Switching from raw to kibble

[RawFedDogs]

The 3-year-old Jack Russell doesn't seem to be much different than he was before starting the raw diet, so I'm not concerned about him too much. The 6-year-old collie/terrier mix is getting very fat, even if he doesn't eat that much, and his coat seems more dull and is turning lighter in color. He also coughs frequently like something is stuck in his throat. They both scratch a lot but I don't remember whether they did that before. The Jack Russell chews his paws a lot but, again, I can't remember if this is new.

None of these ae good things. Exactly what are you feeding? If I remember correctly you started feeding raw a few months ago. The dog getting fat is obviously eating too much for the amount of exercise he is getting. Remember that the volume of raw food will almost always be less than the volume of kibble fed to the same dog because the dog utilizes 100% of the raw food and maybe 50% of kibble.

I guess I just expected them to be thriving by this time and they are obviously not. Maybe I expected too much too soon.

No, you are not expecting too much. They should be thriving. I think you have been raw feeding 3 or 4 months or more and you should see great improvement. Thats why I asked exactly what you are feeding.

Here is the website I found: Cautions Against Raw Food Diets

Ahhh yes, Lisa Newman. I've run across her several times in the last 5 years or so. She is in the business of selling so called nutritional supplements and I believe her statements as much as I would believe a used car salesman trying to sell me a used car. Her page is full of half truths and plain old misinformation. It is much more a sales pitch than an actual scientific study. The terms and information are vague at best. There is no real scientific data in her so called study. It reminds me of an infommercial.

[RawFedDogs]

You seem a little angry. I don't mean to cause a heated debate. I only want my dogs to be healthy and am open to all choices of dog food. I won't go back to the cheap kibble from Wal-Mart or wherever and I won't go back to a dog food with grain in it.

Hehe, this is not a heated debate. It is merely a discussion of what you should feed your dogs and why. I am not the least big angry. I am just correcting misinformation and sometimes I say things a little more harshly than I mean them.

No . . . I would not eat kibble. Neither would I eat raw meat and bones. Why? Because I'm "afraid to."

Everyone I know is afraid to eat kibble as they should be. I have eaten raw meat just to see what it's like and I don't particularly like it. I have eaten raw beef, chicken, turkey, and pork. Its all pretty difficult to chew and not very tasty. It didn't kill me or make me sick. Humans just can't eat bones in the natural state.

I wouldn't eat a lot of things that dogs eat, so that argument doesn't really convince me.

The point of my statement is that humans won't eat dog food because they consider it dangerous to eat and not very appetising. Both of which are good reasons to me not to feed that stuff to my dogs.

I was just asking for advice or suggestions - not a lecture.

You haven't seen me give a lecture either. Those can go on forever. LOL

By the way, as far as kibble being cheap? . . . in my opinion, some of it is rather expensive.

Yes it is but it's much cheaper than it would be if you left the fillers out of it and made it all meat, bones, and organs. The reason for most of the junk in dog food is to keep costs down. Those ingredients are very cheap making the overall cost of the kibble very cheap.

[RawFedDogs]

I think I said the doctor who did the study on the BARF diet was a vet. I was wrong about that. She is an "N.D., PhD." and has both human and animal clients. Just wanted to clarify that.

I did a quick google search but I couldn't find where her degrees are from. Do you have that information?

[whiteleo]

Sometimes RFD, dogs need a little push. I supplement my dogs with Omega 3's and that has helped their production of natural oils and have stopped scratching, I also don't get the cheap fish here in the Pacific Northwest even though this is where most of the salmon comes from. Anifunk1962, are you feeding your dogs fish?

[DaneMama]

Here is the website I found: Cautions Against Raw Food Diets

Thanks! Here I go...

The first problem that I see, is that there are no references. Where is she getting the information that she is boldly stating in her Intro, Discussion, Results, and Significant Findings? That is the main question for me? If she cannot prove that she got that info somewhere else, then it must be plagierized or her own opinion on things (which is clearly not scientific).

Because of that I cannot take this as real scientific research. A real full blown scientific research project paper would have at least 20-100 references, if not more than that. I have done a few primary research projects and I only needed 30 references (which is a VERY fundemental part of doing research). If she really is a PhD, she should know that...(she does have a "References" page, but that just takes you to a list of other things she has writen).

Secondly, a true scientific study is MUCH, MUCH harder to read. Trust me, I have had to read a few for school, and it is not my thing. Weeding through all the statistical data (which I see none in her paper, other than unsupported percentage numbers that appear out of no where), charts, tables, etc is tough. It takes practice to read scientific research projects, and actually be able to get something out of it.

Thirdly, this is not a published study. That means that it is not peer reviewed. This also supports that this is not a scientific study and should be overlooked. Scientific research projects have to be reviewed by a group of peers for it to mean something. If a group (usually consisting of a LOT of people) sees that a certain study is worth publishing, it is. It is VERY hard to get a scientific study published. One of my professors (Head of the Bio department and a very good friend of mine) has been working on writing a research paper for years now. Every time it goes into for review they send it back and say "you need more supportive data" or something like that. She is very prestigious in her world (parasitology) and has actually been able to name a species after her, which she discovered!

Lastly, she is selling something. The name of her product pops up in the paper numerous times, everytime with a positive note. This has got to be a red flag to those who are not oriented in the scientific world. You HAVE to be cautious of people trying to sell you something, they don't necessarily care about you or your dogs, in this case, but rather their pocket book.

To me, this is merely an opinion based paper, not one based on scientific findings.

ETA: Her procedures and variables seem weak to me. To really get good results I would have to say the structure of a similar study would have to be much more controlled and organized. The fact that she let the families of all the dogs/cats, rate their health of a scale of 1-10 is just flawed. First, the families would most likely be poor judges at what they really need to look for. Not knowing exactly what it is that makes a dog/cat truly healthy. Second, I am sure that Newman fed the families of the animals supporting her product with a bunch of "facts" about how it helps with their overall health. This probably swayed their judging system immensly, which made them think that their pets were doing GREAT!!! when in actuality there might have not been enough change for them to really see. Lastly, how does she know that all the test subjects were fed what the families said they were for sure, no questions asked? Maybe the observed health of the animals seemed to be deteriorating because of outside reasons?....does that make ANY sense?

But these are just MY opinions on this whole thing...you could overlook what I have to say as well

anifunk1962

I think if your dogs are not doing well on the prey model diet, I think that you need to reevaluate what exactly you are feeding. What, how much, how often, etc, etc.

I think that you have 100% the right attitude about this whole thing and that is great. There are people on here that have lots of info and experience that are willing to help (sometimes they come off a bit strongly LOL take it with a grain of salt ;)

Whatever you end up doing, good for you! Not every dog out there is lucky to have someone as willing and commited to figuring out what is best for them!

[claybuster]

There is no such thing as a high-quality dry food. It is all highly processed garbage from the human food processing plants. If the ingredients weren't used it dog food they would go to the dump.

I disagree. Sound like the nonsense you would read in a copy of the Whole Dog Journal. If it wasn't for the "garbage from the human processing plants"
(which BTW makes it automatically human-grade being this implies being used for the human consumption market), the dogs would be in a lot worse shape than they are today. These by-product meals spoken about above are the most effective means of delivering animal source proteins in a ration available for any dog food manufacturer. This line of thinking does an injustice to the animal along with the worthy of the dinner table thinking adopted by the WDJ.
Companies fear the marketing sales appeal.

[RawFedDogs]

I disagree. Sound like the nonsense you would read in a copy of the Whole Dog Journal.

Actually I have never read WDJ but it is a true statement.

If it wasn't for the "garbage from the human processing plants" (which BTW makes it automatically human-grade being this implies being used for the human consumption market), the dogs would be in a lot worse shape than they are today.

Actually, its not human grade food. Just because it comes from a human food processing plant doesn't automatically make it human grade. Once it leaves that plant, it looses its "human grade" status. BTW: Did you know it is shipped from the human food processing plant to the rendering plant in unrefigerated trucks? Can you imagine the stuff shipped in July and August?

These by-product meals spoken about above are the most effective means of delivering animal source proteins in a ration available for any dog food manufacturer.

Nahhh ... it gets highly processed and therefore looses a lot of nutrients. It's also pretty rotten by the time it gets to the rendering plant (see paragraph above). Whole fresh meat, bone, and organ is much more effective.

This line of thinking does an injustice to the animal along with the worthy of the dinner table thinking adopted by the WDJ.
Companies fear the marketing sales appeal.

What line of thinking? That kibble is made of refuse from the human processing plants? Thats a true statement. You can't deny that.

[claybuster]

I guess I just expected them to be thriving by this time and they are obviously not. Maybe I expected too much too soon.

I saw some video not too long ago, someone was feeding some raw to their dogs. The dogs didn't look all that great either IMO. The coat looked nasty and the one appeared overweight.

[claybuster]

He also coughs frequently like something is stuck in his throat.

You never know, we have had someone on this list already with a 3K trip to the vet emergency hospital. Eating raw out of nature is one thing, you ain't getting that out of a supermarket. The butcher shop IMO is no substitute for Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom. No matter what they tell you, prey model raw is just that, a model. It’s apples and oranges compared to natures raw. One would be much better off IMO if they just fed road kill.

[whiteleo]

Thats why some of us won't feed food from Walmart, I wouldn't touch that garbage they sell! Some people believe meat is meat, IMO if I won't eat it my dogs don't get to eat it, I will only buy grass fed beef with no hormones added, same with all the other meat products, I just buy in bulk from my local food co-op.