Is there any Scientific Data Supporting Raw Diets?

~Jessie~

Chihuahua Power!
Joined
Oct 3, 2006
Messages
19,665
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Central Florida
#21
But... they kind of are. lol. Dogs were/are opportunistic carnivores... they'll eat meat if available of course, but they can scavenge for almost anything if they really have to. It's well known that dogs, back before kibble was even invented, were basically eating corn mush and table scraps. Families were often struggling to eat themselves, highly doubtful they were tossing their best meats over to the dogs. Also, so many are against byproducts in their dog foods but aren't by-products essentially what raw feeders often feed? livers, lungs, kidneys... bully sticks, chicken feet, etc?


Yes, science isn't everything, but I don't like the idea that "natural" is always better either.

And there has been a lot of things stated as fact on the internet through the years that is simply untrue, and it took a long time for me to believe it too. Where did we come up with the idea that corn is SOO bad for dogs? I think if we see more than 1 corn ingredient in a food (i.e. corn gluten meal, corn, etc) it's possible majority of the protein is coming from corn. But IMO, corn gluten meal is no worse than all the pea protein's, and pea concentrates we see in a bunch of the supposed high quality grain-free foods of today. I guess I just don't see who determined that potatoes, peas and lentils are any better than barely, wheat and corn?
There is research that dogs have gone back 30,000 years. I'm sure that most of the food dogs were given was fresh and raw. It just makes logical sense. Dogs don't have hands and have no way to cook their own food. Dogs are predators as well... think about all of the squirrels and cats that have happened upon yards with dogs and had an unhappy ending.

Kibble only appeared around the time of World War II. It was marketed as a cheap way to feed your dogs.

I imagine people in the past fed their dogs a lot of raw meaty bones, fatty scraps, organs, veggie scraps, etc. Of course dogs can survive on mostly anything, but there's a big difference between surviving and thriving.

The issue with ingredients like "animal digest" is that who even knows WHAT that is. Could it be euthanized shelter pets? Old sick cows? And we all know that corn is pretty much all genetically modified.

Of course, corn and other fillers are fine in moderation (dogs are opportunistic carnivores), but having genetically modified corn as the entire basis of their diet? That's not how dogs are supposed to eat. Imagine how we'd feel if corn was the primary part of OUR diets, and we're designed way differently!

I don't think there's anything wrong with byproducts as long as I can control them. I don't trust Ol' Roys "poultry byproducts" are going to be nearly the same as the organ meats and bones that my dogs eat.
 

~Jessie~

Chihuahua Power!
Joined
Oct 3, 2006
Messages
19,665
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Central Florida
#22
The biggest difference I've seen in my personal animals is digestibility and weight control.
Same here. Chloe has never been able to gain weight no matter what. We've tried so many kibbles and even tried canned foods. Raw has really evened out her weight- she finally doesn't look like a skeleton.
 

Emily

Rollin' with my bitches
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
2,115
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
Illinois
#23
Here is my beef (haha pun)

I'm pretty certain dogs of the past weren't eating raw the way raw is being fed. No they weren't eating kibble but I doubt they were all getting 100% raw meat diets. Meat is expensive and has been a bit of a luxury for human consumption. The dogs were probably getting the crap that was leftover. And a lot of hat was probably non-meat.

So although I think fresh foods are probably better the idea that raw is what dogs have been eating just doesn't ring true.
I can't speak for others, but in no way did I suggest that modern raw diets are what dogs have been eating historically. I chose the term "fresh foods" deliberately to refer a variety of relatively unprocessed scraps dogs might be fed in years past.

I feed most meats raw because I can't imagine why I would bother to cook it for a dog. Lol. Plus I do see the dental benefits pretty clearly. Grains I cook and veggies are a toss up.
 

Shai

& the Muttly Crew
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
6,215
Likes
0
Points
36
#24
Just wrote a giant post and the internet ate it. Argh.

Basically for me it makes logical sense to feed the nutritional range of what is gotten from kibble in a fresher form. Be it homecooked or raw. There is a lot we still don't understand about the synergy of our nutritional intake, so if I can feed a wide range of fresh foods, and I can, I will do so. Mine are not grain-/plant-free diets, but they are primarily animal-based, and tweaked for each dog according to what they seem to need.

As long as my dogs thrive, I am happy. If their physical or mental health suffers, my practices will change. At one time I had completely cut out veggies and grains...I added them back in based on observed negative affects.

With Kim I don't really have a choice. No matter what kibble she eats, she is prone to digestive upset, hot spots, etc. On raw, no matter what proteins and vegetables I include, her allergies are mostly controlled except for the fall, which is the worst time of the year for her.

I guess to me it seems odd to ask for proof that feeding real food is better...it would make more sense to require proof that feeding a wholly manufactured prepared diet is better.

But to each their own, as long as the individual dogs do well. I don't recommend people feed one thing over another -- just share what works with my dogs and my household when the topic comes up.

Living isn't necessarily thriving, and a good manufactured diet is better than a bad homemade diet any day. But that doesn't make it the best...merely more uniform.
 

~Jessie~

Chihuahua Power!
Joined
Oct 3, 2006
Messages
19,665
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Central Florida
#25
Just wrote a giant post and the internet ate it. Argh.

Basically for me it makes logical sense to feed the nutritional range of what is gotten from kibble in a fresher form. Be it homecooked or raw. There is a lot we still don't understand about the synergy of our nutritional intake, so if I can feed a wide range of fresh foods, and I can, I will do so. Mine are not grain-/plant-free diets, but they are primarily animal-based, and tweaked for each dog according to what they seem to need.

As long as my dogs thrive, I am happy. If their physical or mental health suffers, my practices will change. At one time I had completely cut out veggies and grains...I added them back in based on observed negative affects.

With Kim I don't really have a choice. No matter what kibble she eats, she is prone to digestive upset, hot spots, etc. On raw, no matter what proteins and vegetables I include, her allergies are mostly controlled except for the fall, which is the worst time of the year for her.

I guess to me it seems odd to ask for proof that feeding real food is better...it would make more sense to be to ask for proof that feeding a wholly manufactured prepared diet is better.

But to each their own, as long as the individual dogs do well. I don't recommend people feed one thing over another -- just share what works with my dogs and my household when the topic comes up.

And in any case, living isn't necessarily thriving, and a good manufactured diet is better than a bad homemade diet any day. But that doesn't make it the best...merely more uniform.
Great post and I completely agree :)

My dogs don't only eat meats. If I'm cutting up fruits or veggies, the dogs will get a snack. They LOVE fruits and veggies. Sometimes they'll get tastes of whatever I'm eating/cooking... cooked meats, mac and cheese, etc. Their primary diet is raw meat, and I don't care about the minimal amount of extras they get.
 

Laurelin

I'm All Ears
Joined
Nov 2, 2006
Messages
30,963
Likes
3
Points
0
Age
37
Location
Oklahoma
#26
I think condition of a dog comes down to a lot of factors. Summer is in much better shape than Beau an Rose despite being older. But I've done more tooth care (even still having to have one pulled) and she is much more active than they are. I really think activity level is key. Summer is 9 but she hikes and runs agility.

Beau looked great on raw. But he was also being supplemented by his professional handler at the time. I'm much more ok with people like that with her experience level and supplements feeding dogs homemade diets than random online people.

I've seen some scary stuff on the other board- dogs whose hair is falling out, hotspots, losing weight rapidly and they get so offended when you suggest that raw might not be the best for their dog at that time. But surely it is.... So and so website says so!

Anyways I feel like with any home prepared diet you need a ton of variety available to feed. I prefer feeding a mixed bag of meals to my dogs because I feel like that reflects their heritage best. But I have no scientific proof only gut feelings. And really that is all there is to go on in regards to dog food these days. No one can definitively say what the best canine diet is.
 
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
6,405
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Minnesota
#27
For me it comes down to... what exactly is a "natural" diet for a completely unnatural animal? Look at all the ways we have changed dogs and there's no reason in the world to think that while we've been selecting for all the various external physical features dogs express that we aren't also inadvertently selecting for variability in internal features (affecting digestion, immune function, cancer risks, etc) as well. There is no best for Dogs with a capital D. Pip does far better on kibble than on raw. Squash does far better on raw than kibble. Maisy could probably thrive on dirt and sawdust. And I've seen so many dogs, literally thousands of dogs over my career so far, doing well on so many different diets that I have really come to believe that genetics plays a huge role in what kind of diet a particular dog does well on.


There is research that dogs have gone back 30,000 years. I'm sure that most of the food dogs were given was fresh and raw.
If you buy the co-evolution theory, then dogs evolved basically eating our garbage. Nobody was making sure that there was such and such a percentage of bone or whatever. And I guarantee that before kibble was invented that most dogs were getting leftovers, and most people couldn't afford to eat much meat so they certainly weren't giving anything but the dregs to the farm dog.

There was also the study last year that showed dogs have likely evolved the ability to digest grains better than their ancestors. Which obviously likely varies from individual to individual. But there is so much conformation bias from from both raw and kibble feeders that I don't think studies like that are going to change anyone's minds about anything.

I have nothing against raw feeding. I feed some raw. But the cult mentality does grate my nerves like nobody's business. Including such well-known hits as "raw solves all problems" and "well I've never seen a dog on kibble who looks good" and my favorite, "well you may think your kibble-fed dog looks healthy but inside he's definitely not." Also when people adhere more strictly to the philosophy of what they THINK a dog "should" do better on than what the dog actually does better on (eg my dog looks like crap on raw and great on kibble but DOGS SHOULD EAT RAW SO RAW IT IS.)
 

Toller_08

Active Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2006
Messages
8,359
Likes
1
Points
36
#28
I've never seen a study either, and what convinced me to try raw was the fact that I knew many people who did/do feed their dogs raw and their dogs were doing really well, and it was blatantly obvious that something was amiss with Dance's digestion. She'd been getting raw off and on her whole life, but she also got a lot of kibble, and for a long period of time, only ate kibble. She was healthy, she looked good, she's always fluctuated with weight regardless of feed, but she'd vomit brownish weird sludge almost weekly and get explosive diarrhea at least every couple of months randomly, if not more. Finally a couple of years ago I'd had enough. Enough of vets, enough dealing with disgusting things, and enough wondering what was going on. So I decided just to see what would happen if I 100% eliminated kibble from her diet, not really expecting it to make a difference, because these issues were ongoing for over 4 years. Maybe it's just coincidence, but she hasn't had a single digestive issue for as long as she's been eating raw. I've recently started giving her a few kibble meals here and there too, and she seems fine eating anything now. Who knows what would happen if I left her on kibble long term or more regularly again, but I can see that she clearly does better on a raw diet than a kibble based one.

Alternatively, and it could just be because their skin seems to react to anything that isn't fish, the Dobermans' skin and coat quality deteriorated on raw. And I certainly could afford to, nor do I feel it would be healthy, for them to eat solely raw fish and red meats and no poultry. So I put them on various fish based kibbles and they're doing better than ever. I hate the yard cleanup, but it's better than dealing with greasy, flaky, stinky, horrible skin.

So, while there are no studies, I think trying different things are worth it. You never know what the results might be, and plenty of people have great success with raw that I wasn't afraid to try it. I don't really care about dog food studies all that much to be honest. I just want to see the results in front of me and choose what is best for my dogs that way.
 

Shai

& the Muttly Crew
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
6,215
Likes
0
Points
36
#29
I've seen some scary stuff on the other board- dogs whose hair is falling out, hotspots, losing weight rapidly and they get so offended when you suggest that raw might not be the best for their dog at that time. But surely it is.... So and so website says so!
.
I think we can safely disregard the rantings of zealots who ignored what is in front of their eyes when it comes to rationally discussing which type of diet works well. Both the "Dogs are wolves!" folks who seem to think kibble is mined straight from hell and all dogs should eat nothing but freshly killed whole game (or worse, boneless skinless chicken breast) and the "Raw killz!" folks who seem to think all food should be formulated in a petri dish and irradiated. There is a wide range of rational middle ground -- criticizing the extremes is valid, but it just highlights the ridiculous and doesn't really advance anyone's knowledge of beneficial solutions and practical tradeoffs.
 

JacksonsMom

Active Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
8,694
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Maryland
#30
Anyways I feel like with any home prepared diet you need a ton of variety available to feed. I prefer feeding a mixed bag of meals to my dogs because I feel like that reflects their heritage best. But I have no scientific proof only gut feelings. And really that is all there is to go on in regards to dog food these days. No one can definitively say what the best canine diet is.
That's basically me. I kind of just go with my gut and what I feel is right and what I've observed Jackson does best on. It's hard for me to say if he would do better or worse being fed, say... Eukanuba, because I've never fed it. He may as well do just as good on it as he does Acana. And then it's like why am I paying $18.99 for a 5lb bag of food? LOL, but eh... oh well.

I switch kibbles around, and 'experiment' sometimes, and like to give variety. I've fed pre-made raw in the past. I've never noticed any HUGE differences between any foods, minus small things that most normal ppl wouldn't notice (whether poop is bigger or softer, or eyes get a bit more goopy, or breath may have more of a smell to it, or body condition is lacking a bit, etc), but overall he's never done absolutely *horrible* on any food to the point where he's suffering. So I feel for people who have dogs like that and have more of a struggle. If raw is the magic cure for that dog, that's awesome. But I think sometimes dogs with these issues can do fantastic on an RX food from SD or RC too. And too many people come online and read about how AWFUL these foods are and are terrified to put their dogs on an RX food when it could actually save them from some form of suffering. And that's sad. I've seen people make posts about how their vet put their very ill dog on Science Diet prescription food and say the dog has been better and doing great, but they need to change because of what they've read on the internet. That always kind of makes me cringe.
 

Shai

& the Muttly Crew
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
6,215
Likes
0
Points
36
#31
I've never seen a study either, and what convinced me to try raw was the fact that I knew many people who did/do feed their dogs raw and their dogs were doing really well, and it was blatantly obvious that something was amiss with Dance's digestion.
If Dance = Kim then this is also exactly why I finally took the plunge after a year of resistance and research. I was lucky enough to have a pragmatic mentor who had been feeding raw for ten years to bounce questions and ideas off, and provide guidance.
 

Laurelin

I'm All Ears
Joined
Nov 2, 2006
Messages
30,963
Likes
3
Points
0
Age
37
Location
Oklahoma
#32
I think we can safely disregard the rantings of zealots who ignored what is in front of their eyes when it comes to rationally discussing which type of diet works well. Both the "Dogs are wolves!" folks who seem to think kibble is mined straight from hell and all dogs should eat nothing but freshly killed whole game (or worse, boneless skinless chicken breast) and the "Raw killz!" folks who seem to think all food should be formulated in a petri dish and irradiated. There is a wide range of rational middle ground -- criticizing the extremes is valid, but it just highlights the ridiculous and doesn't really advance anyone's knowledge of beneficial solutions and practical tradeoffs.
Maybe because I'd seen it twice recently but I don't see it as just the extremists? This case was a dog that had been switched to raw three weeks prior and went from healthy to having red, swollen and hairless spots. Apparently suggesting taking the dog to the vet and getting bloodwork and in the mean time putting the dog back on food it did well on prior was stupid because I obviously suck as a dog owner because I feed kibble sometimes.
 

~Jessie~

Chihuahua Power!
Joined
Oct 3, 2006
Messages
19,665
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Central Florida
#33
If your dog does terrible on a food (raw, high quality kibble, poor quality kibble, etc), I would never want them to stay on it. If my dogs ended up with bloody stools and hot spots after switching to raw, they would've gone back to kibble.

I think high quality kibble is great- it's so convenient and there are so many brands in many price ranges that can appeal to so many people. I feed it occasionally and feel no guilt whatsoever when I give it to my dogs.

I think ingredients are very important. To me, high quality ingredients speak volumes. For instance:

Boneless chicken*, chicken meal, chicken liver*, whole herring*, boneless turkey*, turkey meal, turkey liver*, whole eggs*, boneless walleye*, whole salmon*, chicken heart*, chicken cartilage*, herring meal, salmon meal, chicken liver oil, red lentils, green peas, green lentils, sun-cured alfalfa, yams*, pea fiber, chickpeas, pumpkin*, butternut squash*, spinach greens*, carrots*, Red Delicious apples*, Bartlett pears*, cranberries*, blueberries*, kelp, licorice root, angelica root, fenugreek, marigold, sweet fennel, peppermint leaf, chamomile, dandelion, summer savory, rosemary, Enterococcus faecium.
I don't think foods like these can be good for dogs long term, no matter how "good" the dog looks on the outside:

Ingredients: Ground yellow corn, meat and bone meal, soybean meal, poultry by-product meal, animal fat (preserved with BHA and citric acid), corn gluten meal, natural flavor, brewers rice, salt, potassium chloride, color added (titanium dioxide, yellow #5, yellow #6, red #40, blue #2), choline chloride, zinc sulfate, vitamin E supplement, ferrous sulfate, zinc oxide, niacin, copper sulfate, vitamin A supplement, biotin, manganous oxide, calcium pantothenate, vitamin B12 supplement, thiamine mononitrate, pyridoxine hydrochloride, menadione sodium bisulfite complex (source of vitamin K activity), riboflavin supplement, sodium selenite, calcium iodate, folic acid, vitamin D3 supplement, cobalt carbonate
I'd use a prescription diet for a VERY short amount of time... but look at the ingredients in Science Diet Joint RX food:

Whole Grain Corn, Chicken By-Product Meal, Flaxseed, Soybean Mill Run, Brewers Rice, Soybean Meal, Pork Fat (preserved with mixed tocopherols and citric acid), Chicken Liver Flavor, Powdered Cellulose, Fish Oil, Lactic Acid, Potassium Chloride, L-Lysine, Calcium Carbonate, Choline Chloride, Iodized Salt, DL-Methionine, Vitamin E Supplement, vitamins (L-Ascorbyl-2-Polyphosphate (source of vitamin C), Vitamin E Supplement, Niacin, Thiamine Mononitrate, Vitamin A Supplement, Calcium Pantothenate, Biotin, Vitamin B12 Supplement, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride, Riboflavin, Folic Acid, Vitamin D3 Supplement), L-Threonine, Taurine, Soy Lecithin, Glucosamine Hydrochloride, minerals (Ferrous Sulfate, Zinc Oxide, Copper Sulfate, Manganous Oxide, Calcium Iodate, Sodium Selenite), L-Tryptophan, L-Carnitine, preserved with Mixed Tocopherols and Citric Acid, Chondroitin Sulfate, Phosphoric Acid, Beta-Carotene, Rosemary Extract.
Yes, dogs are opportunistic carnivores, but I don't think that these foods are good for them as their primary diet. Of course they contain all of the vitamins and minerals that they need according to AFFCO, but common sense and basic knowledge tells me these are terrible foods for dogs.

Dogs can survive on crappy foods, and college students can survive on ramen noodles. I don't think either one is a healthy diet choice.
 
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
6,405
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Minnesota
#34
I guess to me it seems odd to ask for proof that feeding real food is better...it would make more sense to require proof that feeding a wholly manufactured prepared diet is better.
The problem with this is, who is going to fund those studies? And when the dog food company-funded studies are released, are hard-core raw feeders going to believe or disbelieve them, do you think?

No neutral party cares enough to study this stuff, and anyway it's human nature to discount studies that disagree with what you already believe and accept studies that agree with what you already believe (which I saw everywhere the grain digestibility study was discussed.) I would dearly like to see well designed, executed, and analyzed studies about a variety of contentious topics but on the other hand I don't think they would change many people's minds.


And anyway, what I would prefer to see, rather than any studies attempting to prove any diet is "better," is studies that attempt to prove whether any particular diet is harmful. My personal suspicion is that most dogs can thrive on a wide variety of diets, and that while any particular diet may be superior for an individual dog, that there isn't a blanket "better" diet for dogs as a species. I also suspect that for most dogs, even if one diet was "superior" to another, the degree of benefit is probably be negligible most of the time. I think other factors like the amount of exercise a dog gets and staying at a healthy weight have more of an impact than what the exact diet is for most dogs.
 
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
6,405
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Minnesota
#35
Maybe because I'd seen it twice recently but I don't see it as just the extremists? This case was a dog that had been switched to raw three weeks prior and went from healthy to having red, swollen and hairless spots. Apparently suggesting taking the dog to the vet and getting bloodwork and in the mean time putting the dog back on food it did well on prior was stupid because I obviously suck as a dog owner because I feed kibble sometimes.
The dogs were just detoxing, don't you know?

I don't think foods like these can be good for dogs long term, no matter how "good" the dog looks on the outside:
See, this kind of grates on me because you can say it about any diet. I could say "sure, your dog looks good on the outside but that raw diet is nutritionally incomplete and he probably isn't actually healthy." Why is looking good on the outside a good measure of the benefit of a raw diet, but discounted for kibble? That makes no sense to me.

Squash looks good on the outside when he's on raw and Pip looks good on the outside when he eats kibble, and Maisy looks good pretty much no matter what she eats. Why is Squash more legitimately healthy because he's eating raw? I'm not trying to be snotty, I actually completely cannot wrap my head around the logic of it.
 

JacksonsMom

Active Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
8,694
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Maryland
#36
I think ingredients are very important. To me, high quality ingredients speak volumes. For instance:

Boneless chicken*, chicken meal, chicken liver*, whole herring*, boneless turkey*, turkey meal, turkey liver*, whole eggs*, boneless walleye*, whole salmon*, chicken heart*, chicken cartilage*, herring meal, salmon meal, chicken liver oil, red lentils, green peas, green lentils, sun-cured alfalfa, yams*, pea fiber, chickpeas, pumpkin*, butternut squash*, spinach greens*, carrots*, Red Delicious apples*, Bartlett pears*, cranberries*, blueberries*, kelp, licorice root, angelica root, fenugreek, marigold, sweet fennel, peppermint leaf, chamomile, dandelion, summer savory, rosemary, Enterococcus faecium.
Yes, these ingredients look very good. But there is a LOT more to a food than ingredients.

And Jessie, I don't want you to think I'm arguing with just you, lol just using your post as a reference. But this food, with these awesome "sexy" ingredients is made by Champion Pet Foods. Did you know that they actually use lakefish by-products? (which doesn't really bother me, but they're not exactly forthcoming about it). Their dry legumes have somewhere around 25% protein or more and the fresh meat is about 90% water.

Here is info about the by products:
http://www.freshwaterfish.com/system/files/L2PNewsletter Winter 2011.pdf

It appears as though the Freshwater Fish Company used to have their "waste" (minced fish by-products) trucked to a rendering facility. Now they and Champion have an agreement that Champion gets all of it for a large yearly sum.

It appears that Champion has somehow gotten around using the term "by-products" (maybe because the fish is fresh?).

I thought their meat was fit for human consumption, so went to the site to reread. Sure enough, here is what they say:

"All ORIJEN fresh meats (chicken, fish, turkey, eggs) are of table quality and passed fit for human consumption before arriving at Champion.

Our chicken, fish and turkey meals are produced exclusively from animals that are certified as fit for human consumption by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)."

So does that strictly mean they were fit for human consumption "before" they arrived, but have since been separated from the other parts and are now a by-product? It says nothing about if they are "when" they arrive.

I mean, there usually isn't going to be a problem giving by-products to dogs, I just find it odd that Champion is most likely doing this and has gotten around it with different terminology. Freshwater Fish Company does say it is "by-product".
Freshwater Fish is always looking to expand its market
reach and to strengthen existing markets – even non-human
ones!
We recently signed an exclusive arrangement with Albertabased Champion Petfoods, whereby we sell all minced
by-products to them and they in turn buy all the product
we have to offer.
We began working with Champion in 2005 when we
sent them samples of minced by-products for testing after
it was extracted from fish during the filleting process. Prior
to sending the product to Alberta, we had been paying to
have the waste trucked to a rendering facility in Winnipeg.
After the samples were tested by Champion, a product was
developed that met their high quality specifications.
This business brings in several hundred thousand dollars
in revenue for a product that previously cost us money to
dispose of – and we’re thrilled to be building on a relationship
that dates back more than five years.
On October 28 we welcomed Champion Petfoods team members Jeff Johnston (Nutrition, Research and Product
Development Manager) and Andre Minnaar (Quality
Assurance Manager) into the plant so they could conduct
their quality assurance audit and plant tour.
While visiting our facility, Jeff relayed the following
message: “At Champion Petfoods we have been extremely
pleased with the freshness and quality of the raw material we
receive from Freshwater Fish. We are proud to be affiliated
with one of the best sources of raw freshwater fish protein
in the world. Freshwater Fish is one of our key raw material
supply partners and the growth and reputation of our
products is directly related to our high quality raw materials.
Thank you for sustainably harvesting and processing such a
high quality freshwater fish product.â€
We are so proud of this success story and look forward to
working more with Champion Petfoods in the future!
http://www.freshwaterfish.com/system/files/L2PNewsletter Winter 2011.pdf

I think most know about the Australian recall that killed cats a while back, most brushed it off. But if you google you will see that the Australian govt. released documents that Champion knew about the irradiation at least 1 year before the recall. The foods have tested positive for BHA/BTA at Michigan State, and Champion confirmed the findings. However, this WAS about 5 years ago. Acana had an importation ban at least once for salmonella (but this is not something I think is a huge deal personally, but worth noting). Documents produced after the Australian recall named Griffin Industries in Alabama as the source of Chicken Meal (not Canadian, as they state).
http://www.wherearethepetfoodchampions.com/web/Orijen_Recall.html


I've read a lot of iffy things about them. But I still love the way my dog does on Acana, and I feel like there's a lot of companies doing shady things. I just don't like the portrayal of Champion foods as the be-all-end-all of dog foods and used to compare ingredients. Because a lot more goes into a food than a simple ingredient list, ya know? And I used to be a "Champion is THE BEST" person!! lol. And hell, I still feed Acana sometimes. I just think if you research enough, you'll see that alot of these 'holistic' higher end kibble companies are not all their cracked up to be.
 

~Jessie~

Chihuahua Power!
Joined
Oct 3, 2006
Messages
19,665
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Central Florida
#37
The dogs were just detoxing, don't you know?



See, this kind of grates on me because you can say it about any diet. I could say "sure, your dog looks good on the outside but that raw diet is nutritionally incomplete and he probably isn't actually healthy." Why is looking good on the outside a good measure of the benefit of a raw diet, but discounted for kibble? That makes no sense to me.

Squash looks good on the outside when he's on raw and Pip looks good on the outside when he eats kibble, and Maisy looks good pretty much no matter what she eats. Why is Squash more legitimately healthy because he's eating raw? I'm not trying to be snotty, I actually completely cannot wrap my head around the logic of it.
Of course you can say it about any diet. My dogs looked great and shiny on high quality kibble, and I've tried at least 10 different types over the past 8 years. I will stand up for high quality kibble any day.

The changes since they've been on raw have been noticeable too, mainly with Chloe's weight. She was on kibble until she was about 5 years old, and she was always SO skinny. We'd adjust her feedings and she would just poop more.

Every smelly, greasy dog I've encountered has been fed crappy food. If crappy food is powering your body, it only makes sense that you'd see it on the outside.

There is the odd dog who looks fine on crappy kibbles, but I think the majority don't.
 

~Jessie~

Chihuahua Power!
Joined
Oct 3, 2006
Messages
19,665
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Central Florida
#38
Yes, these ingredients look very good. But there is a LOT more to a food than ingredients.

And Jessie, I don't want you to think I'm arguing with just you, lol just using your post as a reference. But this food, with these awesome "sexy" ingredients is made by Champion Pet Foods. Did you know that they actually use lakefish by-products? (which doesn't really bother me, but they're not exactly forthcoming about it). Their dry legumes have somewhere around 25% protein or more and the fresh meat is about 90% water.
Honestly, I haven't been following kibble companies lately. It IS scary trusting your dog's entire diet with one company, especially when companies aren't honest and you have no way of knowing for sure.

I fed Orijen and Acana 4 years ago and my dogs did well on both of them. I've also rotated at that same time with some other brands like Nature's Variety. I don't think Orijen is the god of kibbles- it was just the first kibble that came to mind.

Anyway, high quality kibbles are better than low quality kibbles. I think there's a huge difference between them.
 

Shai

& the Muttly Crew
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
6,215
Likes
0
Points
36
#39
Maybe because I'd seen it twice recently but I don't see it as just the extremists? This case was a dog that had been switched to raw three weeks prior and went from healthy to having red, swollen and hairless spots. Apparently suggesting taking the dog to the vet and getting bloodwork and in the mean time putting the dog back on food it did well on prior was stupid because I obviously suck as a dog owner because I feed kibble sometimes.
See I would consider anyone who saw those symptoms and said "carry on anyway!" to be an extremist because the advice you describe is madness, unless I'm missing some extenuating circumstance.
 

~Jessie~

Chihuahua Power!
Joined
Oct 3, 2006
Messages
19,665
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Central Florida
#40
See I would consider anyone who saw those symptoms and said "carry on anyway!" to be an extremist because the advice you describe is madness, unless I'm missing some extenuating circumstance.
Yeah, that's terrible to make a dog suffer because you want them to be on a raw diet. I couldn't imagine giving someone advice to continue on even though their dog is obviously not doing well on raw.
 

Members online

Top