have to feed my dogs "premium kibble" for a week, the amout of shit I have to pay to have taken away is more than double the usual. So, for me raw feeding is cheaper coming and going. Keep on arguing. But I think that even you know you're talking shit. Feeding raw is not nearly as quick or convenient as scooping crap out of a bag. I don't feed raw for vanity, social conscience or ego. I really don't give a hell whether the chicken they eat is free-range or not. I feed raw simply because I cannot get my dogs to look as good as they do eating this way with kibble at any price and it costs me less money to do it this way. Period.

jamiebosco · Jul 23, 2010

The basis for my dogs diet at the moment is a chicken back stuffed with a lamb heart and some liver alternated with days of kangaroo tails and kangaroo meat.Is this diet "perfectly balanced",no probably not,but who cares?He does well on it,and it doesn't cost me an arm and a leg to feed.He's lean,fit,healthy and has the teeth of a puppy.He also gets the odd egg here and there and some fresh sardines when I can get them cheap enough.

Trelos · Jul 26, 2010

Kangaroo meat is very high in Protein,even bodybuilders add it to their diet.Lucky we have plenty of roos here in Oz to Cull.
Jamiebosco how much you paying for your Roo per Kg?

jamiebosco · Jul 26, 2010

Trelos said: ↑

Kangaroo meat is very high in Protein,even bodybuilders add it to their diet.Lucky we have plenty of roos here in Oz to Cull.
Jamiebosco how much you paying for your Roo per Kg?
Click to expand...

Depends where I go for it,if I'm willing to travel I can save a bit and buy in bulk.Usually between $2-$3/kg for chunks of roo meat and $1-$2/kg for roo tails.Personally I think it's the best meat available for dogs in Aus,nice and lean,high in protein and EFA's and cheap enough for me.

Yas · Jul 26, 2010

A variety is recommended because if you keep feeding the same meat the dog becomes intolerant to it, even if the owner can`t tell. Best way to feed is a 4 day rotation eg. the meat that you feed on a Monday doesn`t get fed again until the Friday.

Texasbulldogs · Jul 30, 2010

Prove what bud? Prove that the cost per cup of dried shit, the bag it comes in, the shipping and the cost of advertising to dumbasses just to convince them that the shit with the five-year shelf life they're feeding their dog is better than working a little harder and feeding the dog meat?
Seriously now. For the price of a bag of food that feeds my dogs for three days, I feed them raw for five. Also, I live in a place where I pay by the kilo to take away trash, (dog-shit included). If I am unfortunate enough to have to feed my dogs "premium kibble" for a week, the amout of shit I have to pay to have taken away is more than double the usual. So, for me raw feeding is cheaper coming and going. Keep on arguing. But I think that even you know you're talking shit. Feeding raw is not nearly as quick or convenient as scooping crap out of a bag. I don't feed raw for vanity, social conscience or ego. I really don't give a hell whether the chicken they eat is free-range or not. I feed raw simply because I cannot get my dogs to look as good as they do eating this way with kibble at any price and it costs me less money to do it this way. Period.

<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CUsers%5CBrian%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><link rel="themeData" href="file:///C:%5CUsers%5CBrian%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_themedata.thmx"><link rel="colorSchemeMapping" href="file:///C:%5CUsers%5CBrian%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_colorschememapping.xml"><style>  </style> Prove what? For starters all your ridiculous claims. Like in post #28 you said; "As far as premium kibble being "cheaper." That's a joke." What's the matter a "penny-pinching, Kilowatt hour calculating SOB" like yourself too incompetent? It was after all your moronic statement. But like all barf proponents all you can do it make up crap. You obviously can't back up your claims of it being cheaper so you move on and now make up something else you're incapable of backing up with facts. You don't care about how the chicken or any of your protein sources are raised and feed because you're like other proponents in this thread and barfer's in general-clueless! Another reason is you didn't know there was even a difference until I pointed it out. But it's raw and that makes it better and more nutritious right?

For those on the fence about the raw diet, curious about all the hype, thinking about, etc. The whole concept is nothing but a fad and if you really look into it you'll notice...it's all based on useless opinions. This thread is just like so many other ones out there on the topic. Notice all the proponents of the barf diet and not one of them actually has any knowledge to back up their claims. Yet, they'll recommend you follow blindly and feed it too...that's what they did. We've all seen their talking points, heard their useless opinions, etc. Let's break some of them down and see if it's just hot air or actually beneficial to our dogs.

Proponents of raw feeding claim to be replicating the diet of wolves. First issue is one must pretend dogs never changed any in the 100,000 years since it separated from the wolf. Pretending evolution and gene mutations weren't required for the domestication of dog. It's absurd and factually inaccurate to believe such. There is a difference between the two in regards to eyes, musculature, tendon strength, and a host of other distinct differences in the internal organs and their abilities. Maybe if they were honest or simply read, they'd know the Mexican, Red, and Grey wolves all live longer in captivity. Take a guess as to what the American Zoo and Aquarium, Nutritional Advisory Group recommends; feeding commercial pet foods to wild canids. They suggest that raw meat only be used for purposes of administering medications, wormers, or enticing the animals to move through cages and doorways. Yes, you read that correctly; recommends kibble.

Texasbulldogs · Jul 30, 2010

I know, some are sitting back and scratching their heads wondering WTF, kibble. Some might be wondering if not a barf diet then why not one based on the whole prey model. Reason being, it's difficult to predict how commercially available diets may affect the nutritional content of prey species and subsequently, the nutritional status of wolves or in our case, dogs. Someone mentioned feeding guinea pigs, rats, mice, and quail. Oh how that sounds so great and nutritious for our dogs. Problems arise in you never know what those feeder animals were feed so their nutrient value is always in question. I asked (whoever it was that mentioned feeding them) what they (prey) were feed, no reply as they probably don't know nor even knew it mattered. Were the rats/mice feed dog food, rodent chow, mouse chow, rat chow, Formulab Chow, possible Formulab Chow and supplemented with a mixed grain? What about the quail; Gamebird Starter, Turkey Starter, possibly Turkey Starter supplemented with 220 lU/kg of vitamin E? Guinea Pigs feed; Guinea Pig Chow, or something made locally? All those are very common high-end foods (excluding the dog food) for prey items and what a quality supplier will be feeding. If you don't know what they're feeding their prey items, how can you possibly know what you're feeding your dog? There is a huge difference in what the prey is feed and nutrients it offers to our dogs. Rats and mice feed the same exact food differ significantly in Vitamin A, Iron, and Copper content. Let's look at various example: Quail; Moisture %-2.3 difference, Vitamin A (lU/kg)-5067 difference, Vitamin E (lU/kg)-59.5, Calcium (mg/kg)-6069, etc plus with quail you also need to know the sex of them as that also will affect the nutrient values. Rodents; Lipid (%)-3.6, Ash (%)-5.1, Calcium (mg/kg)-8343, Iron (mg/kg)-182.1, Zinc (mg/kg)-94.6. Guinea pig; Vitamin A (lU/kg)- 29,566, Calcium (mg/kg)-10,201, Ash (%)-6.4, etc. I could take up 4 pages talking about the differences in moisture, lipid, protein, ash, fat, vitamins A & E content, copper, iron, magnesium, zinc, calcium, etc of all 4 of the animals mentioned. All having nutrient variances based solely on what the animal was feed. Also studies have been done showing great differences from what the manufacturer's (supplier of the prey items) guaranteed analysis say and what it really is. Barf proponents never seem to mention that, do they? Though just from those few examples you can see how there is a huge variance in what the prey would provide your dog nutritionally.<o></o>

Now do you better understand why kibble is recommended by the American Zoo and Aquarium, Nutritional Advisory Group? They know we can rarely duplicate the ingredients of any animals' diet in a captive situation. But, what we duplicate are the nutrients contained within that diet and that's where kibble comes in. The varying nutritional values aren't anything shocking or something to not expect if you really think about it. Those diets are designed for the prey and have been designed to produce healthy prey species as a final product. Often created with either maximal growth or reproduction as a goal. They've not been designed to support maximal health and reproduction of a dog or any other secondary source, which must derive all of its nutritional requirements from that single source.
<o>
</o>Anyone that has ever read anything on barf diets, no doubt has read about these remarkable improvements the dogs make. Heck, CrazyK9 even mentioned it within this thread in regards to her dog. Facts are, true allergies in dogs is extremely rare. More common would be food intolerance's, roughly 8-11% of all dogs. Large studies have been done on a large number of dogs in Australia, US, Europe, and New Zealand revealing the following proteins as the main culprits; beef, wheat, diary, lamb, chicken, egg, and soy. Those 7 items comprise 93% of all adverse reactions. But don't take my word for it, read for yourself; Small Animal Clinical Nutrition 4th edition. Notice ingredients in that list, barfer's regularly feed and recommend? How can that be and still we get claims about the miraculous improvement of their dogs? Easy, if they knew anything about nutrition they'd know; dogs can show a reduction of symptoms by simply increasing the amount of essential fatty acids in their dogs diet. We never hear what any of those with such miraculous stories were feeding prior. Maybe it was deficient in those, maybe the current levels simply cover up the symptoms? One thing is certain, it's absurd to believe switching from a "cooked" diet to a "raw" one, magically changed their dogs reaction to the protein molecule. A ton of possibilities and none center around the fictitious superiority of a raw diet!

In a large study done by doctors J.Dodds, S. Wynn, and J Bartges, they looked at blood work from over 200 barf dogs, compared it to 75 dogs eating "normal" kibble. The lab results showed the Mean BUN were significantly higher in the dogs eating the barf diets. Dr. L.S. Newman, ND, PhD and Dr. L. Vieth D.V.M. also did a study on popular raw diets. That study revealed all diets tested had nutritional deficiencies or excesses that could cause serious health problems when used long-term. The majority of the diets had 50% more calcium than is appropriate and 22% more phosphorous than a dog should have. Anyone shocked? Probably not given they've seen this thread and noticed how idiots were recommending feeding items in excess of 45% bone. In case anyone is unaware the 3rd most common cause of disease death in dogs is renal failure. Also, we can read Doctors Michel and Freeman's work that was published in the JAVMA titled; "Nutritional analysis of 5 types of "Raw Food Diets". if wanting more information or A. Rahman and S. Yathiral's "Commercial Vs. Traditional Food in Canine Health". There are plenty of studies and reference materials out there. All show the same thing, that the ridiculous and outlandish claims made by barf proponents are nothing more than their ill advised, useless opinions. Surprised now...aren't you? Of course not given you've seen their inability to explain their reasons for recommending this or that, noticed how they can't even share the actual raw diet they're feeding. By now, probably even started noticing how they only concentrate on ingredients and ignore nutrients. Oblivious to the facts, ingredients don't give you any prospective as to the dogs ability to utilize the nutrients. Barfer's love to denigrate nutrients derived from one source or another while proclaiming some magical value to nutrients from another. How many times have you seen some barf proponent mention how horrible grains are? They unaware that 99% of all starch fraction of the grain is digested in dogs? If believing barf proponents, it has less benefit to the dog than the same nutrient derived from a meat source. Just think about that for a minute...they expect you to believe the domestication process added a "mythical nutrient cop" in the stomach of dogs that rejects a grain derived nutrient but allows a meat one to pass. Reality is the amino acid tryptophan has equal value to a dog if derived from soy, beef, or corn. I'll save you the reading from listing a host of other ones. There are multiple scientific studies proving their ridiculous claims to be nothing but complete fallacy. You can read Small Animal Clinical Nutrition, or the Journal of Nutrition and see if you can find something to back up their useless opinions and outlandish claims. They need all the help they can get!

Another common thing barf proponents like to mention is about all those undiscovered vitamins, minerals, trace nutrients we haven't even discovered yet. It's a huge concern, CrazyK9 even mentioned it. Sure it keeps many up all night worried given the last discovery was Vitamin K...in 1946. But to be fair with our ever improving technology we might find some. The major flaw in their argument is that it could easily be added by the kibble manufacturers. On the other hand what if those discoveries turned up traces like many of those all ready known that are only biologically available to dogs once cooked?

Teeth: we've heard it mentioned in this thread and standard mumbo-jumbo, ramblings, made-up by barf proponents saying how horrible the evil kibble is on our dogs teeth and great raw is. No surprise they've never read the studies done at the University of Georgia College of Veterinary Medicine showing the opposite to be true or any of those published in the Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association contradicting their useless opinions. Or C. Gorrel and J. Robinson's "The oral status of a pack of foxhounds fed a "natural" diet from the Fifth World Veterinary Dental Congress. Okay...you can discredit the last one given it was in Birmingham, England and we all know how the teeth of the English are. Soft kibble though has shown to aid in tater build up...wait a minute, wasn't there a raw preacher within this thread talking about adding water to their dogs kibble? Maybe that's why they think that...they do what's not recommended and when tater builds up like they was told it would-blame the kibble. Fido's tartar build up couldn't be because of his idiot owner and not the kibble, could it? Plus we all know wolves always die with perfect pearly whites.
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

Texasbulldogs · Jul 30, 2010

Many times when discussing the topic of feeding a raw diet, salmonella, E. coli, and Clostridium tends to come up. They are legitimate questions/concerns that is often ignored and even down played by the barfer's. If believing proponents of raw feeding...a dog has a magical power to deal with it. But let's leave the crazy talk out and see what the article; "Preliminary assessment of the risk of salmonella infection in dogs fed raw chicken diets" in the Canadian Veterinary Journal had to say. It found the shedding of salmonella organisms in the feces of 30% of the dogs that were feed a raw diet. Basically meaning every time the dog was out in the backyard , walking down the street, at the park, etc and took a dump it was spreading it. Thanks, barfer's! Could you imagine the outcry if kibble gave 3 out of every 10 dogs that? Unlike the nonsense barf proponents would have you believe; dogs fed raw diets do succumb to the bacterial species commonly found on raw foods. Texas Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Laboratory had a great article on it too in the Texas Veterinary. Might want to read; R.A. Strohmeyer's "Evaluation of bacterial and protozoal contamination of commercially-available raw meat diets for dogs in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. Maybe M. Chengapappa's "Prevalence of Salmonella in raw meat diets used in racing greyhounds" in the Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation. J. Weese's "Bacteriological evaluation of commercial canine and feline raw diets" in the Canadian Veterinary Journal.

[FONT=&quot]Now we can see why in my initial post I put 99% can't do better than a premium kibble nor can they feed raw to their dogs cheaper. The whole raw is so great for the dogs crap is nothing more than useless opinions. First started by people with a self-interest in it...selling books, supplements, etc., later perpetuated by the clueless. Don't be fooled by the rhetoric! Read any thread on the topic and see for yourself how proponents only give opinions (useless ones), never explain what their actual raw diet is and/or why it's better than kibble, etc. Notice how with all that money they claim to save, none of them once sent off their diet/s to have it/them analyzed. Last time I did it, it only cost $30. It's not really about feeding their dog better, more along the lines of guessing and pretending they are? Having it analyzed is probably too hard, much easier for them to continue making up crap while living in their self-created fantasy world.[/FONT]

Flipside · Jul 30, 2010

You can copy and paste all your internet searchs all you want....the dogfood industry and its sales is one of the main reasons you will not find studies posted proving the worth of feeding a raw diet. Like politics and business in general....money$$ is a big influence in what info the general public is given to either increase its propoganda or sales.

I can see for myself the diffence feeding raw makes compared to when feeding kibble in maintence feeding or in keep. For years I use to feed my dogs kibble and in keep was taught to feed kibble and raw....
Again, kibble was originally created 50-60 yrs ago and for the convenience of the pet owner....before that what were they feed?
Anyway....my own experiences with feeding raw and competing with dogs feed raw compared to kibble voids all the studies you may find online!

YIS

LuvMyBulldogs · Jul 30, 2010

Feeding a completely raw diet for me is a little tricky, so I just do what works best for me. In the am b 4 work I feed a leg quarter with 2 chicken backs. In the evening I feed 2 cups of diamond natural with a little cod liver oil and I blend up chicken livers and pour it over top with a little ACV and a flinstone vitamin. Works for me and has been working. I say just do what works for your dog and your pocket. My dogs look great, act like pups and they're 6 yrs old.

Texasbulldogs · Jul 30, 2010

You can copy and paste all your internet searchs all you want....the dogfood industry and its sales is one of the main reasons you will not find studies posted proving the worth of feeding a raw diet. Like politics and business in general....money$$ is a big influence in what info the general public is given to either increase its propoganda or sales.
Of course it is. Just like I said...offer nothing but useless opinions! In your conspiracy theory did they also get the laboratories conducting the analysis to fabricate them to?

I can see for myself the diffence feeding raw makes compared to when feeding kibble in maintence feeding or in keep.
Oh, hell we better take note and realize you have the keenest of eyes. Couldn't be the addition fat content of the food that is what you're seeing could it? Have you ever tested had your dogs diet tested or just rely on your great guessing abilities and that keen eyesight of yours?

Again, kibble was originally created 50-60 yrs ago and for the convenience of the pet owner....before that what were they feed?
Let me see if I get this correct...1860 to today equals 50-60 years in your world? Is your math as great in calculating your dogs nutrient needs and values of what your feeding it?

Flipside · Jul 30, 2010

Texasbulldogs said: ↑

You can copy and paste all your internet searchs all you want....the dogfood industry and its sales is one of the main reasons you will not find studies posted proving the worth of feeding a raw diet. Like politics and business in general....money$$ is a big influence in what info the general public is given to either increase its propoganda or sales.
Of course it is. Just like I said...offer nothing but useless opinions! In your conspiracy theory did they also get the laboratories conducting the analysis to fabricate them to?

I can see for myself the diffence feeding raw makes compared to when feeding kibble in maintence feeding or in keep.
Oh, hell we better take note and realize you have the keenest of eyes. Couldn't be the addition fat content of the food that is what you're seeing could it? Have you ever tested had your dogs diet tested or just rely on your great guessing abilities and that keen eyesight of yours?

Again, kibble was originally created 50-60 yrs ago and for the convenience of the pet owner....before that what were they feed?
Let me see if I get this correct...1860 to today equals 50-60 years in your world? Is your math as great in calculating your dogs nutrient needs and values of what your feeding it?
Click to expand...

Your laboratory test that you show as proof are all fabricated to cater to the dog food industry and its sales!

I didn't know 50-60 yrs ago was 1860....thats great math!

My dogs diets get tested when I compete with my dogs...how about you?

Please elaborate on what my dogs nutrients needs are!

beanieman · Jul 30, 2010

for those who like this is the pdf book of Tom Lonsdale
'feed your dog raw and meaty bones'.
Tom Lonsdale - Work Wonders - Feed Your Dog Raw Meaty Bones

HighCoastHiker · Jul 30, 2010

Texasbulldogs said: ↑

Prove what bud? Prove that the cost per cup of dried shit, the bag it comes in, the shipping and the cost of advertising to dumbasses just to convince them that the shit with the five-year shelf life they're feeding their dog is better than working a little harder and feeding the dog meat?
Seriously now. For the price of a bag of food that feeds my dogs for three days, I feed them raw for five. Also, I live in a place where I pay by the kilo to take away trash, (dog-shit included). If I am unfortunate enough to have to feed my dogs "premium kibble" for a week, the amout of shit I have to pay to have taken away is more than double the usual. So, for me raw feeding is cheaper coming and going. Keep on arguing. But I think that even you know you're talking shit. Feeding raw is not nearly as quick or convenient as scooping crap out of a bag. I don't feed raw for vanity, social conscience or ego. I really don't give a hell whether the chicken they eat is free-range or not. I feed raw simply because I cannot get my dogs to look as good as they do eating this way with kibble at any price and it costs me less money to do it this way. Period.

<LINK rel=File-List href="file:///C:%5CUsers%5CBrian%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><LINK rel=themeData href="file:///C:%5CUsers%5CBrian%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_themedata.thmx"><LINK rel=colorSchemeMapping href="file:///C:%5CUsers%5CBrian%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_colorschememapping.xml"><STYLE>  </STYLE>Prove what? For starters all your ridiculous claims. Like in post #28 you said; "As far as premium kibble being "cheaper." That's a joke." What's the matter a "penny-pinching, Kilowatt hour calculating SOB" like yourself too incompetent? It was after all your moronic statement. But like all barf proponents all you can do it make up crap. You obviously can't back up your claims of it being cheaper so you move on and now make up something else you're incapable of backing up with facts. You don't care about how the chicken or any of your protein sources are raised and feed because you're like other proponents in this thread and barfer's in general-clueless! Another reason is you didn't know there was even a difference until I pointed it out. But it's raw and that makes it better and more nutritious right?

For those on the fence about the raw diet, curious about all the hype, thinking about, etc. The whole concept is nothing but a fad and if you really look into it you'll notice...it's all based on useless opinions. This thread is just like so many other ones out there on the topic. Notice all the proponents of the barf diet and not one of them actually has any knowledge to back up their claims. Yet, they'll recommend you follow blindly and feed it too...that's what they did. We've all seen their talking points, heard their useless opinions, etc. Let's break some of them down and see if it's just hot air or actually beneficial to our dogs.

Proponents of raw feeding claim to be replicating the diet of wolves. First issue is one must pretend dogs never changed any in the 100,000 years since it separated from the wolf. Pretending evolution and gene mutations weren't required for the domestication of dog. It's absurd and factually inaccurate to believe such. There is a difference between the two in regards to eyes, musculature, tendon strength, and a host of other distinct differences in the internal organs and their abilities. Maybe if they were honest or simply read, they'd know the Mexican, Red, and Grey wolves all live longer in captivity. Take a guess as to what the American Zoo and Aquarium, Nutritional Advisory Group recommends; feeding commercial pet foods to wild canids. They suggest that raw meat only be used for purposes of administering medications, wormers, or enticing the animals to move through cages and doorways. Yes, you read that correctly; recommends kibble.
Click to expand...

Ok, I'm sorry. I should have admitted that you're just a full-of-shit dumbass a long time ago and left this alone. You make idiotic claims, and accuse others of doing it. Listen, when the dogs you have are fifteen years old, thirteen years old and still going strong, you come back and talk to me. Other than that, keep buying your kibble and trying to blow smoke up everybodys ass. Anyhow, the moose meat is just about thawed, so I'm going to throw that, some leftover rice and vegetables, a few hard-boiled eggs that no one ate, two teaspoons of kelp and a little fish oil to the dogs...you go shovel out your premium-priced bullshit and keep fooling yourself. You sure as shit aren't fooling anyone else.

HighCoastHiker · Jul 30, 2010

Texasbulldogs said: ↑

Many times when discussing the topic of feeding a raw diet, salmonella, E. coli, and Clostridium tends to come up. They are legitimate questions/concerns that is often ignored and even down played by the barfer's. If believing proponents of raw feeding...a dog has a magical power to deal with it. But let's leave the crazy talk out and see what the article; "Preliminary assessment of the risk of salmonella infection in dogs fed raw chicken diets" in the Canadian Veterinary Journal had to say. It found the shedding of salmonella organisms in the feces of 30% of the dogs that were feed a raw diet. Basically meaning every time the dog was out in the backyard , walking down the street, at the park, etc and took a dump it was spreading it. Thanks, barfer's! Could you imagine the outcry if kibble gave 3 out of every 10 dogs that? Unlike the nonsense barf proponents would have you believe; dogs fed raw diets do succumb to the bacterial species commonly found on raw foods. Texas Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Laboratory had a great article on it too in the Texas Veterinary. Might want to read; R.A. Strohmeyer's "Evaluation of bacterial and protozoal contamination of commercially-available raw meat diets for dogs in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. Maybe M. Chengapappa's "Prevalence of Salmonella in raw meat diets used in racing greyhounds" in the Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation. J. Weese's "Bacteriological evaluation of commercial canine and feline raw diets" in the Canadian Veterinary Journal.

[FONT=&quot]Now we can see why in my initial post I put 99% can't do better than a premium kibble nor can they feed raw to their dogs cheaper. The whole raw is so great for the dogs crap is nothing more than useless opinions. First started by people with a self-interest in it...selling books, supplements, etc., later perpetuated by the clueless. Don't be fooled by the rhetoric! Read any thread on the topic and see for yourself how proponents only give opinions (useless ones), never explain what their actual raw diet is and/or why it's better than kibble, etc. Notice how with all that money they claim to save, none of them once sent off their diet/s to have it/them analyzed. Last time I did it, it only cost $30. It's not really about feeding their dog better, more along the lines of guessing and pretending they are? Having it analyzed is probably too hard, much easier for them to continue making up crap while living in their self-created fantasy world.[/FONT]
Click to expand...

When was the last time someone looked at your five-year old dog and ask "how old is your pup"? You have any thirteen-year olds climbing trees? I do. Analysis my big round ass. I fed premium kibble for years you full-of shit know-it all. I fed the baked, I fed the low-heat extruded. I fed the lamb, the duck, the deer, the trout. I fed Abady, I fed sled dog rations. Hell, I used to get food shipped from a lot of these "premium" folks before they became big bought-out corporations with the slick advertising. None of it ever worked as well for my dogs as a forty-pound box of chicken backs. Besides the look and energy of my dogs, the biggest differences were in the amount of money I spent feeding dogs, and the smell of my yard. I don't need to spend $30 in bullshit analysis to tell me what my own eyes, nose and bank balance tell me for free.

DirtyD · Jul 31, 2010

I tell you what nobody could ever pay me to go back to feeding that dryed up shit in a bag kibble. Raw is the way to go in my opinion.

JoeyNzoey · Jul 31, 2010

Raw is definitely the way to go as I have always said and continue to throw back texasbulldogs kibble brain on the dumb ass side of my knowledge complete in denial and retarded for telling people of their own experiences and progress that it's all just bs and kibble is still better because he/she doesn't realize the "analysis" they are finding are all propaganda to hell those kibble companies make $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

beanieman · Jul 31, 2010

Aileen's sister
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JABSsjyDD5E&feature=related[/ame]

DirtyD · Jul 31, 2010

now thats a happy dog

DirtyD · Jul 31, 2010

...whats your dog eating

Log in or Sign up

raw feeding

HighCoastHiker Top Dog

jamiebosco Pup

Trelos Big Dog

jamiebosco Pup

Yas Big Dog

Texasbulldogs Top Dog

Texasbulldogs Top Dog

Texasbulldogs Top Dog

Flipside CH Dog

LuvMyBulldogs Big Dog

Texasbulldogs Top Dog

Flipside CH Dog

beanieman Banned

HighCoastHiker Top Dog

HighCoastHiker Top Dog

DirtyD Top Dog

JoeyNzoey Top Dog

beanieman Banned

DirtyD Top Dog

DirtyD Top Dog

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

raw feeding

HighCoastHiker Top Dog

jamiebosco Pup

Trelos Big Dog

jamiebosco Pup

Yas Big Dog

Texasbulldogs Top Dog

Texasbulldogs Top Dog

Texasbulldogs Top Dog

Flipside CH Dog

LuvMyBulldogs Big Dog

Texasbulldogs Top Dog

Flipside CH Dog

beanieman Banned

HighCoastHiker Top Dog

HighCoastHiker Top Dog

DirtyD Top Dog

JoeyNzoey Top Dog

beanieman Banned

DirtyD Top Dog

DirtyD Top Dog

Share This Page

Useful Searches