# Raw diet question



## Spy Car (Sep 3, 2014)

cuddlebuglove said:


> It's nice to believe that you have made your choice almost. Good luck with a GSP. Happy belated Easter Monday
> 
> To Bill:Thank you for your kind answer; it was quite informative. By the way- with the raw diet, how do deal with meats? Do you cook them to kill bacteria? Again , thank you.


The meats, organs, and bones in a raw diet are served raw. Evolution shaped canines to have strong stomach acids and short GI tracts, and they handle bacterial loads that would make humans sick with no problem. Commercial kibbles are regularly recalled for Salmonella contamination—not because dogs are getting sick—but because humans (who wrongly believe the kibble is sterile) get ill after handling it and not observing food-safety precautions.

The upsides of feeding a balanced raw diet are very evident in the improved condition of raw-fed dogs. The difference isn't subtle.

Bill


----------



## einspänner (Sep 8, 2012)

Feel free to ask any additional questions here!


----------



## Spy Car (Sep 3, 2014)

Since this post has its own thread, I'll amplify on one point that (to me) makes feeding raw (vs cooked) important, and that is being able to include soft-edible bone covered with flesh (muscle and skin/fat) in the diet.

To keep a canine diet balanced nutritionally one need to maintain a ratio of calcium to phosphorus of near 1.2:1. Meat is high in phosphorus, so having meals that are close to 10% edible bone (a rich source of calcium) keeps this critical ratio in balance. Chewing soft-edible bone also keeps teeth and gums clean, and relaxes dogs. 

I say "soft-edible bones" (often called raw meaty bones or RMBs among raw feeders) to distinguish between such things as raw chicken bones and hard bones (such as cattle femurs) than present a significant risk to cracking/breaking dogs teeth.

Bill


----------



## cuddlebuglove (Apr 27, 2014)

Your avatar shows a very healthy Vizsla. Again thank you for such a detailed answer. I am not only learning on this forum but also the Ask the Pet Vet on Pets.tv as well as from a Spaniard Vet for a small pets company called Cunipic. The latter has English subtitles and although most of the videos are about rabbits, gerbils etc; he does discuss dogs and he did recommend Orijen for dogs. I like it because of the lack of GMOS in the food.

What you do sounds like something for a really experienced caregiver or breeder and your expertise is admirable. You are doubtless a valued asset to your community at large and your contributions here in this forum. I appreciate your patience with a novice like myself.


----------



## Spy Car (Sep 3, 2014)

cuddlebuglove said:


> Your avatar shows a very healthy Vizsla. Again thank you for such a detailed answer. I am not only learning on this forum but also the Ask the Pet Vet on Pets.tv as well as from a Spaniard Vet for a small pets company called Cunipic. The latter has English subtitles and although most of the videos are about rabbits, gerbils etc; he does discuss dogs and he did recommend Orijen for dogs. I like it because of the lack of GMOS in the food.
> 
> What you do sounds like something for a really experienced caregiver or breeder and your expertise is admirable. You are doubtless a valued asset to your community at large and your contributions here in this forum. I appreciate your patience with a novice like myself.


Thank you for your kind words. 

Among generally available kibbles Orijen has a great reputation for sourcing quality ingredients. The protein levels are very good (36%), which is higher than most alternatives (a good thing) and those proteins are from animal sources, rather than counting incomplete plant proteins (like corn-gluten meal or pea-flour) toward the gross proteins.

Were I feeding a V Orijen and running it hard (as I do) I would add a small amount of saturated fat to the daily meal in the form of things like raw beef (or other animal) fat or coconut oil. Not cooked grease or polyunsaturated vegetable oil. At 18% fat the Orijen is not optimal IMO based on my knowledge of scientific studies on performance dog nutrition. 

Dogs actually burn fats with extraordinary efficiency and in a sustained fashion that does not spike blood sugars (or raise core temperature) the way carb burning does. If you cut back slightly on the kibble and worked up slowly to about a tablespoon a day of saturated fat a day I think you'd find an improvement over what is already a highly regarded kibble. Fat, counterintuitively, helps keep dogs well-conditioned and lean.

Bill


----------



## tknafox2 (Apr 2, 2013)

May I ask a stupid question???
We give our dogs LOTS of bones, Raw, from the meat store, or grocery store that carries them. some have lots of meat and small sharp bones???
some have lots of bone, and fatty parts... I am a bit cautious with the meaty sharp stuff, and usually cut out the bone part and toss it. But my question is about the fat and pancreatic problems?? Also about how bad the bones stink after a few days in the fridge... most times I freeze them and give them frozen. But when it is cold ( like our cabin in the snow) the dogs like their bones room temp... but the really deteriorate fast??? 
My other question... Are these bones fattening???


----------



## einspänner (Sep 8, 2012)

It's not a stupid question! 

I'm far from an expert on the issue, but it does come up from time to time in the raw community, so I have done some reading. Dr. Becker explains it better than I could. http://healthypets.mercola.com/site.../dont-let-this-organ-ruin-your-pets-life.aspx

It's a multifaceted issue, but basically, the thought is that higher carb diets lead to inflammation and higher insulin loads which is taxing on the pancreas. Once you get to that point, you have a dog that is primed to burn carbs, but is doing it ineffectively. Then if you feed a high fat diet on top of high carbs you have issues. The body will always digest the carbs/sugars first and will store the fat away. 

If you feed a low-carb diet to start with and opt to feed a diet that uses fat as the primary fuel, the body does very well at burning that fuel. 

She also talks a lot about the lack of enzymes in a dry, processed diet. That's another important aspect to consider. I've heard of some dogs with pancreatitis being fed cow pancreas to help supply those digestive enzymes. 

So short answer to your question about the bones you're feeding- fatty bones with a high-carb, grain heavy diet, would be fattening. fatty bones as part of a low-carb diet are not.


----------



## Spy Car (Sep 3, 2014)

tknafox2 said:


> May I ask a stupid question???
> We give our dogs LOTS of bones, Raw, from the meat store, or grocery store that carries them. some have lots of meat and small sharp bones???
> some have lots of bone, and fatty parts... I am a bit cautious with the meaty sharp stuff, and usually cut out the bone part and toss it. But my question is about the fat and pancreatic problems?? Also about how bad the bones stink after a few days in the fridge... most times I freeze them and give them frozen. But when it is cold ( like our cabin in the snow) the dogs like their bones room temp... but the really deteriorate fast???
> My other question... Are these bones fattening???


Machine cut bones can be sharp and if swallowed whole are risky. Especially any weight bearing bones of large animals like cattle. Hard bones are also a risk to teeth. Most raw feeders avoid these in favor of soft edible bones that can be consumed in a feeding, not bones that are multi-day (or multi-hour) chews.

Fat is the natural fuel for dogs. The superior performance of dogs that are fueled by fats (vs carbs) has been shown conclusively in many studies, and is matched in the experience of sled dog, greyhound, and hunting dog owners. In one study (sponsored by the Iams pet food company) dogs that were under-exercised (couch-potato type dogs) that were fed a typical high-carbohydrate kibble had their aerobic capacity measure as a VO2 Max score. Predictably these dogs scored very poorly. Then, with no other life-style variable changing, these dogs were moved to a high=protein high-fat diet, and after a time they were re-tested. The re-tests showed a dramatic rise rise in aerobic capacity, with VO2 Max scores nearly in the range of highly conditioned dogs. 

Fats are the primary fuel canines are shaped by nature to burn, with proteins being second. Feeding dogs a high carbohydrate diet has many health consequences. One is stress on the pancreas. 

The pancreas has to functions, the endocrine function (which releases hormones like insulin to control blood sugars) and the exocrine function that releases powerful enzymes that digest food. Both these functions are stressed when a dog is fed high-carbohydrate rations.

Dogs did not evolve to process the amount of carbohydrates in kibble. With the amount starch/sugars in these meals the pancreas needs to produce unnatural amounts of insulin in an attempt to control blood sugars, and there are insulin (and energy spikes) that follow. This phenomenon is well established in the veterinary literature. 

Dogs also lack the enzyme "amylase" (which is necessary to digest starches) in their salvia, in contrast with omnivores–like humans–who begin digesting starches as they masticate. Dogs teeth don't allow them to grind food, in any case, and they have no capacity to begin the digestive process orally. Instead sugars sit in the mouth, ferment, and cause the plague and tarter we've come to accept as "normal" for dogs.

While dogs have no salivary amylase, they have (relative to wolves) acquired an unevenly distributed capacity to produce amylase in their pancreas. But the standard American dog diet has so much starch/carbohydrate, that the pancreas is again high stressed to produce such high amounts of amylase. It is unnatural. Pancreatitis (that is not set off by drugs or other factors) generally happens when a dog that has a stressed pancreas due to unnatural amounts of carbohydrates undermining the heath of the organ on both the endocrine and exocrine functions, and is conditioned to releasing significant amounts of amylase in response to meals, being fed—out of the blue—a huge amount of fat (typically a cooked grease) such as the grease from a holiday meal.

in these cases where a dog is conditioned to eat one type of meal, and the constituent parts (protein/fat/carbs) are radically switched, then yes, in that scenario a massive amount of grease (cooked fats seem to be the culprits for not fully understood reasons) can provoke a problem in a dog that has a precondition of a stressed pancreas and is conditioned to releasing amylase in over abundance instead of the enzyme lypase (which aids in digesting fats) or proteases enzymes (that digest protein).

When the pancreas spills the wrong enzymes and the timing is wrong, those digestive enzymes actually eat way at the dogs GI tract, and cause the very serious condition called pancreatitis. "Fat" is often blamed as the triggering agent, but it is short-sighted not to see that cascade of events that are triggered by a massive meal of grease are set-up by creating an unhealthy pancreas (via an unnatural high-carbohydrate diet) in the first place.

I've asked numerous (traditional) veterinarians and none has every heard of a raw fed dog, one who is conditioned to burn fats and proteins (and either no or very restricted carbohydrates), ever developing pancreatitis. The same is the experience in the experience of the raw feeding community.

When one feed a species the type of food it was shaped by evolution to thrive on it makes sense such animals would fare much better than those fed diets formulated for convenience and the increased profit margins of pet food companies. There was no dog kibble prior to 1956, when Purina adapted the machinery used to make human cereal to make extruded carbohydrate dog food. 

We've come to accept food-in-a-bag that isn't species appropriate as "standard" vs feeding meat, fat, organs, and bone, but heath consequences of that follow. Dogs fed a natural diet thrive. It is something I see with my own eyes, after—like most folks—having raised dogs in the past on kibble. The differences in condition are very evident.

Bill


----------

