Raw Verses Kibble Only

[Bokezu]

Wondering if anyone knows if there is any research on long term health of dogs fed raw verses dogs fed solely dry kibble.

I feed majority raw but add premium kibble every second or third day, this works for me.

A lady at work purchased two lab puppies. Breeder and vet said no bones, no raw, just kibble, I suggested that some raw bones would be nice occassionally, but she said breeder said they are too dangerous and to stick with kibble only, is this because labs really do have a problem with bones? I personally think a larger dog would benefit from a bone occassionally.

Its really none of my business I know, but just think they are missing out.

[Staranais]

No research as far as I know - and I've looked.

It would be hard to do that sort of study, since there are so many versions of a raw diet - if you test the long term effects of one person's idea of prey model, who can say that another person's idea of prey model is just as healthy, or that BARF is just as healthy?

And which criteria would you pick to say which food was "healthier"? The years the dogs live? The number of vet visits they have before they die? What they eventually die of? The number of dentals they need? The number of gut impactions or tooth fractures they experience? Which criteria you decide to pick would impact which food was "healthier".

There are a few studies out there where people analysed the nutritional content of "typical" raw diets to the NRC guidelines for what dogs "should" eat. All of the diets fell short of at least one or two nutrients, some very short, which had the anti-BARF lobby jumping up and down. Of course, then you have to ask, perhaps the NRC are just being paranoid, since most dogs do seem to thrive on raw diets regardless of what they're "supposed" to need in their diets.

There is plenty of research about the benefits of various different types of kibble on dental health. It would be easy enough to set up trials of that sort to investigate whether raw diets are as good (or better) for teeth as dental kibble or regular kibble is. Would just take someone with motivation and a scientific background, and a moderate amount of funding.

It would also be reasonably simple to pay to have one or two "raw" diets tested to AAFCO standards, which are rather basic - as I recall, 8 dogs kept alive on the diet for a few months without obvious changes in weight or serum biochemistry gives you the AAFCO tick of approval. Pretty basic.

But I can't see any huge long term diet studies being done soon. The commitment of time and money would just be too large. No one will step forward to fund it - no kibble company, and no group of raw feeders, has volunteered to fund such a thing so far!

[Sheridan]

The problem with any studies is that what works best for an individual dog may not work for another dog. All my dog did for his diet to no longer work was move states.

[Bokezu]

I'm prob way off, but what really gets me thinking is when I hear of all the terrible cancers and other hideous diseases dogs suffer with and can't help but wonder is it connected to diet......like you say without proper studies we will never know

[Staranais]

I'm prob way off, but what really gets me thinking is when I hear of all the terrible cancers and other hideous diseases dogs suffer with and can't help but wonder is it connected to diet......like you say without proper studies we will never know

Yeah, that would be interesting to research. You could survey pet owners, I guess, and try to see if different types of diet were associated with different types and rates of cancer.

You'd have to somehow allow for the fact that people who go to the trouble to raw feed their dogs might conceivably on average take better care of their animals than the average australian does. So if you find a lower rate of cancer in raw fed dogs, that could relate to raw feeders doing other things differently (exercise, housing, medication), and not actually be caused by the raw feeding itself. Correlation doesn't prove causation.

You could even find more cancers reported in raw fed dogs, for a couple of reasons:

a) if raw feeding helps a dog live longer, then you could easily see more cancers in raw fed dogs, since older dogs tend to get cancer more often than young dogs do.

b) if raw feeders are on average more likely to take their dog to the vet than the average dog owner you may also see more cancers diagnosed in raw fed dogs, since dogs that don't go to the vet when they are ill won't be diagnosed with cancer even if they have it.

Just thinking out loud here.

[Bokezu]

yes Staranais totally agree with everything you say. Have nothing against people that feed total dry, its their choice, but really wish they would give their dogs a bone a few times a week particularly larger breeds

[Sheridan]

I'm prob way off, but what really gets me thinking is when I hear of all the terrible cancers and other hideous diseases dogs suffer with and can't help but wonder is it connected to diet......like you say without proper studies we will never know

Could be connected to anything. Household chemical use, for example.

[Sheridan]

I'm prob way off, but what really gets me thinking is when I hear of all the terrible cancers and other hideous diseases dogs suffer with and can't help but wonder is it connected to diet......like you say without proper studies we will never know

Yeah, that would be interesting to research. You could survey pet owners, I guess, and try to see if different types of diet were associated with different types and rates of cancer.

You'd have to somehow allow for the fact that people who go to the trouble to raw feed their dogs might conceivably on average take better care of their animals than the average australian does. So if you find a lower rate of cancer in raw fed dogs, that could relate to raw feeders doing other things differently (exercise, housing, medication), and not actually be caused by the raw feeding itself. Correlation doesn't prove causation.

You could even find more cancers reported in raw fed dogs, for a couple of reasons:

a) if raw feeding helps a dog live longer, then you could easily see more cancers in raw fed dogs, since older dogs tend to get cancer more often than young dogs do.

b) if raw feeders are on average more likely to take their dog to the vet than the average dog owner you may also see more cancers diagnosed in raw fed dogs, since dogs that don't go to the vet when they are ill won't be diagnosed with cancer even if they have it.

Just thinking out loud here.

Surely, this should be 'have to allow for the assumption' rather than 'fact'?

[Staranais]

I'm prob way off, but what really gets me thinking is when I hear of all the terrible cancers and other hideous diseases dogs suffer with and can't help but wonder is it connected to diet......like you say without proper studies we will never know

Yeah, that would be interesting to research. You could survey pet owners, I guess, and try to see if different types of diet were associated with different types and rates of cancer.

You'd have to somehow allow for the fact that people who go to the trouble to raw feed their dogs might conceivably on average take better care of their animals than the average australian does. So if you find a lower rate of cancer in raw fed dogs, that could relate to raw feeders doing other things differently (exercise, housing, medication), and not actually be caused by the raw feeding itself. Correlation doesn't prove causation.

You could even find more cancers reported in raw fed dogs, for a couple of reasons:

a) if raw feeding helps a dog live longer, then you could easily see more cancers in raw fed dogs, since older dogs tend to get cancer more often than young dogs do.

b) if raw feeders are on average more likely to take their dog to the vet than the average dog owner you may also see more cancers diagnosed in raw fed dogs, since dogs that don't go to the vet when they are ill won't be diagnosed with cancer even if they have it.

Just thinking out loud here.

Surely, this should be 'have to allow for the assumption' rather than 'fact'?

Well, that's why I said "might". It might be a fact, and if it is, you'll have to allow for it. Sorry if the english was not clear.

[Bokezu]

I'm prob way off, but what really gets me thinking is when I hear of all the terrible cancers and other hideous diseases dogs suffer with and can't help but wonder is it connected to diet......like you say without proper studies we will never know

Could be connected to anything. Household chemical use, for example.

yep or combination of both

[tomas]

No research as far as I know - and I've looked.

It would be hard to do that sort of study, since there are so many versions of a raw diet - if you test the long term effects of one person's idea of prey model, who can say that another person's idea of prey model is just as healthy, or that BARF is just as healthy?

And which criteria would you pick to say which food was "healthier"? The years the dogs live? The number of vet visits they have before they die? What they eventually die of? The number of dentals they need? The number of gut impactions or tooth fractures they experience? Which criteria you decide to pick would impact which food was "healthier".

There are a few studies out there where people analysed the nutritional content of "typical" raw diets to the NRC guidelines for what dogs "should" eat. All of the diets fell short of at least one or two nutrients, some very short, which had the anti-BARF lobby jumping up and down. Of course, then you have to ask, perhaps the NRC are just being paranoid, since most dogs do seem to thrive on raw diets regardless of what they're "supposed" to need in their diets.

There is plenty of research about the benefits of various different types of kibble on dental health. It would be easy enough to set up trials of that sort to investigate whether raw diets are as good (or better) for teeth as dental kibble or regular kibble is. Would just take someone with motivation and a scientific background, and a moderate amount of funding.

It would also be reasonably simple to pay to have one or two "raw" diets tested to AAFCO standards, which are rather basic - as I recall, 8 dogs kept alive on the diet for a few months without obvious changes in weight or serum biochemistry gives you the AAFCO tick of approval. Pretty basic.

But I can't see any huge long term diet studies being done soon. The commitment of time and money would just be too large. No one will step forward to fund it - no kibble company, and no group of raw feeders, has volunteered to fund such a thing so far!

LOVE the way you think Star! Work it out!

[Staranais]

LOVE the way you think Star! Work it out!

Lol, thanks Tomas!

[Bokezu]

I know myself raw is better that wasn't why I asked the question. It would be good if I had a reference for someone at work who refuses to give her two young labs any raw food whatsoever, I think its cruel JMO

[Sheridan]

I know myself raw is better that wasn't why I asked the question. It would be good if I had a reference for someone at work who refuses to give her two young labs any raw food whatsoever, I think its cruel JMO

And are her dogs sick and dying? If not, pull your head in. Indeed, if so, still pull your head in. I know that some raw feeders are fanatical about it but frankly many dogs do very well on cheap supermarket kibble and Pedigree Pal. It is not cruel, it's what suits the dog.

[ruffedge]

I know myself raw is better that wasn't why I asked the question. It would be good if I had a reference for someone at work who refuses to give her two young labs any raw food whatsoever, I think its cruel JMO

And are her dogs sick and dying? If not, pull your head in. Indeed, if so, still pull your head in. I know that some raw feeders are fanatical about it but frankly many dogs do very well on cheap supermarket kibble and Pedigree Pal. It is not cruel, it's what suits the dog.

I think thats a bit rude of you.They are purely asking a question not looking for your smarta*** comments.Pul your head in goose.

[Sheridan]

I know myself raw is better that wasn't why I asked the question. It would be good if I had a reference for someone at work who refuses to give her two young labs any raw food whatsoever, I think its cruel JMO

And are her dogs sick and dying? If not, pull your head in. Indeed, if so, still pull your head in. I know that some raw feeders are fanatical about it but frankly many dogs do very well on cheap supermarket kibble and Pedigree Pal. It is not cruel, it's what suits the dog.

I think thats a bit rude of you.They are purely asking a question not looking for your smarta*** comments.Pul your head in goose.

Rude? Rude is insisting that the only way to feed a dog is your way.

[sandra64]

Not saying anything is right or wrong here, but the breeder i deal with has a biology, honours in science,zoology,degree. studied physiology and dietry needs of animals, and the list is endless. i try and stick to part of how she has studied her own dogs over the last 15years, and i follow as much raw as possible. Its not that simple obviously, but i works for me

[Seven]

Cant remember where I seen it and someone may know.

This is from memory so could of got it wrong!

Theres a bloke overseas that breeds german sheppards for pets and even police force. He has been doing it for over 30yrs and he said all natural is best, but stick to one or the other. He makes mention that he has not really seen much difference health wise himself, but prefers all natural as he feels they enjoy it more or something like that. He does go on to say he feels the all natural way gives his dogs more energy and better temperament.

So I guess at the end of the day its what you feel happy with.

[Bokezu]

I know myself raw is better that wasn't why I asked the question. It would be good if I had a reference for someone at work who refuses to give her two young labs any raw food whatsoever, I think its cruel JMO

And are her dogs sick and dying? If not, pull your head in. Indeed, if so, still pull your head in. I know that some raw feeders are fanatical about it but frankly many dogs do very well on cheap supermarket kibble and Pedigree Pal. It is not cruel, it's what suits the dog.

well she had health issues for the life of her previous Lab. Just thought she should try some bones for her youngsters, no skin off my nose if she doesn't, they are her dogs, and whatever works for her, I feed majority raw and it works for me thats all that matters, so now I'll pull my head in, and so sorry I brought it up

[megan_]

Bokezu - My boy got VERY sick on raw (all human grade, used before use-by dates). I don't know if that was the cause, but he is doing well on a presciption diet. Am I cruel for trying to keep the poor thing alive with a (very borking) diet that is working? A badly executed raw diet can be worse than a balanced kibble one.

I believe that raw is best for most dogs, but it appears that there is no evidence of it via research (and I'd like to know why!).

I find it interesting when people say they *know* something is better: how do they know? are the results independant? statistically significant? what is their definition of raw (BARF, old fashioned before Dr B got famous BARF, Prey??)? what measures define "healthy"?