I found this and found it very interesting. Especially the idea that the raw diet somehow extends life or is better yet the nutritional needs are rarely met due to the dog training the chef and not to mention the fact that yes dogs are carnivores have been eating raw for millions of years but wild foxes live for oh about nine months. One reason a dogs life has been getting longer and longer is the balanced diet of kibble. We all love our dogs and I'm not saying raw is awful but it seems its like the new diet fad that has NOT stood the test of time for PET canines. We all are scared these days and we have a hankering to return to our roots (organinc so forth and so on) but not all developments made in food are bad. Like I said prime and most important example is the rising life expectancy of our blessed furballs.
P.S. I had to remove some info to accommodate the forum rules for the full thing go to vetinfo4dogs
Raw Meat diet discussion
Question: We all know that canids have eaten raw meat for millions of years. I'm very interested in feeding my dog a diet based on raw meat. Feeding raw chicken that's been processed at a plant is not the same as the animal killing it fresh, of course. Nevertheless, I know many people who have been using raw diets for years, and I've seen great results in their dogs in terms of skin, teeth, reduction of allergies, and overall vitality.
The main objection of most vets to raw feeding is the potential danger for bacterial contamination. We know that bacteria like salmonella and campylobacter are endemic, not only on meats but even in fruits and vegetables. But the presence of bacteria doesn't necessarily correspond to a high risk of infection. The raw feeders I know swear they've never had a problem with these bacteria.
Can you provide any hard evidence that feeding raw, human-grade meat, properly handled, measurably increases the risk of salmonella/campylobacter infection in dogs? All I've seen on both sides of this question is opinion, generalization, and anecdote.
--Are there any veterinary studies about the effects of salmonella/campylobacter in dogs? e.g. statistics about incidence of salmonella/campylobacter overall?
--Are there any confirmed cases that animals fed raw diets suffered from these bacteria? If so, how severe was the problem?
--Do animals ever get these bacteria from cooked sources (i.e. processed foods)
Answer: I will try to answer some of your questions and to point out the ones that probably do not have verifiable answers. In addition, you may wish to search the PubMed database located at the following address, as it contains a great number of references on Salmonella, Campylobacter, toxoplasmosis and other food borne infections.
I see little to no value in an argument such as "we all know canids have eaten raw meat for millions of years". If pet owners were willing to accept mortality rates similar to wild canines for their pets there would be a lot fewer long term disorders of any type, not just food related ones. The average lifespan of a wild canid is very short compared to that of a pet dog and the same is true of feral felines. We deal with many of the problems of aging in pets because of the success of pet foods and improved health care. They don't live in a natural situation and for the most part they are probably better off because of that.
I am not sure that the main objection among veterinarians to raw meat is simply bacterial infections. Toxoplasmosis occurs in approximately 1% of the beef sold in the United States, making parasitic infections a significant concern as well. Other parasitic infections are also possible.
In answer to the anecdotal evidence of no disease from owners feeding their pets raw meat, I would like to offer one illustration of the problems with this type of evidence based on practice experience. On at least a hundred occasions I have used a flea comb to find live fleas on pets whose owners swore they had no flea problem since starting "x" or "y" flea preventative diet, such as garlic, brewer's yeast, Lyfe (TM), etc. Most of these people left my office totally unconvinced of the failure of the product mentioned because they wanted to believe in it. They weren't looking for a problem and they didn't want to see a problem, so they just didn't acknowledge it. Surely you encounter similar situations in researching historical events.
I think the major problem with owner prepared diets is an attempt to satisfy the needs of pets by making one recipe and not varying it. I strongly suspect that if pets were fed a variety of foods that approximates the food triangle suggested for humans that an adequate diet would be obtained. On the other hand, trying to formulate a single recipe that meets the needs of pets long term is very very difficult to do. I do not know about other vets but I think that the major reason to stick with pet foods is the incredible ability of pets to train their owners to feed them unbalanced and/or unhealthy diets. A great many of the pets I see who are fed primarily home-made diets or table scraps eat only a few items consistently. Feeding pet foods helps avoid this problem. I am not particularly uncomfortable with the notion of people feeding a variety of foods in an attempt to meet dietary requirements as long as they are aware of the pitfalls and avoid them.
Food poisoning cases are not identified in pets as often as they are in humans, primarily because the labwork is expensive to pursue and epidemiological resources similar to those in human medicine are not there for veterinarians. There is a great deal of evidence to show that these infections do affect dogs and cats. Please check the PubMed site and search under Salmonella or Campylobacter or Toxoplasmosis or E. coli to find some of the references to this. There are some studies outlining how Salmonella affects dogs in these references but most are concerned with transmission methods. Any good veterinary internal medicine textbook will provide details as to the clinical signs of disease from organisms that can be transmitted through raw meat.
Evidence for the risk of feeding raw human-grade meat must be inferred from studies in humans because of the inability to track animal cases. There are numerous cases of well defined, well tracked food poisonings from raw or undercooked meat in the U.S. Perhaps pets are less susceptible to infection from these meat sources but that is not really very likely. If several people die from undercooked hamburgers in Wisconsin, it is pretty likely that a pet or two was affected as well.
There are no tracking agencies for diseases in pets. It is unlikely that statistics exist for overall infection rates for campylobacter, salmonella or almost any other disease. Without widespread pet insurance and in the absence of a CDC or similar program in veterinary medicine it will be a long time before valid statistics become available.
There are a number of confirmed cases of salmonella suspected to have originated in raw meat in dogs. There have been studies done on greyhounds due to the suspicion that a condition known as "Alabama rot" or cutaneous and renal glomerular vasculopathy is caused by a strain of E. coli which is suspected to be linked to the prevalence of raw meat diets among racing greyhounds.
Wild animals do suffer from salmonellosis, toxoplasmosis, campylobacter and other illnesses. There have been documented cases in a number of species and there have been cases of human exposure after eating or contacting many species, including at least one case of salmonella food poisoning after eating a rattlesnake (it is in the list of references under Salmonella in the PubMed database but I can't remember the exact reference). I have treated wildlife for a number of years in association with WildCare, Inc. and have seen food poisoning on a number of occasions, some of them confirmed through lab testing or necropsy exam. People seem to believe that wild animals live a long and carefree existence and nothing could be further from the truth. They are heavily parasitized in many instances, suffer from nutritional deficiencies on a regular basis and often die very young. I do not know the specific reference but from memory I think the average lifespan of foxes studied in one study was 9 months. This is a far cry from the lifespan we expect from our pets.
When I started in practice 19 years ago it was unusual to treat a 20 year old cat. I have at least ten feline patients over the age of twenty and at least two dogs in that age range in my practice. This is probably due in no small part to nutritional improvements which came about primarily through the feeding of well formulated and safely preserved pet foods. While that does not directly address the feeding of raw meat diets it is hard for me to understand why pet foods are knocked by some people who favor the diets that were prevalent when dogs lived closer to ten or twelve years and a fourteen year-old cat was thought to be ancient.
Please think this through very carefully. Ask your vet if you can read through his or her textbooks and then look up the references cited in them if you want to really research this subject.
There may be benefits from feeding raw meat. Like everything else, you have to weigh the risks against the benefits. Like most issues in veterinary medicine it isn't possible to find hard figures to base your assessment on. There are definite risks. Are you sure of the benefits?
People ate raw meat for a long time (and still do, sometimes with no problems) but I'm not going to take chances with this, personally.
Mike Richards, DVM
Here here, if they like it and they are healthy why not (except maybe the rabbit and roo poo - okay and made in China).