Melinda Shore wrote:
In article ,
chardonnay9 wrote:
None of what you posted is or ever has been true.

Of course it's true - all anybody has to do is go back and
look at your posts, and the responses to them. It's all
there in ones and zeros.

Nope, it's not. Your imagination is getting out of hand again. That's a
nice way of telling you that you lie.

Dale Atkin wrote:
Chardonnay --- I've been meaning to ask you:

You are a very ardent supporter of raw feeding. You are passionate about.
That much I can tell from your posts.

I'm open to learning, but I need to make sure my data comes from a reputable
source (this doesn't mean some random site off the internet, or some random
book that someone with DVM after their name published).

Can you point me to any peer reviewed research to support any of the claims
you've made re. a raw diet. The problem with testimonials, is that they are
purely anecdotal. For every dog you find me with 'great teeth on a raw
diet', I can find you two more with great teeth on a kibble diet. I'm also
not convinced that wild canids don't have dental problems.

Telling stories isn't enough. I want some real, hard data. If I'm going to
be able to speak intelligently about a raw diet to someone else, it has to
be based on more than just anecdotal evidence.

I've been looking, and have yet to find a really good source.

Can you help me?

I feed raw.

But I don't pretend it cures chicken pox and
cancer like ole Chard does.

There have been some studies done in cats -
although the "major" study was the effects
whole ground rabbit as compared to a high
quality commercial diet, and by "major" I
mean not too many cats, but controlled
conditions. It was done at UC Davis, and the
results were mixed, but really interesting
and I think worth noting. No dramatic
indications towards one way or the other, but
they had a surprise occur well into the
study that taught them something they didn't
previously know...something that I think at
least really helped raw feeders understand
how to properly supplement their cat's food.

I need coffee, and I'm feeling incredibly
lazy, so I'm just sending a link to the
summary on the CFA site. If someone has
pubmed (like a vet student, perhaps ;-) maybe
you could look up the original UC Davis
study. Actually, if you do, I would love a
copy :-)

http://www.cfa.org/articles/health/role-of-diet.html

I need coffee, and I'm feeling incredibly lazy, so I'm just sending a link
to the summary on the CFA site. If someone has pubmed (like a vet student,
perhaps ;-) maybe you could look up the original UC Davis study. Actually,
if you do, I would love a copy :-)

http://www.cfa.org/articles/health/role-of-diet.html

Very intersting article (took a look for the article on CAB Abstracts, no
luck there should be studying for finals, so can't take too long... if you
remind me in a couple weeks, when I'm done exams I'll take another more
detailed look for you (and me).

I would have been very curious to know if the quality of the stool would
have been significantly different between the colonies of they'd wormed the
animals (for those who haven't read the article, they found the stool of the
raw fed cats to be significantly better than the commercial fed cats. Both
colonies of cats had significant, known parasitism going on throughout the
study).

Ok, back to work for me .

Dale

Maybe if people would ask their vets to provide some data, that would
increase the number of samples and provide helpful information.

I think bones undoubtedly have a beneficial impact re. tartar build up
relative to soft food (based on my experience in clinic). Mechanical action
is the best way to clean teeth. A lot of the time this action isn't provided
by soft food or by kibble. (my vet will recommend an occaisional
'recreational bone' for minor cases of dental disease, and it seems to
help).

There definitely seems to be a propensity in smaller breed dogs towards
'pirate mouth' (not sure if this correlates with feeding kibble vs. soft, or
perhaps how often small dogs have their mouths opened? or perhaps simply jaw
conformation?).

Of my two dogs (both more or less exclusively kibble fed, the old one can't
take bones, so neither gets them), one has nearly perfect teeth, the other
has some minor scale build up on one of his molars.

Dale

In article ,
chardonnay9 wrote:

I don't brush any of my pets' teeth and don't have to.
They all have bright pearly whites!

I can say the same, and mine eat commercial dog food (2 dogs eat kibble,
1 eats canned). So your point is........?

--
Janet Boss
www.bestfriendsdogobedience.com

Dale Atkin wrote:
Chardonnay --- I've been meaning to ask you:

You are a very ardent supporter of raw feeding. You are passionate about.
That much I can tell from your posts.

I'm open to learning, but I need to make sure my data comes from a reputable
source (this doesn't mean some random site off the internet, or some random
book that someone with DVM after their name published).

Can you point me to any peer reviewed research to support any of the claims
you've made re. a raw diet. The problem with testimonials, is that they are
purely anecdotal.

Because of the big companies that want to protect their interests do you
really think their studies are the real data?

For every dog you find me with 'great teeth on a raw
diet', I can find you two more with great teeth on a kibble diet. I'm also
not convinced that wild canids don't have dental problems.

Telling stories isn't enough. I want some real, hard data.

Think about it. Who pays for commercial food studies? Those huge
corporations that don't want anyone to switch to something they can't
control. That is the travesty here. Nobody wants to fund studies on raw
feeding.

I know people who have raw fed for 25 years! The groups I'm on have
anecdotal evidence but in such great numbers there can't be denial of
the truth. Anecdotal evidence in huge amounts would not be telling
stories. Because the major companies out there don't support our choice
of food they would be the last to put their food up against raw.

Indeed, studies done on kibble and other commercial foods are most times
only long enough to satisfy AAFCO. Six months, 6 or 8 dogs eating it and
AAFCO is happy. Is that really real hard data?

Look at the pet vaccines out there. The companies that produce them only
study them for very short time periods. It's a blessing to have someone
like Jean Dodds get a grassroots movement together to study long term
effects. Otherwise we'd still be waiting for those corporations to um,
feel as if they need to actually figure out what they are selling.

If I'm going to
be able to speak intelligently about a raw diet to someone else, it has to
be based on more than just anecdotal evidence.

After awhile, after talking to thousands of people who feed like I do it
becomes more than "just anecdotal" evidence.


I've been looking, and have yet to find a really good source.

Can you help me?

I can give you studies that point to the likelihood that raw feeding can
ward off or prevent illness. Until those kibble corps decide to get
honest about nutrition there will be no specifics. They don't want you
to know.


Dale

Dale Atkin wrote:

There definitely seems to be a propensity in smaller breed dogs towards
'pirate mouth'

What is 'pirate mouth'?

Dale Atkin wrote:
I need coffee, and I'm feeling incredibly lazy, so I'm just sending a
link to the summary on the CFA site. If someone has pubmed (like a vet
student, perhaps ;-) maybe you could look up the original UC Davis
study. Actually, if you do, I would love a copy :-)

http://www.cfa.org/articles/health/role-of-diet.html

Very intersting article (took a look for the article on CAB Abstracts,
no luck there should be studying for finals, so can't take too long...
if you remind me in a couple weeks, when I'm done exams I'll take
another more detailed look for you (and me).

I would have been very curious to know if the quality of the stool would
have been significantly different between the colonies of they'd wormed
the animals (for those who haven't read the article, they found the
stool of the raw fed cats to be significantly better than the commercial
fed cats. Both colonies of cats had significant, known parasitism going
on throughout the study).

Ok, back to work for me .

Good question. That's why f someone can get
their paws on the researchers paper, I'd be
thrilled.

I can say from first hand observations, that
the stools in wormed kitties change in
exatcly the way they describe. Its quite a
loverly thing to see (and smell :-)

With that said, the overall health, outside
of coat and stool, wasn't all that different.
I personally would be extremely curious to
find out what commercial food they were
feeding. I *assume* (bad thing to do, and yet
it rarely stops me :-) that it was a canned
food, as kibble is notorious for creating
issues in cats. But no mention of it in the
synopsis, so I have no idea.

Good luck with your studies.

Dale Atkin wrote:
Maybe if people would ask their vets to provide some data, that would
increase the number of samples and provide helpful information.

I think bones undoubtedly have a beneficial impact re. tartar build up
relative to soft food (based on my experience in clinic). Mechanical
action is the best way to clean teeth. A lot of the time this action
isn't provided by soft food or by kibble. (my vet will recommend an
occaisional 'recreational bone' for minor cases of dental disease, and
it seems to help).

There definitely seems to be a propensity in smaller breed dogs towards
'pirate mouth' (not sure if this correlates with feeding kibble vs.
soft, or perhaps how often small dogs have their mouths opened? or
perhaps simply jaw conformation?).

I would put most of my money on genetics.
Breeding for size and coat type is a major
selection criteria. In toy breeds, there are
a lot of breeders that pretty much stop at
those two traits in determining who they breed.

In Chinese Cresteds that if you don't allow
for powederpuffs (IIRC) in litters, you end
up with all toothless dogs (not born, just
ones that lose all of the teeth in their mouths)

When you get pervasive dental issues in
certain breeds, that's when its more helpful
to look at genetics rather than expecting
external factors to be the issue across that
large a number.

There is no one answer, IMO. And no one thing
is going to cure the world of both stink eye
(behavioral....and kinda funny), FIP,
lymphoma, and pancreatitis.

I could be wrong, but its just a guess.

Janet Boss wrote:
In article ,
chardonnay9 wrote:

I don't brush any of my pets' teeth and don't have to.
They all have bright pearly whites!

I can say the same, and mine eat commercial dog food (2 dogs eat kibble,
1 eats canned). So your point is........?


That when its her, it constitutes "proof" and
when its someone she doesn;t agree with, it
constitutes "la la la la la la" (picture
fingers in her ears)