# New to feeding raw and I'm a little over whelmed, please help!



## Kansas1191 (Aug 9, 2016)

I have been researching the prey model raw diet for a few months now. I am getting a bit confused as everyone is telling me something differently and I'm questioning what the correct way is(I understand every dog will be a little different). I have two dogs that I will be starting on it, one should be around 55lbs and the other should be around 40lbs, both are older but one more active than the other. 

My first question is the whole 80% 10% 10% 5% of that being liver guidelines are confusing me some as a friend of mine is telling me that those numbers should be daily but then another raw chat type group is telling me that it doesn't have to be daily numbers just as long as it's within the week or even the month? What do all of you think should it be daily/weekly/monthly? 

I'm going to be starting off with chicken and turkey was thinking of doing chicken leg quarters, boneless turkey breast, turkey and chicken hearts, both turkey and chicken liver and both chicken and turkey kidneys. Not all on the same day but switched up throughout the week. I have seen on her that people are doing just leg quarters one a day for around this weight limit but what about the organs and liver? (I don't think my dogs will have any issues during he transition as they have been on a commercial raw diet and they don't typically have issue over switching foods) 

However how do you find out the percentage of bone to meat in bone in cuts of variety of meats, is is more just trial and error as far as what the dogs poop is like, as they will be getting enough as long as not constipated from the bone and not having diarrhea from the organs ect? 

I'm sorry for the 20 questions I feel like my brain is on overloadensive: 

Thank you in advance!!


----------



## naturalfeddogs (Jan 6, 2011)

Welcome! The whole 80/10/10 thing is just a guideline, and nothing more. Some dogs will need more of something, some less. I haven't ever followed it. I watch how my dogs are doing, and let them tell me how much of what they need. 

You don't have to get everything in in a day. You can spread it out over a weeks time. Balance comes from variety over time. 

You are doing right by starting with chicken quarters. Stick with them for a week and a half at least, before moving on to turkey. Then do the same thing and move on to pork. You want poops good before moving on to the next protein.

No organs right now. Those will come on down the road a ways, but you will want to start with beef liver when you do. Lots of vital nutrition in it.


----------



## Kansas1191 (Aug 9, 2016)

Thank you! What other chicken cuts besides quarters and what turkey cuts do you recommend for a 40lb to 55lb dog?


----------



## naturalfeddogs (Jan 6, 2011)

For starting out, quarters are probably the best. You can feed backs also, but they are super bony and you need to add some boneless with those, like breast meat. I keep backs around for occasional bouts of cannon butt, but I don't feed them often otherwise. 

As for turkey, turkey bones are much denser than chicken, but necks or thighs are fine for a dog that size. I used to feed turkey drumsticks to mine, but they are so dense that a couple of mine broke teeth. Really large dogs like danes are ok with those though.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

Welcome and I'm sorry you're getting all different kinds of information. Raw feeding is extremely simple unless people make it complicated. 

Don't worry about anything. As the best raw feeder mentor ever told me when I came to these boards and was freaking out about raw feeding told me - it's simple. Buy a chicken. Feed a chicken. 

You have to start somewhere. Buy some meat - like naturalfeddogs said, chicken quarters are the easiest. Make sure they have less than 100gm of sodium.

Feed it to your dog. Start out at about a pound a day, which is surprisingly the weight of a lot of chicken quarters 

Watch the poops. Too hard or white, add a little more meat. Too runny, add more bony like a chicken back. Most dogs do good on quarters. I don't ascribe to the belief that diarrhea is normal or some kind of "detox" - I believe it's operator error and a dog should switch to raw with no problems. The only dog I switched that got diarrhea was because of me. 

And then wa-la - you are a raw feeder. 

Once you are a raw feeder, you can start thinking about the next step. But until you get started, you can overthink it to death. Your dog is ready!!


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

Oh, and I couldn't tell you what percentage of bone my dogs are getting if you put a gun to my head.


----------



## Spy Car (Apr 16, 2015)

I have a difference of opinion with my fellow PRM feeders on this thread on the issue of bone to meat percentages. All veterinary studies and th eleading authorities on canine nutrition stress the importance of keeping dietary Calcium and Phosphorus in a ratio of 1.2:1. Even the most sub-standard brands of kibble (products I would not advocate feeding) are formulated very carefull to meet this critical nutritional need.

By feeding PMR ratios 80% (meat) 10% (bone) the Calcium to Phosphorus target is met perfectly. I don't think being causual about the percentages or being unaware of the approximate bone to meat content is wise. 

As to organs, liver should be 5% of overall diet with other secreting organs providing the other 5% (to make a total for organs of 10% of diet). I prefer alternating daily organ feedings (at 10% of daily meals) doing liver one day and other organs the next. One can feed "over time" instead of daily, but large organ meals can (and frequently do) upset the digestive tract, and daily feeding make sure that critical nutrients are not skipped. Daily organ feeding minimizes digestive issues and ensures these nutritious items are in the diet.


Bill


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

It's not being casual, it's trusting the food. I'm sure my dogs are getting the correct ratio because they poop good and they are healthy. I don't have to figure up percentages. 

And I'm not sure where that 10% of organ came from. Who says it should be 10%? Organs have a lot of water-insoluble nutrients. I've never been convinced 10% isn't too much.

I also get senior panels on my dogs once a year. I did have a dog once that got a phosphorus/calcium imbalance and it's not something that you don't notice.


----------



## naturalfeddogs (Jan 6, 2011)

xellil said:


> It's not being casual, it's trusting the food. I'm sure my dogs are getting the correct ratio because they poop good and they are healthy. I don't have to figure up percentages.
> 
> And I'm not sure where that 10% of organ came from. Who says it should be 10%? Organs have a lot of water-insoluble nutrients. I've never been convinced 10% isn't too much.
> 
> I also get senior panels on my dogs once a year. I did have a dog once that got a phosphorus/calcium imbalance and it's not something that you don't notice.


This exactly. I don't figure percentages either, and and I don't stress over ratios. There is no worry about calculating in the wild either which is the idea of the point of "prey model". The ratio percentage thing is a guideline developed by man. I feed the most variety of meat/bones/organs that I can. It's that simple, really. Every dog is different, and will need more or less of one thing or another. It's not a "one size fits all" type of deal. 

I don't get blood panels done as often as I should, but the times I have they have been fine. I see no need to worry a whole lot about that either, unless I see an issue of one not feeling well. So far, that hasn't happened.


----------



## Spy Car (Apr 16, 2015)

Sorry, but I maintain a difference of opinion. Our dogs are not in the wild, and when we take on the responsibility of feeding them a a diet we control that it is our responsibility to meet very well-known and well-established nutritional needs, including hitting the calcium/phosphorus ratios of 1.2:1.

Since all the information about bone percentages of typical pieces is easy to look up, coming pretty close to known targets is not an onerous task for raw feeders. The 80/10 ratio hits the correct balance.

Seeing dogs based on how their poop looks is not a valid means of deternining nutritional balances. Sorry, it just isn't.

Bill


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

Well, I've been doing it for over five years and nobody's dropped dead yet  I know people who have been feeding dogs raw for over 20 years and they don't care about percentages. 

Dogs are much simpler to feed than humans. They need some meat, they need some bone, they need some organ. And yes, poops absolutely do tell you whether it is in correct balance.


----------



## Spy Car (Apr 16, 2015)

xellil said:


> Well, I've been doing it for over five years and nobody's dropped dead yet  I know people who have been feeding dogs raw for over 20 years and they don't care about percentages.
> 
> Dogs are much simpler to feed than humans. They need some meat, they need some bone, they need some organ. And yes, poops absolutely do tell you whether it is in correct balance.


And yet you said you had a dog that developed a calcium/phosphorus imbalance, which undercuts the arguement that paying attention to nutritional guidlinees and providing the proper percentages of minerals in the recognized ratios doesn't matter.

There is extensive veterinary literature on the very serious problems caused by both too high a calcium ratio in relation to phosphorus and the problems that come when that ratio is too low. 

Sorry to say, but I think you are putting out bad advice and misinformation that people looking to insure the best for their dogs would do well to ignore. Calculating rough percentages of bone to meat is not difficult, and keeping bone in the 10% range keeps calcium and phosphorus ratios optimal. 

Bill


----------



## Kansas1191 (Aug 9, 2016)

So how do you know you are getting the correct bone numbers? What are safe to feed? For whatever reason this is the toughest for me I guess since you done feed just bones it's with meat so you can't weight it alone ?


----------



## naturalfeddogs (Jan 6, 2011)

It's really not as complicated as that makes it sound. Feed mostly meat, some bone, and organ, and as long as it's in variety you will be fine. Each dog is different, some need more some less. I have to feed all six of mine a little different amounts of everything, because they don't all handle everything the same. You will learn how much of what is correct for your dog the more you feed raw. You don't HAVE to feed by numbers, and go back to calculus 101 to be correct. If you are already confused, and trying to get it all straight in your head, that won't help. It will just cause unnecessary stress and take the fun out of feeding raw. I don't, and never have used any math to feed my dogs, and anytime I have had bloodwork done, it's come back fine. That is just one persons personal preference on going about it and that's fine. But if it doesn't seem to work for you, it's not the end of the world. And if you would prefer to feed that way as well, that's fine also. Totally up to you. Otherwise, in simpler terms, remember that the 80-10-10 "rule" comes down to mostly meat (80%), some bone(10%), some organ(10%). 

Watch your dog, see how poops are going, and adjust your feeding amounts accordingly. It comes down to a balancing act to to get the correct amount of anything, depending on the dog.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

Spy Car said:


> And yet you said you had a dog that developed a calcium/phosphorus imbalance, which undercuts the arguement that paying attention to nutritional guidlinees and providing the proper percentages of minerals in the recognized ratios doesn't matter.
> 
> There is extensive veterinary literature on the very serious problems caused by both too high a calcium ratio in relation to phosphorus and the problems that come when that ratio is too low.
> 
> ...


No, I had a dog that was having severe constipation and I didn't give her enough bone. Yes, it was operator error but it had nothing to do with the way I feed my dogs in general.


----------



## Spy Car (Apr 16, 2015)

Kansas1191 said:


> So how do you know you are getting the correct bone numbers? What are safe to feed? For whatever reason this is the toughest for me I guess since you done feed just bones it's with meat so you can't weight it alone ?


There are many sources that list the bone percentages of common cuts (most based on the USDA database). It doesn't take calculus to know the portion size of a piece, the amount of bone in that piece and the amount of "meat" necessary to balance the portions to the 80/10/10 ratios.

All this takes is simple arithmatic.

I respectfully disagree that loosely calculating the bone percentage is overly complicated. It is not difficult to eye-ball portions once one has checked the math a few times and gets used to how things portion out. I do think it is vital to feed fairly close to ideal ratios to avoid nutritional deficientcies.

Very severe health consequences can result from calcium/phosphorus imbalances. It is easy and uncomplicated to feed in roughly correct proportions, and becomes second-nature very quickly as one gains experience. Taking care to feed to the PRM ratios ought to reduce stress by unburdening the mind of worries that one is "doing it wrongly" and by actually not causing problems due to feeding in a way that will lead to nutritional imbalances.

PMR is a fantastic diet for dogs when fed in accordance with the PMR guidelines and ratios, but these ratios exist for a reason. 

It really isn't difficult to eyeball the percentages when one has been methodical for a short time. Not every meal has to be weighed and calculated for all time. But seeing what 10% bone looks like in a meal is good practice when one starts IMO. 

Bill


----------



## magicre (Apr 7, 2010)

Spy Car said:


> There are many sources that list the bone percentages of common cuts (most based on the USDA database). It doesn't take calculus to know the portion size of a piece, the amount of bone in that piece and the amount of "meat" necessary to balance the portions to the 80/10/10 ratios.
> 
> All this takes is simple arithmatic.
> 
> ...


all due respect, i have yet to find the person who came up with the 80-10-5-5 'guideline', which years later, became carved in stone.

in my little bubble, we feed according to how our dogs look......it includes their poop......because watery black diarrhea means something, just as straining out white poop means something.....
my dogs are lean and eat lots of red meat.....they probably are fed more than 10% bone and they are fed less organ than most.....people get hung up on organs, i think..

i disagree with you, but i respect your opinion. it's obvious that you've given it a lot of thought and research.

many of us here have done the same, taken that very research and kept what makes sense.....

for me, feeding organ every day makes no sense....as we are feeding fat soluble vitamins which are stored and used on an as needed basis. 

to my knowledge, there is no science that tells me when the 'as needed basis ' is........i think the brain and liver and other storage organs take care of that...

personally, with the exception of when i first started feeding raw, i think it's easy to feed a dog raw food........mostly red muscle meat, some bone, some fat.......and organs 

i won't put percentages on these items because i don't think anyone knows......and , i rarely listen to vets or doctors about nutrition.


----------



## chowder (Sep 7, 2008)

I have to go with the 'feed them a little of this, little of that' and it evens out over time group. The same way I fed my human kids and myself. I never once figured out an exact ratio of nutrients for my human children and I don't do it for the dogs. It would be impossible - especially since sometimes there are bits of organs stuck on the chicken quarters - do I have to figure those in? Or when I cook a turkey for us and I toss one of them the liver - oops, do I have to remember that and figure it in? No, I give them all food and they are healthy. I did a senior panel on my 8 year old and it came back absolutely perfectly in the middle with all his numbers. So it must be working out. Don't make feeding the dogs too complicated.


----------



## magicre (Apr 7, 2010)

i like david mech ,along with a woman named katarina who follows wolves.....in their natural habitats.

dogs are carnivores. i feed them as such.

when a pack of wolves take down an animal, they don't carve the liver into pieces and equivalently divvy it up amongst the pack. 

one gets the liver. one the spleen. one the testicles and penis. and etc.........

we feed duck heads so we can feed brains to our dogs. great organ....

but do i feed organ every day? no.......we feed a frankenprey diet, not having access to a whole goat i can throw into the back yard.....and, even then, each will eat a different part of the goat.

frankenprey is the notion that you're putting together all different parts of an animal, leg, shoulder, rib, etc......from a variety of animals so as to mimic whole prey


----------



## magicre (Apr 7, 2010)

Kansas1191 said:


> So how do you know you are getting the correct bone numbers? What are safe to feed? For whatever reason this is the toughest for me I guess since you done feed just bones it's with meat so you can't weight it alone ?


try not to get hung up with too many numbers.....it'll send you back to kibble 

how much does your dog weigh? what kind of dog?


----------



## Liz (Sep 27, 2010)

We never measure at my house. You feed so they look and act healthy and vibrant, their stools are consistent, energy good and eyes clear. Rotate your proteins (after you slowly introduce them) and your dog will get what he needs. My two youngest have been raw fed since weaning and born to raw fed mothers. There have been no imbalances. They are vibrant and healthy. My fourteen year old is going strong with few signs of age. All in all this way of feeding is keeping my dogs healthy well into old age.


----------



## Spy Car (Apr 16, 2015)

magicre said:


> all due respect, i have yet to find the person who came up with the 80-10-5-5 'guideline', which years later, became carved in stone.
> 
> in my little bubble, we feed according to how our dogs look......it includes their poop......because watery black diarrhea means something, just as straining out white poop means something.....
> my dogs are lean and eat lots of red meat.....they probably are fed more than 10% bone and they are fed less organ than most.....people get hung up on organs, i think..
> ...


You can chose to ignore the the well-substantiated nutritional requirements for a 1.2:1 Calcium to Phosphorus ratio if you choose, but I'm inclined to follow the science. There is no area of canine nutrition where there is less controversy that the need for meeting this mineral balance.

The 80/10 model works, not because it is some arbitrary ratio people should follow without thought, but because it delivers the correct portions of meat and bone to hit the Ca ratio almost perfectly.

You are incorrect that there is no science that establishes canine nutritional needs. Feeding 80/10 (meat/bone) ensures raw feeders hit the optimal targets. 

Missing the target range can cause very profound health problems. I think it is unwise to ignore veterinary science on this point. 

As to feeding organs daily, I agree it is not *necessary* as you rightly suggest fat-soluable vitamins are retained. The advantage of small (10% feedings with liver fed every other day) is that one doesn't a weeks worth of liver in one feeding, which can cause distric distress and diarrhea in many dogs. Many people overdfeed bone to compensate for loose stools caused by infrequent (but large) feedings of organs, which throws of the meat-bone ratios.

Feeding daily organs also prevents people "forgetting" to include organs, and this is one of the biggest practical problems with raw feeding. Under feeding organs is not a good idea. 

Feeding according to PMR ratios doesn't make raw feeding more difficult. And it ensures dogs get optimal nutrition. As many canine authorities have said, a homemade diet can either be the best possible one, or among the worst. I'd advise newcomers to strive for the former, and to pay attention to the PRM ratios to achieve that end.

Bill


----------



## Liz (Sep 27, 2010)

Again, a healthy variety of proteins tends to yield excellent results. Some people thrive on the minutia of percentages and ratios while to others it is extremely daunting. Feed your dog meat, bone and a bit of organ and you should do well. I always watch for how they look and act. Are they vibrant? Energetic? Do they have solid, consistent stools? If they do then they are doing well. I have raised three litters and quite a few of my own dogs this way and have had great results. 

I did worry about organ and ratios constantly and my dogs were back and forth in health and stool consistency. Once I just concentrated on feeding a good variety they settled into a good cycle of health. 

If you enjoy or feel comforted making in depth plans for feeding - more power to you. I feed my family and can feed my dogs without that much planning. Life gets busy and this is just one thing too much in my life. Feeding my dogs shouldn't be so difficult.


----------



## magicre (Apr 7, 2010)

many people, from 1953 onward, paid homage to ancel keys.
turns out he was wrong and the science was wrong.

science isn't so objectively interpreted so much anymore......nor are studies so unbiased

used to be, when i was in university, we would run experiments and the results were the results, not skewed so we would get desired results, rather than
what would happen. sometimes, the results would be the opposite of why we hypothesised....

regardless....i no longer rely on the so called research and studies of yesterday......and i follow the money. i also follow the company or organisation who pays for the 
studies.

i stand by what i said.

and my dogs are healthy, shiny, great teeth, blood levels are awesome, titres are right on the money......so i think i'll listen to the voices in my head, rather than the voices of those who have something to gain.


----------



## Spy Car (Apr 16, 2015)

Liz said:


> Again, a healthy variety of proteins tends to yield excellent results. Some people thrive on the minutia of percentages and ratios while to others it is extremely daunting. Feed your dog meat, bone and a bit of organ and you should do well. I always watch for how they look and act. Are they vibrant? Energetic? Do they have solid, consistent stools? If they do then they are doing well. I have raised three litters and quite a few of my own dogs this way and have had great results.
> 
> I did worry about organ and ratios constantly and my dogs were back and forth in health and stool consistency. Once I just concentrated on feeding a good variety they settled into a good cycle of health.
> 
> If you enjoy or feel comforted making in depth plans for feeding - more power to you. I feed my family and can feed my dogs without that much planning. Life gets busy and this is just one thing too much in my life. Feeding my dogs shouldn't be so difficult.


Feeding a wide variety of proteins (while a good idea) is immaterial in maintaining a proper balance of phorphorus and calcium in the diet. That balance can only be had in feeding the proper ratios of meat and bone. To hear this nutritional need blown off as "minutia" is disturbing. 

One could take cheer that people feed their families without respect to nutritional principles, if one didn't see the illnesses caused by diet-based obesity, type II diabetes, heart disease, and high blood pressure (to name a few) all arounds us. 

The mineral ratios of calcium and phosphorus for optimal canine nutrition are very well-established in the veterinary-science literature. This need is uncontested. Feeding PMR ratios keeps the diet on target. I'd advise newcomers to raw feeding to be mindful of what 10% bone meals look like, and to endeavor to feed meals roughly in that proportion to assure their dog's nutritional needs are met.

Bill


----------



## Liz (Sep 27, 2010)

Kansas 1191, 

Feed your dog whole pieces of meat appropriate to his size. Don't shy away from bone, make sure all bone has a good quantity of met around it. Add organ when you choose. Watch his stools, coat and energy. Adjust portions from there. If you want to write things up, measure and keep a schedule that's great. Please keep us posted about how you are doing. It really isn't that hard and it will become second nature to you before you know it


----------



## Spy Car (Apr 16, 2015)

magicre said:


> many people, from 1953 onward, paid homage to ancel keys.
> turns out he was wrong and the science was wrong.
> 
> science isn't so objectively interpreted so much anymore......nor are studies so unbiased
> ...


Who has anything to gain financially from advocating feeding Calcium and Phophporus in the correct ratios as is well established by veterinary science?

That some nutritionist named Ancel Keys had some aspect of nutrition incorrect is a red-herring when it comes to the proper ratios of minerals that is not a matter of dispute in veterinary science. There are many serious health consequences that can arise from creating a nutritional imbalance in this area, so taking an anti-scientific position is one with unnecessary risks.

Bill


----------



## naturalfeddogs (Jan 6, 2011)

How do you think dogs have evolved over thousands of years, on their own, without human science? All this "science" stuff has been developed by man just over the last 75 years or so when kibble came on the scene. Once man developed kibble, they had to start adding this and adding that to make their formulas correct and complete as much as possible. Before that, over 150-200 years ago, what did they do? They didn't have all that, and I can assure you they weren't calculating and stressing over what leftovers and hunting scraps their dogs were being fed. As raw feeders now, we have this 80/10/10 guide. Ok. so, what it consists of is simply this. Mostly meat(80%) some bone(10%) some organ(10%). There you go. In variety, it is just that simple, and that way you are getting the calcium, phosorus, etc....All the mathmatics really aren't a nust, but if they work for you, that's great. Doesn't mean it's the way for everyone else. You have to remember, the OP stated in the topic that she is already overwhelmed as it is. Throwing a bunch of rocket science and all sorts of math into it isn't going to help. All of that comes on it's own, when all is fed in variety. That way nothing is left out. We are trying to help a beginner get started, and it's easy to become so overwhelmed that the fun is taken out, and they just say to hell with it, get tired of the frustrastion and give up. That's not the goal. Step by step and it all comes together. Beginners aren't thinking about this the way you are, because they don't understand it all yet. Raw feeding isn't science. It's really not. 

Kibble companies gain financially from all this ratio/science stuff, because that is how it all started, to answer your original question. They use all this to formulate artificial food in a bag. With real, raw food, the only formulating to be done is feeding the widest variety you can. That supplies everything they need, without all the cooking and processing. That's when they have to turn to all the science to add what all is lost back in artificially.

Kansas 1191, no need to stress. If you PREFER using math and ratios, that is perfectly fine. If you don't that's fine also. Nutrition all comes from variety over time. Like Liz said, it will come second nature to you before you once you become comfortable with it all.


----------



## Spy Car (Apr 16, 2015)

Jenny, I'm sorry but I disagree.

When humans control what's fed we ought to feed in accordance with known nutritional needs. It isn't difficult to estimate 80/10/10 ratios once one "sees" what they look like. All typical bone-in pieces have easily looked up bone percentages.

It is very basic math to figure out what 80/10/10 looks like. It is not rocket science. One can estimate by eye once one gets the mental image of what 10% looks like. 

It is far better IMO to know what and why one is feeding in PMR ratios (which are nutritionally sound) as opposed to just winging it.

Saying variety alone will balance feedings isn't true if the meat and bone are not in proportion. One can feed a multitude of species and still cause a nutritional imbalance by feeding either too much bone or too little bone relative to the meat portion.

Feeding by PMR rations reduces stress, as one can be sure one if feeding a nutritionally sound diet. That's not the case with just winging it if meat and bone are out of balance.

PMR ratios exist for a reason. Meals based on PRM guidelines provide the optimal ratio of minerals. That is the sound way to feed. There is nutrition science to feeding caninines and to ignore it because it isn't "fun" risks creating a nutritional imbalance. Even the worst commercial feeds get the calcium-phosphorus ratios correct, because it is one of the most well understood nutritional needs to get right when feeding dogs.

PMR is a fantastic way to feed dogs. PMR has guidelines that are nutritionally sound. Better IMO to teach newcomers how to meet those guidelines so they protect the health of their dogs.

Bill


----------



## magicre (Apr 7, 2010)

spycar, no one, especially me, minds that you disagree. 

but this is now turning into an argument, rather than a debate. 

the calcium to phosphorous ratio is not the only consideration when feeding dogs, be it dry/canned/cooked, etc.

ancel keys, btw, was not a nutritionist. he was a scientist and turned the world of human nutrition on its ears

the same thing happened when the two brothers made the first dog buscuit.....which was followed by companies producing dry food......for approximately 100-110 years, dry food has gained in popularity. along with its ease of feeding, a marketing scheme, brilliant though it was, was hatched......

and now people cannot feed their dogs without concentrating so very hard on ratios and percentages of minerals, electrolytes, chemicals, proteins, carbs, fats.....

it's unfortunate that no one remembers, other than some old stories, that dogs were eating real food before kibble, be it table scraps, raw, some appropriate, some not.

takes me back to english hunting dogs who were fed sour milk soaked bread before a chase.......to make sure they were carbed and proteined and fatted so they would have the stamina it takes to tree a fox.

now? it is well known that dogs need no carbs.......people who say dogs are omnivores are just wrong......and the proof is in the anatomy and physiology of the dog....
they are carnivores.

if they adapt, they do so because they are hungry and have to....not because it is appropriate.

raw feeding is not so difficult.....there are nutrients in every part of the animals we feed 

also, as you say, these are guidelines......a guideline is not carved in stone.


----------



## Spy Car (Apr 16, 2015)

magicre said:


> spycar, no one, especially me, minds that you disagree.
> 
> but this is now turning into an argument, rather than a debate.
> 
> ...


I'm expressing my reasoning. 

That some scientist got a point of nutrition incorrect does not invalidate science, and is a classic example of a 'red-herring" logical fallacy. Same with the defficientcy of English hunting dogs fed sour milk and bread. It is not germane to the conversation.

I'm in 100% agreement that dogs do not require carbodydrates in their diets. They do—however—require diets that suppy the correct ratios of calcium and phorphorus if they are to avoid health consequences. These minerals are well supplied by meat and bone, but they bust be fed in the proper ratios to hit the know optimal targets.

The PMR ratios are spot on for hitting the target ratios. Just because there are nutrients in all parts of the raw diet does not mean the mineral balance is correct if PMR ratios are not maintained by raw feeders. So better thay are carved in stone than ignored.

Telling newbies that it doesn't matter conflicts with known nutritional needs as established by veteranary science. It also conflicts with the prey-model. 

I wouldn't expect any of this to be "controversial (in the least), but apparenty it is. 

Bill


----------



## chowder (Sep 7, 2008)

It always strikes me odd that people use to bring a newborn human into the world and figured out what to feed it over time and didn't have to worry about percentages each and every day. And they had farms with animals and they all did fine. Before boxed this and that and McDonalds and Starbucks - you just went to the store and got food and fed it to your kids or you got it from your garden. And they grew up. And you fed food appropriate to your animals and they got bigger and grew. - whether they were cows, chickens, dogs, pigs, whatever. 

Then it got all complicated and you had to get dog food and rabbit pellets and chicken feed and specialized this and that made by big corporations. And you got all boxed and processed food in the store with the appropriate vitamins added for your kids. And now dogs are sick and children have Type 2 diabetes and chickens are the size of turkeys. Maybe we should trust in our instincts again and not worry so much about getting every amount right each and every day. Not everything from the past is good but there are some things that we can look back on and at least think about.


----------



## MollyWoppy (Mar 19, 2010)

I think it was the other 'Bill' wasn't it, who taught us, years and years ago, the KISS principal? Keep It Simple Stupid. And thats what I've followed for what over 9 years or so now. I honestly, have, and will always just go by the poop. Too hard, then the dogs body is saying too much bone. Too soft, then up the bone a touch. It's worked for us quite splendidly, if a 10 year old dog's body condition, energy, teeth and yearly blood tests and urinalysis are anything to do by. 
Seriously, if I had read a thread like this when I first started, I'd have run for the hills to be quite honest. You are nervous enough as it is and the remote possibility that you could be feeding an unbalanced diet unless all the i's are crossed and the t's dotted would have scared me to death.
Edited: maybe I made it sound too simple when I mention only going 'by the poop'. Of course I mean that goes along with supplying a variety of meat, organs of some description, fat and bones.


----------



## Spy Car (Apr 16, 2015)

chowder said:


> It always strikes me odd that people use to bring a newborn human into the world and figured out what to feed it over time and didn't have to worry about percentages each and every day. And they had farms with animals and they all did fine. Before boxed this and that and McDonalds and Starbucks - you just went to the store and got food and fed it to your kids or you got it from your garden. And they grew up. And you fed food appropriate to your animals and they got bigger and grew. - whether they were cows, chickens, dogs, pigs, whatever.
> 
> Then it got all complicated and you had to get dog food and rabbit pellets and chicken feed and specialized this and that made by big corporations. And you got all boxed and processed food in the store with the appropriate vitamins added for your kids. And now dogs are sick and children have Type 2 diabetes and chickens are the size of turkeys. Maybe we should trust in our instincts again and not worry so much about getting every amount right each and every day. Not everything from the past is good but there are some things that we can look back on and at least think about.


The arguement that humans intrinsically know what to feed children fails when one looks at the childhood (and adult) illnesses that stem from poor diets that don't follow good nutritional guidelines. 

As with humans, dogs can suffer from malnutrition and from nutritional imbalances. Better IMO to understand the nutritional requirements and meet them. I'm no more a fan of processed foods for people or dogs than I expect you are. However, it remains that a raw diet for dogs could be imbalanced if an owner fed without regards to the ratios of bones, meat, and organs in a dog's diet.

Dogs nutritional needs for Calcium and Phosphorus to be in balance is well established. I prefer to operate from a position of knowledge as opposed to trusting an instinct that might be wrong. Feeding PMR ratios is an easy way to meet a dogs nutritional needs without stress. It's not like I'm advocating for boxed meals for dogs or kids. My dog eats meat, bones, connective tissues, fish, eggs, organs and offal. No carbs. Nothing processed. But I do take care to get the meat-bone ratios near the 80/10 ideal as that's what meets dog's nutritional needs best.

Bill


----------



## Spy Car (Apr 16, 2015)

I'd suggest that following the prey model (80/10/10) is about as "simple" as any plan could get. 

And it has the advantage of optimizing nutrition while minimizing the risks of nutritional imbalances.

Simple.

Bill


----------



## magicre (Apr 7, 2010)

just so i know what page you're on, could you give me an example meal that is complete calcium: phosphorous ratio, Bill?

and to be very clear, ancel keys changed the face of nutrition .........it is germane because the same thing happened with dog nutrition........

decades later, science is now examining the wrongness of what was spouted by keys and his ilk ........crisco and their ilk.....and purina and their ilk.

the science is considered to be flawed.........by so many people now, i have to wonder how you , who seem to be so very educated and knowledgeable, don't 'get' that everything is in question.......everything...dogs, humans.....

no one will ever deny that the calcium - phosphorous ratio is important, but it's not the only mineral ratio that needs attention.....every single mineral needs to be looked at and those who love spread sheets will create just that.....so their dogs are 'balanced'.

vets who have been taught what little nutrition they had, unfortunately, were taught by purina and other kibble manufactururers...to my knowledge....the only company who ever created a white paper on dogs being carnivores was orijen in 1998.....

but i digress

we have all been taught by bill, the other bill....since his influence, i have gone on to study advanced canine nutrition and immunology....and a bunch of other things. 

am i expert? no

what i've learned is just how much i don't know. when i was at university, we were taught a wee bit of nutrition and immunology......it's been years and i was so wrong....i had to unlearn and relearn because, just as vets are taught according to kibble manufacturers, we were taught by those in the pharmaceutical industry......this is who paid for our classes and they dictated what was taught.

i will say that i don't know what the proper calcium - phosphorous ratio is. and i will also say that neither do you.


----------



## chowder (Sep 7, 2008)

The problem with trying to make every day fit the complete nutritional profile, is when you have a very small breed that eats 4-5 ounces per day. When a half a duck neck makes up an entire meal - you just can't squeeze in boneless, organ, egg, and everything else needed to make it 100% nutritionally complete that day. But you want them to have large boney meals periodically. So you alternate meals and organs and proteins. If you didn't, you'd be dicing up tiny bits of organs and weighing them out by the gram and trying to measure out miniscule amounts of egg and making itty bitty little meals like a gourmet chef. Trying to measure out exact bone to meat ratio for a 5 ounce meal would leave almost no large pieces of food for the dog to ever chew. Tiny breed owners would never move to raw feeding.


----------



## magicre (Apr 7, 2010)

Spy Car said:


> The arguement that humans intrinsically know what to feed children fails when one looks at the childhood (and adult) illnesses that stem from poor diets that don't follow good nutritional guidelines.
> 
> As with humans, dogs can suffer from malnutrition and from nutritional imbalances. Better IMO to understand the nutritional requirements and meet them. I'm no more a fan of processed foods for people or dogs than I expect you are. However, it remains that a raw diet for dogs could be imbalanced if an owner fed without regards to the ratios of bones, meat, and organs in a dog's diet.
> 
> ...


key word 'used to'


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

I still believe that feeding the parts of an animal as whole as possible is going to end up with the correct ratio, and your dog will tell you with diarrhea or constipation if they're off. 

If raw feeding were complicated, and I had to figure out whether everything I fed had 10% bone, I would be feeding kibble. It's why people don't feed raw. It's made too complicated for them. Give your dog some meat, bone, and organ. It's really not rocket science.

And there's a difference, in humans, in knowing what to eat and eating it because preparing decent non-processed meals is work. It's easier to go through a fast food place even though we know it's not good for us. Dogs aren't nearly so difficult.


----------



## Spy Car (Apr 16, 2015)

magicre said:


> just so i know what page you're on, could you give me an example meal that is complete calcium: phosphorous ratio, Bill?
> 
> and to be very clear, ancel keys changed the face of nutrition .........it is germane because the same thing happened with dog nutrition........
> 
> ...


Since you asked I will provide one analysis I did on a sample meal and posted previously on another website. This does involve a lot of calculating, and is not something I'd argue is a necessary exercise for the average raw feeder, but it does confirm the PRM ratios are sound. I took a typical 80/10/10 meal (and did not work backwards).

The optimal Calcium to Phosphorus ration for canine nutrition has been determined to be 1.2:1 by The National Research Council (The National Academy of Sciences) the indusputably leading authority in the world on canine nutrition standards, not my "opinion."

The sample meal consisted of two chicken drumsticks, beef heart, kidney (5%), and liver (5%) in an 80/10/10 ratio. I've done other typical meals (80/10/10) with similar results. Meals should, obviously, vary. This is just one example.

********

2 Chicken drumsticks (Total Weight 339 grams/12.1 oz).

If Chicken drumsticks are 27% bone, then 339g x .27 = 91.5 grams of bone

100 grams of chicken bone yield 5.5 grams of calcium and 2.6 grams Phosphorus. Therefore, doing the math 91.5 grams of chicken bone (the amount in this sample meal) yield 5032 milligrams of Calcium and 2379 milligrams of Phosphorus.

Since the total weight of the chicken with bone is 339 g, subtracting 91.5 ( the bone) leaves 247.5g of meat and skin. 100 grams of dark meat skin give 11 milligrams Calcium and 136 milligrams Phosphorus, so the sample meal has 27 milligram of Calcium and 336.6 milligrams of Phosphorus in the meat.

Since the bone is 91.5 grams, and I want it to be 10% of the sample meal, then I know the organs should also be 10%, and I broke into 5% beef liver and 5% beef kidney, so 45.75 grams each. I'll spare you the math

45.75 grams Beef Liver equals 2.2 milligrams of Calcium and 177 milligrams Phosphorus.

45.75 grams Beef Kidney equals 5.9 milligrams of Calcium and 117.6 milligrams Phosphorus.

If the total meal should be 915 grams (just over 2 lbs) we find the final "meat portion" by subtracting total chicken (339g) and total organs (91.5g) and get 484.5g left for straight meat. For simplicity I used 484.5g of Beef Heart.

484.5g Beef Heart equals 38.75 milligrams Calcium and 1162.8 milligrams Phosphorus.

Add the Calcium: 38.75 (Beef Heart), 5032 (Chicken bone), 27 (Chicken Meat/Skin), 2.2 (Beef Liver), 5.9 (Beef Kidney) 

Total Calcium: 5105.85 milligrams 

Add the Phosphorus: 1162.8 (Beef Heart), 2379 (Chicken bone), 336.6 Chicken meat/skin), 177 (Beef Liver),117.6 (Beef Kidney).

Total Phosphorus: 4055.4 milligrams.

Dividing Total Calcium (5105.85 milligrams) by Total Phosphorus (4055.4 milligrams) gives us the Calcium to Phosphorus ratio:

Calciumhosphorus equals 1.26:1

This is about a close to "perfect" as a person could hope for.

Bill


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

But see, I can do that without all the calculations. Nature knows what its doing.


----------



## Spy Car (Apr 16, 2015)

xellil said:


> I still believe that feeding the parts of an animal as whole as possible is going to end up with the correct ratio, and your dog will tell you with diarrhea or constipation if they're off.
> 
> If raw feeding were complicated, and I had to figure out whether everything I fed had 10% bone, I would be feeding kibble. It's why people don't feed raw. It's made too complicated for them. Give your dog some meat, bone, and organ. It's really not rocket science.
> 
> And there's a difference, in humans, in knowing what to eat and eating it because preparing decent non-processed meals is work. It's easier to go through a fast food place even though we know it's not good for us. Dogs aren't nearly so difficult.


If one were only feeding whole chicken the Calcium Phosphorus ratio would be way off, as chicken is very bone heavy. Feeding whole cattle is impractical, and there are many dense bones that are not edible. So we need to create "frankenprey" in most cases (apologies to those who feed mostly whole prey).

Figuring out the bone percentages is not difficult. All the information is available from the USDA website and many raw feeding sources. Better to be an informed raw feeder IMO than to create nutritional imbalances due to the lack of easily obtainable knowledge.

Eyeballing 10% bone ratios really ain't as complicated as some of you are making it out to be.

Bill


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

Luckily I don't just feed whole chicken 

And I agree - it's not complicated at all, unless we make it complicated. I've been feeding raw for years and have never, not once, gone to the USDA site to analyze bone/meat ratio. My dogs have perfect bloodwork, are in perfect health, and I've done it by watching my dogs, not a database.


----------



## Spy Car (Apr 16, 2015)

magicre said:


> key word 'used to'


Scurvy, Ricketts, Beriberi, and Pellagra are just a few of the nutritionally based diseases that leap to mind from the pre-modern era before the advent of processed foods.

Bill


----------



## Spy Car (Apr 16, 2015)

xellil said:


> Luckily I don't just feed whole chicken
> 
> And I agree - it's not complicated at all, unless we make it complicated. I've been feeding raw for years and have never, not once, gone to the USDA site to analyze bone/meat ratio. My dogs have perfect bloodwork, are in perfect health, and I've done it by watching my dogs, not a database.


And yet you mentioned you had a dog diagnosed with a calcium/phosphorus nutritional imbalance in an earlier post. So perhaps there is a better way?

Bill


----------



## magicre (Apr 7, 2010)

actually not so perfect.

your numbers are spot on. your ingredients are inadequate.

dogs need more red meat than dark meat chicken....glad you didn't use breast and rib.....

so your concern about ratios doesn't include the food itself. interesting what you consider 'perfect'


----------



## Spy Car (Apr 16, 2015)

magicre said:


> actually not so perfect.
> 
> your numbers are spot on. your ingredients are inadequate.
> 
> ...


The sample was for one "meal," not an entire diet. I made that clear. This sample included 484.5g of Beef Heart (and organs) not just chicken, which is plenty of red meat. 

Your response is unbecoming. You might have said: Thank you.

Bill


----------



## magicre (Apr 7, 2010)

that is true. you did say it was one meal.
if my response was unbecoming because i did not thank you, well......i hope you recover.

it would seem numbers are paramount in your feeding and that is fine.

i disagree and i will continue to disagree, so i think that means we are at an impasse....

i will continue to advise people according to what i've researched and what i believe.....and try to make raw feeding a joyous journey to health, rather than forcing people to create spreadsheets and carry calculators


----------



## Spy Car (Apr 16, 2015)

magicre said:


> that is true. you did say it was one meal.
> if my response was unbecoming because i did not thank you, well......i hope you recover.
> 
> it would seem numbers are paramount in your feeding and that is fine.
> ...


Not only did you not thank me, but you used the opportunity to insult a sample meal (that was offered as such). Bad form. Really.

I never suggested one use spreadsheets. You asked for an analysis of a sample meal. I provided one to show an 80/10 meal hits the Ca target perfectly.

People should get joy from raw feeding by knowing that they are doing the best for their dog's health and not creating nutritional imbalances by feeding too much or too little bone relative to meat. Feeding meat and bone in proper ratios is a big part of feeding an optimal diet and is what's supported by the evidence. 

Bill


----------



## magicre (Apr 7, 2010)

Spy Car said:


> Not only did you not thank me, but you used the opportunity to insult a sample meal (that was offered as such). Bad form. Really.
> 
> I never suggested one use spreadsheets. You asked for an analysis of a sample meal. I provided one to show an 80/10 meal hits the Ca target perfectly.
> 
> ...


ok........

i did not insult the meal. i do not think it is a great sample of a meal for a dog.
. 
i disagree with you

i don't know how much simpler i can say i disagree with what you are saying.

i believe dogs utilise what they are fed......

feed kibble? the body adapts until it can no more

feed raw and only feed one protein? you will see problems soon enough.

feed a variety and try to create whole prey by using the sum of its parts? i believe the dog will be happy and healthy......

figuring every meal is not joy. it's un necessary. that, sir, is my educated opinion, according to the education i have. 

it does not have to be yours.

and, one last time, the evidence is no longer supported. it is being questioned. we can revisit this in a year or five


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

Spy Car said:


> And yet you mentioned you had a dog diagnosed with a calcium/phosphorus nutritional imbalance in an earlier post. So perhaps there is a better way?
> 
> Bill


She couldn't eat raw like a normal dog, and she got sick with something unrelated to diet. Figuring the ratio wouldn't have helped because she couldn't eat the ratio; I supplemented with bone meal to get an approximate 10%. I reduced it too much when she got ill because she got constipated very easily and I thought it would be okay to bring the bone way down for a day or two, but with her it wasn't. It had nothing to do with a normal dog diet.


----------



## Spy Car (Apr 16, 2015)

magicre said:


> ok........
> 
> i did not insult the meal. i do not think it is a great sample of a meal for a dog.
> .
> ...


There is nothing wrong with an 80/10/10 "meal" that includes beef, chicken, and organs. It was not presented as the basis of a diet (I feed a wide range of proteins) but as one "meal."

You say you "disagree" but have no evidence or reasoing to support your "opinion," where—in contrast—I provided the evidence you asked for.

Anyone reading the thread will see the difference between opinion and evidenced-based reasoning.

Bill


----------



## naturalfeddogs (Jan 6, 2011)

Spy Car said:


> There is nothing wrong with an 80/10/10 "meal" that includes beef, chicken, and organs. It was not presented as the basis of a diet (I feed a wide range of proteins) but as one "meal."
> 
> You say you "disagree" but have no evidence or reasoing to support your "opinion," where—in contrast—I provided the evidence you asked for.
> 
> ...


Time to cool out........


----------

