# Ok Raw feeders, the avg. Wolf only lives 6-10 yrs.



## kevin bradley (Aug 9, 2009)

alright, let me preface this with.... I'm NOT doing this to start a war(though I did use a catchy title to get people into the discussion)...I actually consider Raw every minute of the day and while I'm not 100% sure its superior to a real premium food like Orijen/EVO, I'd probably lean to the side that says it IS probably at least somewhat better. Rather, I'd like to start some discussion. 

I just Googled the avg. lifespan for a Wolf. I'm coming up with 6-10 years in the wild though admittedly, thats just a few sites I've seen. Ok, so the harshness of the wild certainly has a negative impact on lifespan...not surprising. So I checked on Wolves who live in a Zoo. They can live as much as 17 years. About as much as a well taken care of Dog(I've had 2 mixed breeds live to almost 20 fed on Pedigree sadly). 

I'd be very curious to see some lifespan data on Dogs who eat a purely raw diet and how their lifespan compares. I undertand that the QUALITY of life is another topic and just because a Dog lives a long time doesn't mean he lived to his fullest...(for pete's sake, my poor Dog just had 1/2 his teeth pulled)...

Anyhow, this is a NICE post and not a flaming post to attack Raw feeders. But I do think its a good topic.


----------



## xxshaelxx (Mar 8, 2010)

Denise from Siberians of Timberwood:



> I have been raising huskies for 18 years now. The first 2 years i fed kibble (very poor quality) i might add. Then i began researching alternatives and the raw diet. This was before it was "the thing to do", so not much information could be obtained, but common sense told me that it had to be better than kibble. So I have fed a raw/ holistic diet for the past 16 years. I keep meticulous records on all my dogs and follow up on all my puppies so i can answer your question very easily. the answer is I do believe so, at least for my dogs. on average a whole 5-7 years. But more importantly the quality of life and health in my dogs in their senior years has been remarkable. They still act like junior canines, but the duration of their play or stamina is reduced a bit. Again, there are alot of environmental factors that play a role too, location, how the dogs are housed, the level of socialization or stress, parasite control, exposure to chemicals, how often they fast, the bond they have with their human and canine families and the list goes on and on. So it would be hard to make a generalization without a detailed study in the canine field. However I do know that studies have been undertaken in human nutrition and medicine that state that a holistic approach to nutrition and medicine does increase the longevity of humans. I can say that i have in the past 14 years not had any major illnesses or disease in any of my dogs or puppies that were raised here and brought up on a holistic diet, so i think that speaks volumes in and of itself. I hope this was helpful to you.


----------



## Cliffdog (Dec 30, 2010)

The quality of life in a zoo is also less-than-ideal. Obviously, apart from the wild, the zoo is the best place for them, because it's the most natural. That said- it's, you know, the most natural. There's a lot of stress, the animals don't know they aren't in the wild. The wolves fight one another and this can cause to injuries and a general level of elevated stress which can be a killer all on its own. So really, their diet does not decrease their longevity.

That said, the Guinness Record Book's oldest living dog, Bluey the Australian cattle dog, lived his entire life on raw meat and table scraps. Another dog, Jerry, lived to be 27. His owner Waddie Harris describes his diet:


> Jerry has grown up on kangaroo, rabbit and emu as well as scraps off the table.


----------



## kevin bradley (Aug 9, 2009)

Cliffdog said:


> The quality of life in a zoo is also less-than-ideal. Obviously, apart from the wild, the zoo is the best place for them, because it's the most natural. That said- it's, you know, the most natural. There's a lot of stress, the animals don't know they aren't in the wild. The wolves fight one another and this can cause to injuries and a general level of elevated stress which can be a killer all on its own. So really, their diet does not decrease their longevity.
> 
> That said, the Guinness Record Book's oldest living dog, Bluey the Australian cattle dog, lived his entire life on raw meat and table scraps. Another dog, Jerry, lived to be 27. His owner Waddie Harris describes his diet:




awesome. exactly what I was looking for.


----------



## Cliffdog (Dec 30, 2010)

Also, let me add this: high-quality kibble is not "bad" for a dog, and I wouldn't say it is. I'm certain a dog without genetic health defects and without environmental accidents (hit by a car, attacked by another animal, etc) could live a long time on high-quality kibble, or even mid-quality kibble. Diet is only one part of an animal's health, and I've known dogs who lived to 18 eating Kibbles 'n Bits. They didn't have the best quality of life, and they were all very sickly in their old age, but that could have likely been helped by a higher quality kibble just as much as it could have been helped by a raw diet.

Also, I know a pair of labs who get a whole chicken every night, without organs, and they are so unhealthy that I doubt they'll live past 12 or 13. If a person doesn't feel capable of doing raw _properly_, their dog is better off on high quality kibble. Just as fast as a crappy kibble diet can kill your dog, so can a crappy raw diet.

But, having seen the results with my own eyes, I know for a fact that a high-quality raw diet is healthier than a high-quality kibble diet.


----------



## kevin bradley (Aug 9, 2009)

Cliff,

What are the issues w/ the Chicken fed Dogs? Just too many calories they are getting? Not enough exercise?


----------



## Jackielyn (May 27, 2009)

kevin bradley said:


> Cliff,
> 
> What are the issues w/ the Chicken fed Dogs? Just too many calories they are getting? Not enough exercise?


There is no variety...you know they say variety is the spice of life!  And organs are an absolute necessity because they are so nutrient dense. How would you feel if you ate the same food day in and day out? So for a dog to have a healthy raw diet there needs to be variety and organs.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

kevin bradley said:


> Cliff,
> 
> What are the issues w/ the Chicken fed Dogs? Just too many calories they are getting? Not enough exercise?


"_When I ran a busy veterinary practice, many of my clients fed almost exclusively chicken backs and frames -- whether to adult dogs or litters of puppies -- and their animals showed excellent health._"
Dr. Tom Lonsdale Work Wonders Page 25

One more statement concerning health and longevity(these two terms should somewhat correlate). I have never seen a nutritionist that didn't work for a dog food company say that highly processed foods are more healthy or even as healthy as fresh whole foods.


----------



## Caty M (Aug 13, 2010)

Even if there were *zero* health benefits over kibble, I would still feed raw if only for the sole purpose that I don't think anyone, person or animal, would like to be fed the exact same thing every day if given the option of variety. 

I like the mental stimulation part of it too.. my dog uses his feet and body when eating.. and it takes him a lot longer..

And the dental benefits can't really be ignored either.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

I agree with bishop....

Raw isn't just about the food/nutrition aspect. Its about doing what is right and appropriate for the dogs we consider family. Its just what they need....Its about the WHOLE picture which includes: TOTAL BODY HEALTH which includes physical and emotional health.


----------



## Northwoods10 (Nov 22, 2010)

_In the wild wolves can live up to 13 years or more, in a protected wolf park or a controlled area of land, a wolf can live to be up to 16 years old. But most wolves usually live to be to around 8 years of age. The record wolf life span is about 20 years of age. Life in the wild is difficult for the wolf, with human population taking up more and more wolf habitat, and with those who would kill the wolf, a long life span is unlikely. In a controlled environment they can live longer because they are safe from the outside dangers of traps, snares,enemies and poisons._


Taken from wolfcountry.net

They are obviously exposed to some pretty harsh conditions, and in that average you also have to take into consideration the wolves that die from other predators, hunters, and things our beloved pets are not exposed to as often.

Another thing to consider is that they are eating the ideal diet. If you were to put them on some crap food that was chemically compromised, I bet those numbers would drop considerally and they'd be dying from a whole new set of problems. And I bet if you were to look into a wolves mouth, they still have some pretty nice looking teeth after a lifetime.


----------



## Cliffdog (Dec 30, 2010)

kevin bradley said:


> Cliff,
> 
> What are the issues w/ the Chicken fed Dogs? Just too many calories they are getting? Not enough exercise?


If it was bone-in chicken and chicken organs, a dog fed on chicken alone could be very healthy. But you have to be willing to do the diet right. The dogs are also "supplemented" with table scraps of cooked meat and vegetables, they get canned Alpo, and hamburgers/french fries/taco bell. A "real food diet" when done improperly is worse than a high-quality kibble.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

Cliffdog said:


> A "real food diet" when done improperly is worse than a high-quality kibble.


It's pretty difficult to feed a "real food diet" that is worse than even the best of kibbles. Even greasy things are not harmful to a dog like they are to humans.


----------



## Cliffdog (Dec 30, 2010)

I'd like you to look at these dogs and say that... I'll try to get a picture of them if I can. They are fat, greasy, smelly, itchy, and losing their hair. They feed them way way too much and way too bad of a selection. They feed them a huge whole chicken, and then just basically give him all of their garbage food, and they buy him his own fast food whenever they go out to eat. Their lab Harley weighs almost 160# and at 8 years old can barely stand on his own four paws.


----------



## cast71 (Sep 16, 2010)

I think you answered your own question:biggrin: There being overfed! That's the bigger problem.


----------



## Cliffdog (Dec 30, 2010)

Exactly. My original point was that some dogs can thrive on even garbage dog food. If you aren't willing to provide a DECENT real-food diet, and instead think that you can just give them any old piece of food you have around, you're probably better off on HQ kibble. Not accusing anyone here of such a thing, of course, just making a statement.


----------



## magicre (Apr 7, 2010)

people died younger before polio vaccines and measles vaccines...

i would imagine if i lived in the wild, i might not live as long as i'm supposed to, simply because there are predators out there, weather conditions and hostile environments...not to mention, no doctors with magic pills to cure any diseases..

having said that....for me, it's very simple...

if i won't eat processed food, then neither will my dogs...

i may not extend their lives....but while they ARE alive, they will live better...

and in a controlled environment, wolves live longer....captivity..

so dogs live in a controlled environment...stands to reason they should live longer...

hi, kevin..nice to see you....: )


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

This is your original post, saying that all they got to eat was whole chicken without organs and that is why they are unhealthy. 



Cliffdog said:


> Also, I know a pair of labs who get a* whole chicken every night, without organs*, and they are so unhealthy that I doubt they'll live past 12 or 13. If a person doesn't feel capable of doing raw _properly_, their dog is better off on high quality kibble. Just as fast as a crappy kibble diet can kill your dog, so can a crappy raw diet.


But in this post is where I believe the real problem to why these dogs are so unhealthy lies. The fact that they get way overfed, fast food and garbage. 



Cliffdog said:


> I'd like you to look at these dogs and say that... I'll try to get a picture of them if I can. They are fat, greasy, smelly, itchy, and losing their hair.* They feed them way way too much and way too bad of a selection. They feed them a huge whole chicken, and then just basically give him all of their garbage food, and they buy him his own fast food whenever they go out to eat. Their lab Harley weighs almost 160# and at 8 years old can barely stand on his own four paws.*


I personally know a good friend of mine who feed mostly chicken and turkey and doesn't do any real organ meals. The only organ her dogs get are the little bit left on chicken quarters and backs.

MY point is....dogs fed only chicken (I believe they need organs to be incorporated into the diet) can be healthy.


----------



## Cliffdog (Dec 30, 2010)

Sorry, I guess I didn't explain very well! The chicken is half the time boiled by the way instead of raw.


----------



## cast71 (Sep 16, 2010)

danemama08 said:


> I personally know a good friend of mine who feed mostly chicken and turkey and doesn't do any real organ meals. The only organ her dogs get are the little bit left on chicken quarters and backs.
> 
> MY point is....dogs fed only chicken (I believe they need organs to be incorporated into the diet) can be healthy.


So if you fed a dog whole chickens with guts and nothing else, this would be better than orijen or acana? I always thought that, you need to provide a large variety of meats and organs to achieve proper nutrition over time??? What I mean over time is, it doesn't have to be balanced daily. You can give the exact same meats for a few days in a row, than switch to a totally different meat. So in a month of variety you achieve a proper balance.


----------



## Caty M (Aug 13, 2010)

There are plenty of foods that provide a limited number of proteins.. Acana included! Acana pacifica only contains fish proteins.. salmon and salmon meal, herring and herring meal, flounder.. Acana grasslands is only fish and lamb, and even Orijen adult has chicken, turkey, and fish.. no red meat. 

So I would say that yes, feeding only one protein raw (including organs) would be far superior to feeding even the best kibbles. Especially since some of the proteins are so far down the ingredient list it may as well not be in there.


----------



## Caty M (Aug 13, 2010)

I will say that feeding a variety of proteins is best for optimum nutrition though.. my dog gets fed mainly quail, turkey and duck in the morning (bone in) and in the evening he gets his boneless red meat.. beef, pork, elk, venison, lamb etc.


----------



## cast71 (Sep 16, 2010)

Good point. california natural is another single protein food that people have been feeding for years. It does have added vitamins and minerals though. It's probablly to make up for all the nutrients lost in processingainkiller:

Your dog eats very well!


----------



## SamWu1 (Oct 15, 2010)

I would rather feed nothing but whole poultry than the best kibble available.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

Cliffdog said:


> Exactly. My original point was that some dogs can thrive on even garbage dog food. If you aren't willing to provide a DECENT real-food diet, and instead think that you can just give them any old piece of food you have around, you're probably better off on HQ kibble.


No, Cliff, You're wrong. Feeding a dog left overs or thown away garbage is healthier than feeding even the best kibble. Dogs fed table scraps are healthier overall than dogs fed kibble, even if those scraps include hot dogs and quarter pounders and some pizza. There is never a time a dog is better off eating kibble than he would be eating real food.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

cast71 said:


> So if you fed a dog whole chickens with guts and nothing else, this would be better than orijen or acana?


Yes, absolutely.



> I always thought that, you need to provide a large variety of meats and organs to achieve proper nutrition over time???


That would be ideal but real food is always superior to processed cereal. Why do people accept the fact that dogs get the nutrition they need from kibble? Even the best kibbles?


----------



## Cliffdog (Dec 30, 2010)

RawFedDogs said:


> No, Cliff, You're wrong. Feeding a dog left overs or thown away garbage is healthier than feeding even the best kibble. Dogs fed table scraps are healthier overall than dogs fed kibble, even if those scraps include hot dogs and quarter pounders and some pizza. There is never a time a dog is better off eating kibble than he would be eating real food.


Well, you know better than I do. :biggrin: All I know is, those dogs are _supremely_ unhealthy, and I don't know what else it could be. One is only a puppy, less than a year old I believe.


----------



## DeltaNDoc (Nov 14, 2010)

Many dalmatian breeders feed a mostly chicken/turkey/poultry raw diet because of purine issues and dalmatians. We cannot, for this reason, feed organs because they are highest in purines. (Dals are all capable of forming uric stones) Sadly I have to switch out my organ allotments with pureed veggies and a kelp supplement. I am now starting to feed more red meats because I can see my dogs can handle it... but I know plenty of confirmed stone forming dalmatians that live on a chicken/poultry only diet with no organs. Of course they get pureed veggies and possibly a supplement...


----------



## Cliffdog (Dec 30, 2010)

DeltaNDoc said:


> Many dalmatian breeders feed a mostly chicken/turkey/poultry raw diet because of purine issues and dalmatians. We cannot, for this reason, feed organs because they are highest in purines. (Dals are all capable of forming uric stones) Sadly I have to switch out my organ allotments with pureed veggies and a kelp supplement. I am now starting to feed more red meats because I can see my dogs can handle it... but I know plenty of confirmed stone forming dalmatians that live on a chicken/poultry only diet with no organs. Of course they get pureed veggies and possibly a supplement...


I did not know that about Dalmations! Learn something every day!


----------



## SamWu1 (Oct 15, 2010)

RawFedDogs said:


> include hot dogs and quarter pounders and some pizza.


The above being a very *small* percentage of the table scraps of course.


----------



## Cliffdog (Dec 30, 2010)

The above statement makes me feel a bit better, though, about my sister, she gets Laine a kid's meal every now and then! Too bad he eats Science Diet on regular.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

Cliffdog said:


> is, those dogs are _supremely_ unhealthy, and I don't know what else it could be. One is only a puppy, less than a year old I believe.


A few people have already said this but I will try it again too. By your description earlier, these dogs were severly over fed. They look like they do because of this, not because of what the food is.


----------



## RCTRIPLEFRESH5 (Feb 11, 2010)

DeltaNDoc said:


> Many dalmatian breeders feed a mostly chicken/turkey/poultry raw diet because of purine issues and dalmatians. We cannot, for this reason, feed organs because they are highest in purines. (Dals are all capable of forming uric stones) Sadly I have to switch out my organ allotments with pureed veggies and a kelp supplement. I am now starting to feed more red meats because I can see my dogs can handle it... but I know plenty of confirmed stone forming dalmatians that live on a chicken/poultry only diet with no organs. Of course they get pureed veggies and possibly a supplement...


ur dogs are beautiful

also i get confused when people say their dogs live ont able scraps...arent scraps not enough i think of crumbs


----------



## Cliffdog (Dec 30, 2010)

RCTRIPLEFRESH5 said:


> ur dogs are beautiful
> 
> also i get confused when people say their dogs live ont able scraps...arent scraps not enough i think of crumbs


My dad always tells me how his dogs growing up lived on table scraps. It doesn't seem like much either. I'm thinking maybe they meant leftovers?


----------



## xxshaelxx (Mar 8, 2010)

I work in a restaurant, and you know how many people I get that take food home to their dogs? Lots. And it's not always small quantities. I've seen entire boxes loaded with stuff taken home for the dogs. Not everyone eats everything off of their plate. I've seen plenty enough wasted food in three years of working as a server that I could live off of it until the day I die.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

Cliffdog said:


> My dad always tells me how his dogs growing up lived on table scraps. It doesn't seem like much either. I'm thinking maybe they meant leftovers?


Yes, they do mean leftovers. :smile:


----------



## cast71 (Sep 16, 2010)

RawFedDogs said:


> Why do people accept the fact that dogs get the nutrition they need from kibble? Even the best kibbles?


If there not getting the nutrition they need, why do they look and act great on premium kibbles? My sisters dog has only had premium kibble, except for the bag of puppy chow she got when she first got him. I made her switch:mad2: He's perfectly healthy. Has alot of energy, awesome coat, bright eyes.......

What you say makes sense, but wouldn't feeding only chicken result in deficiencies?


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

cast71 said:


> If there not getting the nutrition they need, why do they look and act great on premium kibbles?


I've seen dogs that looked and acted great on the very cheapest of kibbles.



> What you say makes sense, but wouldn't feeding only chicken result in deficiencies?


Don't know. All I know is what Tom Lonsdale said about it. I posted this the other day but here it is again.

"_When I ran a busy veterinary practice, many of my clients fed almost exclusively chicken backs and frames -- whether to adult dogs or litters of puppies -- and their animals showed excellent health._"
Dr. Tom Lonsdale Work Wonders Page 25


----------



## Caty M (Aug 13, 2010)

If a dog can survive on a vegan dog food or almost vegan dog food (ha, I am thinking of like Kibbles N Bits and Ol'Roy (which by the way is the #1 dog food in the US) which contain next to no meat, I am sure they can do just fine on chicken only. The vitamins, minerals and nutrients in real, fresh meat are much easier digested and absorbed in the intestines than the fake ones in kibbles.


----------



## cast71 (Sep 16, 2010)

There's no reason to feed kibble and bits and ol'roy when there's diamond naturals around. Maybe diamond naturals should start putting commercials on tv showing all sorts of fresh meats, fruits and veggies ahahahaha It would be kool though. 

Good point about dogs surviving on low meat kibbles. I still think that you can't compare them to premium kibbles. I've seen dogs do poorly on low end kibbles and do excellent on mid grade foods like diamond naturals. That's has to say something??? You guys are probably right, that a raw whole chicken diet is better than any kibble. I would just be concerned of long term deficiencies. That problem is easily solved with a little variety:smile:


----------



## Ania's Mommy (Feb 8, 2009)

cast71 said:


> If there not getting the nutrition they need, why do they look and act great on premium kibbles? My sisters dog has only had premium kibble, except for the bag of puppy chow she got when she first got him. I made her switch:mad2: He's perfectly healthy. Has alot of energy, awesome coat, bright eyes.......
> 
> What you say makes sense, but wouldn't feeding only chicken result in deficiencies?


Most dogs are fed the same dog food their entire lives. Most cheap dog foods are single protein. Most dogs are fed cheap dog foods.

Based on that, these dogs are only getting one protein their whole lives. Because the rest of the ingredients in the kibble are worthless.

So if you were to feed only raw chicken to that dog, it would be better than the cooked and processed chicken in kibble. Because the raw chicken wouldn't contain the inappropriate ingredients that tax a canine's system as kibble does.

Edit: Even if they were fed a rotation diet of premium kibble, raw chicken would still be better. Because (in my mind at least) all of the digesting of inappropriate ingredients is harder on a dog than lack of variety.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

Of course high quality kibbles can't be compared to low quality kibbles....but kibble in general just can't be compared to raw meaty bones/prey model raw diet at all. It's just not logical.


----------



## sassymaxmom (Dec 7, 2008)

Single species whole prey would work fine, all the vitamins and minerals are present and accounted for in the proper amounts.

Single protein meat and bone of birds won't work, they lack a couple minerals and vitamins. I have read several accounts of dogs on a varied raw diet going to mostly chicken due to a budget issue and the dog's condition goes down quite fast with stinky fur, bad breath and dirty teeth returning.

Single protein meat and bone birds with organs is better, especially if bone is kept down and odd bits like hearts and gizzards are also fed. 

Single protein meat and bone of mammals might work, be better than bird meat and bones anyway. Vitamin A is the main issue with a venison, lamb or beef meat/bone only diet.

All kibbles are heavily fortified with vitamins and minerals, that is why the dogs eating them look pretty good. Doesn't matter how many or few proteins are in the bag, the manufacturer compensates with the right amount of whatever looks low.


----------



## cast71 (Sep 16, 2010)

sassymaxmom said:


> Single species whole prey would work fine, all the vitamins and minerals are present and accounted for in the proper amounts.


What do you mean by single species whole prey? Do you mean for example a whole chicken with guts intact? or do you mean a variety of birds?



sassymaxmom said:


> Single protein meat and bone of birds won't work, they lack a couple minerals and vitamins. I have read several accounts of dogs on a varied raw diet going to mostly chicken due to a budget issue and the dog's condition goes down quite fast with stinky fur, bad breath and dirty teeth returning.


Thanks, this was kind of what I was looking for:thumb: 



sassymaxmom said:


> All kibbles are heavily fortified with vitamins and minerals, that is why the dogs eating them look pretty good. Doesn't matter how many or few proteins are in the bag, the manufacturer compensates with the right amount of whatever looks low.


This was what I was thinking as well;0)


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

cast71 said:


> Thanks, this was kind of what I was looking for:thumb:


It might be what you are looking for but it's an erroneous statement per Tom Lonsdale's statement I've already posted a couple of times in the last couple of days. Many people switching their dogs to a raw diet will feed chicken only for up to a couple of months for various reasons. They don't report these problems.



> This was what I was thinking as well;0)


Dog food manufacturers put vitamins and minerals in food because the high amount of processing destroys what was there originally. Did they put back the right stuff in the right amounts? No one knows. How much of what they put back is bioavailable? Again, no one knows. It definately does matter how much protein is in a bag of dog food. You can't replace protein with a vitamin pill. Same with fat.


----------



## cast71 (Sep 16, 2010)

I did read your posts on Tom Lonsdale's statement about chicken only diet. I'm pretty sure I'v read it awhile back too. I appreciate you posting it. I'm just not sure a dog can achieve enough nutrients by eating only whole chickens. There is no study I know of and there probably will ever be one. The reason is if it was proven dogs can thrive on such an easy diet, it would convert alot of people from using commercial dog food. 

I would agree that whatever vitamins and minerals are in dog food have to be cheap grades. Who knows if they are being absorbed or they are the right amounts. Whatever there doing, I do see alot of dogs doing well on them. I agree that protein and fat matters. That's why dogs generally do better on mid to high range kibbles. 

I'm not arguing that kibble is better than raw. I don't think it comes close. My argument is, I'm not confident a whole chicken only diet covers complete nutrition. I could easily be wrong. Again there is no scientific data and I do not know of any raw feeders that feed this way.


----------



## SamWu1 (Oct 15, 2010)

RawFedDogs said:


> How much of what they put back is bioavailable?


That's one of he biggest issues with synthetic vitamins. It looks great on the bag of the kibble but actual absorption is questionable. That's why I like raw.


----------



## cast71 (Sep 16, 2010)

That's why I like raw vegetables for myself, better than multivitamins;0)


----------



## sassymaxmom (Dec 7, 2008)

A whole bird, blood guts and all. I go cross eyed trying to put this stuff into nutritiondata what with it being dry weight and all the different units but the last critter I attempted to figure out, rabbit, is perfect whole even though a dressed carcass doesn't look very good by the numbers.

As in 
http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/zoo/WholePreyFinal02May29.pdf

Nope, dogs that have been on a varied raw diet and have to go to chicken only can suffer. If a dog was fed kibble and ate just raw chicken the owner and vet might think that was optimal condition because they don't know any better. Just chicken and bone is low in zinc, iron, potassium and many vitamins that are easily found in other meats and organs.


----------



## chikle134 (Jan 12, 2011)

people like to only feed chicken for the first 3 months but i dont i just started my dog on raw ( day 5) and im giving her chicken,beef, and turkey, all parts and she is doing fine on it, no problems at all. why do people do only chicken in the beggining? and i was also told that organs dont need to be fed until 2 or 3 months in why is that?


----------



## Cliffdog (Dec 30, 2010)

chikle134 said:


> people like to only feed chicken for the first 3 months but i dont i just started my dog on raw ( day 5) and im giving her chicken,beef, and turkey, all parts and she is doing fine on it, no problems at all. why do people do only chicken in the beggining? and i was also told that organs dont need to be fed until 2 or 3 months in why is that?


Because not all dogs have your pup's iron stomach.  I've heard too many horror stories of people switching from chicken to beef within the first week and BAM! liquid poo. Dogs' tummies, in general, need time to adjust.


----------



## chikle134 (Jan 12, 2011)

Cliffdog said:


> Because not all dogs have your pup's iron stomach.  I've heard too many horror stories of people switching from chicken to beef within the first week and BAM! liquid poo. Dogs' tummies, in general, need time to adjust.


lol yea i was kinda afraid of the liquid stool but i just went for it. my dog is 15 months. i didnt only choose raw over kibble because its healthier. i did it because she doesnt like kibble she hardly ate it. she sometimes wouldnt eat for a whole day or 2. but now with raw she doesnt miss a meal, twice a day. and she loves it. and i love to see my dog eat, i do not over feed her tho lol


----------

