Scienctific studies done on raw?

[Laura]

I had a conversation with my Vet. about feeding a raw diet. He had said that there is no scienctific studies to prove raw is healthier for dogs, all the info on raw is just an opinion. He said that it comes down to genetics. I'm wondering if there are any studies done that he is not aware of?

Also he had mention something interesting. He said that the shorter the intestines the more of a carnivore you are and that dogs have longer intestines the humans.

[spidey]

Well, your vet's wrong about one thing: dogs do not have longer intestines than humans, but it is generally the case that carnivores have shorter intestinal tracts than omnivores do. See here, but they do have a comparable intestine length to body length ratio to humans, which does indicate that they are closer to omnivores in terms of physiology than carnivores.

I also don't think there are any scientific studies on raw feeding. That said, as with any other diet, the best diet is the diet your dog does best on, and many dogs do very well on a raw diet, just as many dogs do well on a commercial diet.

[Laura]

Thanks for the info, very interesting. My Vet is against feeding raw (meats) because he said that we have evolved so has dogs.

[spidey]

Originally Posted by Laura

Thanks for the info, very interesting. My Vet is against feeding raw (meats) because he said that we have evolved so has dogs.

I don't think that's a very good reason to be against it, myself, it's not based on anything concrete, and besides that, many people eat raw diets and are very healthy, evolution has nothing to do with it (and given the way domestic dogs have been fed in the past, by his argument dogs have "evolved" to eat just about anything, from raw meat to rotting pig slops). Being able to say "I don't think there's enough information out there yet for me to have a final opinion" is something I feel most people and especially those with scientific training, should aspire to. It's one thing to say "these are the things which make me concerned about feeding a raw diet", that's part of educating your clients, it's another to advise against it and make vague statements about evolution and intestinal tract length (about which he is incorrect anyway), that's pushing your bias on people who are looking to you for information. I'm not saying you should feed raw (I don't, although I do give it on occasion), I'm just saying that perhaps you should look elsewhere for more information - vets aren't nutritionists, and unless they choose to keep current with dietary studies, they're often not all that much more informed than you are. I've learned a heck of a lot more about nutrition from people here and elsewhere, who have a real passion for it and research it like crazy, than I ever have from a vet.

[fbkeays]

Originally Posted by Laura

Thanks for the info, very interesting. My Vet is against feeding raw (meats) because he said that we have evolved so has dogs.

Commercial dog food (ie kibble) has been around for less then 100 years and not used much until the last 50 years. Marketing and convience is what made dogs eat kibble, not evolution.
Too bad I don't live closer, I would let Misty give him a demostration on eating raw She is missing 4 teeth from her lower jaw and she can crack and crunch bones like you would not believe. The less "processed" the food she eats, the better her stools are. She loves raw and all she gets is raw meat and canned dog food meat (just the meat, nothing else). She also has cancer. 4 weeks ago the vet gave her 2-3 weeks, she is still going strong.

[Laura]

Spidey,

I happen to agree with you. I guess he was trying to convey that there are things that make him concerned about raw but did it badly. His bedside manners are a little off.

[diddybopper04]

Originally Posted by Laura

I had a conversation with my Vet. about feeding a raw diet. He had said that there is no scienctific studies to prove raw is healthier for dogs, all the info on raw is just an opinion. He said that it comes down to genetics. I'm wondering if there are any studies done that he is not aware of?

Also he had mention something interesting. He said that the shorter the intestines the more of a carnivore you are and that dogs have longer intestines the humans.

Sure, most of it is anecdotal. And common sense as well.

Who is going to pay for the raw food studies? The dog food companies that pay for the other ones? I think not.

And your vet needs a really basic course in canine anatomy. A dog's small intestine is about is 3 to 5 times body length. In humans, it is usually greater than 10 times the body length. Maybe you should send him this website.

http://www.vegsource.com/veg_faq/comparative.htm

[Diane Heller-Vaccaro]

If you want a vet that knows the benefits of Raw you need to go to a holistic vet. I find it interesting that the vets that are against Raw are the same that push Science Diet, which can easily be proven to be one of the worst dog foods out there by anyone who knows how to read the ingredients.

I would say for me the proof is in my puppy's appearance, his coat shines and he is the picture of health, his energy is high and does the cutest little dance after he eats. He cleans both sides of his face and makes a squeal and rubs his back on the ground. I enjoy the variety of RAW and feeling good about what I'm feeding him.

P.S. I took my puppy to the vets the last week, he had a little discharge coming out of his nose and of course my vet said it was because of the Raw diet. LOL I'm thinking it had more to do with the change in the weather.

[leonberger]

Vets learn very little about nutrition in vet schools. What they do learn comes from the commercial dog food companies. At their clinics, they are bombarded with information from the commercial pet food companies. The clinic my dogs go to they only feed commercial food to their patients. When my dog refused to even try their food I was asked to bring in a dinner for him. They saw a dog who wouldn't eat almost dive into the dish of raw food. Since then, two of the vets at "our" clinic have changed their attitude about raw feeding. One is experimenting at home on his own dogs. The other feels it is safe as long as you don't feed weight bearing bones. Having seen first hand how a dog that is old and moving very slowly while being fed kibble can after a few weeks of being on a totaly raw diet can start running and playing like a puppy again, I don't see myself ever feeding anything but raw ever again. My dogs love their food, have great coats and a lot of muscle and very little waste to pick up in the yard later

[Major]

Tthe thread topic asked about the existance of scientific studies on raw feeding. Please stay on topic.

[lblax]

Originally Posted by spidey

I also don't think there are any scientific studies on raw feeding. That said, as with any other diet, the best diet is the diet your dog does best on, and many dogs do very well on a raw diet, just as many dogs do well on a commercial diet.

i agree with this statemant,, the one thing that i see wrong with feeding raw is most people(not all) do not have the knowledge or resurch it enough to do it properly and when done improperly it can be worse thanb feeding the lowest quality of kibble
here is a interesting article http://life.ca/nl/83/pets.html
and a bunch of other info
http://www.mybluedog.com/rawmeat_links.html