Raw food advantages / dangers

On Mar 26, 6:57*am, chardonnay9 wrote:
Paul E. Schoen wrote:
I've been feeding raw beef hearts as well as marrow bones and other raw
bones to Muttley for a while. He really enjoys them and I think it is
healthy and natural. But a friend says that I should cook them to eliminate
the possibility of him getting worms. However, she also gives her dog
cooked chicken bones, so I think her advice is a bit suspect. Also, she
claims that raw beef can make a dog aggressive.

It's a rare thing to get worms from human grade meat these days.
Especially in dogs, the food is digested a lot faster than in humans and
their stomach acid is also stronger.

Anyone that says eating raw would make a dog aggressive hasn't a clue.



I did a little research and came up with some conflicting advice. There are
some that advise feeding raw beef hearts and liver as part of a cure for
heartworms, and others that recommend cooking all meats.

I know several people who have totally raw fed dogs that don't use
heartworm "preventative" at all and have done so for many years, even
here in Florida.

Be careful with the liver though. It can cause loose stools. Balance it
out with some bone, like some beef or pork ribs or some chicken.



http://www.heartwormfree.com/support.htm
http://www.fluther.com/disc/5050/is-...-ground-beef-t...
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_eating_raw_beef_harmful
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/...ticlekey=12322
http://www.animalfood.com/rttinfo.htm

Paul and Muttley

From what I've heard, Cooked bones can splinter and damage a dog's
internal organs. Raw bones should always be supervised. I was also
told by my vet to avoid giving them raw meats.

I've found great resources at: http://www.squidoo.com/My-awesome-animals-1
It lists all the danger food for dogs along with the reasons, it also
lists homemade dog food recipes

In article ,
wrote:
I've found [ ... ]

Uh-huh. Right. "Found."

squidoo is like the internet's whoopee cushion. I've never
seen so much somebody's-gotta-get-rich-recycling-text-bought-
off-ebay-but-it's-probably-not-going-to-be-losers-who-try-
to-do-it-on-squidoo stuff in one place, ever.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community

"Melinda Shore" wrote in message
...
In article
,
wrote:
I've found [ ... ]

Uh-huh. Right. "Found."

squidoo is like the internet's whoopee cushion. I've never
seen so much somebody's-gotta-get-rich-recycling-text-bought-
off-ebay-but-it's-probably-not-going-to-be-losers-who-try-
to-do-it-on-squidoo stuff in one place, ever.

Yeah, I wouldn't trust it. But it does not sound as bad as you claim:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squidoo

But most of the dogpile hits were for GetRichQuick schemes.

Anyway, I already know the danger of cooked bones, and Muttley is doing
fine on mostly kibble, with some human food, and occasonal treats of raw
heart and marrow bones. And I don't think he really needs supervision. He
just gnaws on the bones, and now sometimes he will put them in my hand
expecting me to magically carve out more of the marrow that he can't get
to. But once it's all gone, it's gone. Poor dog thinks I'm a magician...

Paul and Muttley

Paul E. Schoen wrote:
"Melinda Shore" wrote in message
...
In article
,
wrote:
I've found [ ... ]
Uh-huh. Right. "Found."

squidoo is like the internet's whoopee cushion. I've never
seen so much somebody's-gotta-get-rich-recycling-text-bought-
off-ebay-but-it's-probably-not-going-to-be-losers-who-try-
to-do-it-on-squidoo stuff in one place, ever.

Yeah, I wouldn't trust it. But it does not sound as bad as you claim:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squidoo

But most of the dogpile hits were for GetRichQuick schemes.

Anyway, I already know the danger of cooked bones, and Muttley is doing
fine on mostly kibble, with some human food, and occasonal treats of raw
heart and marrow bones. And I don't think he really needs supervision. He
just gnaws on the bones, and now sometimes he will put them in my hand
expecting me to magically carve out more of the marrow that he can't get
to. But once it's all gone, it's gone. Poor dog thinks I'm a magician...

Paul and Muttley



You can pack the bone with something tasty like canned mackeral, the
beef heart, whatever.

wrote:
From what I've heard, Cooked bones can splinter and damage a dog's
internal organs. Raw bones should always be supervised. I was also
told by my vet to avoid giving them raw meats.

Most vets do still say that. Consider several things though. Most vets
sell kibble and getting you to feed something else will hurt his bottom
line. And they are just plain wrong about raw meats. It's the best food
a dog can have.


I've found great resources at: http://www.squidoo.com/My-awesome-animals-1
It lists all the danger food for dogs along with the reasons, it also
lists homemade dog food recipes

Dogs shouldn't have breadcrumbs or any kind of flour. It's not something
they would naturally eat. Anything that's a carb would be a better
definition of what dogs don't need. Cats too!

In article ,
chardonnay9 wrote:
Dogs shouldn't have breadcrumbs or any kind of flour. It's not something
they would naturally eat.

Oh, please. You still can't tell the difference between
"would eat" and "would find in the 'wild'," whatever the
hell is meant by "wild" in the context of domestic animals.
A dog will eat pretty much anything. Whether or not they'd
encounter it in entirely artificial, fabricated situations
is another matter.

Sack of hair, that's how smart you are.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community

On 30 Mar 2009 12:08:30 -0400, (Melinda Shore) wrote:

In article ,
chardonnay9 wrote:
Dogs shouldn't have breadcrumbs or any kind of flour. It's not something
they would naturally eat.

Oh, please. You still can't tell the difference between
"would eat" and "would find in the 'wild'," whatever the
hell is meant by "wild" in the context of domestic animals.
A dog will eat pretty much anything. Whether or not they'd
encounter it in entirely artificial, fabricated situations
is another matter.

Completely setting aside the meaningless, unanswerable question of
what domestic dogs might eat in the wild, just because a dog wouldn't
find a loaf of bread or a bag of flour "in the wild" doesn't mean dogs
shouldn't eat bread. The fact that something isn't found "in the
wild" doesn't make it harmful.

Sack of hair, that's how smart you are.

I think you need to be more specific. For example, I don't believe
that she is as smart as a sack of Siberian husky hair, or a sack of
Border Collie hair.

MS

In article ,
sighthounds & siberians wrote:
Completely setting aside the meaningless, unanswerable question of
what domestic dogs might eat in the wild, just because a dog wouldn't
find a loaf of bread or a bag of flour "in the wild" doesn't mean dogs
shouldn't eat bread. The fact that something isn't found "in the
wild" doesn't make it harmful.

Right - sorry for nerd mode. I was focused on the
structural problems with argument she was making. I agree
that bread isn't inherently harmful, although I wouldn't
feed my dogs a bunch of it.

I think you need to be more specific. For example, I don't believe
that she is as smart as a sack of Siberian husky hair, or a sack of
Border Collie hair.

I think the challenge of finding a type of hair that she is
smarter than looks intimidatingly difficult.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community

"Melinda Shore" wrote in message
...
In article ,
chardonnay9 wrote:
Dogs shouldn't have breadcrumbs or any kind of flour. It's not something
they would naturally eat.

Oh, please. You still can't tell the difference between
"would eat" and "would find in the 'wild'," whatever the
hell is meant by "wild" in the context of domestic animals.
A dog will eat pretty much anything. Whether or not they'd
encounter it in entirely artificial, fabricated situations
is another matter.

AFAIK, the main difference in the digestive and nutrient conversion
processes of carnivores such as dogs, and omnivores, particularly humans,
apes, and Guinea pigs, is the ability to generate their own ascorbic acid,
which is necessary in small amounts to prevent scurvey, and in larger
amounts to facilitate rapid healing. Of course there are herbivores and
omnivores with that ability as well.

But I think the idea of glorifying the perfection of natural diets that
were limited to what was available to animals in the wild, and more recent
processed foods developed by humans, is a fallacy. Various species of
animals developed the ability to survive on what was available, but it does
not mean that even better nutrition cannot be obtained by means of
processing other foods that were not available, or unsuitable for
consumption in their natural state.

My friend is a health food "nut", and he insists that natural, "live" foods
are the only ones that can provide proper nutrition. But he also says that
the only way to extract all the nutrients is to run them through a juicer,
which breaks down all the fibers and allows the body access to everything.
Yet a juicer is certainly a form of unnatural processing.

I agree that many highly processed foods have too many preservatives, and
some ingredients of questionable quality and nutritional value, but
generally a healthy animal's digestive system can break down most foods
into basic components of amino acids, sugars, starches, and fats, and
process them as needed. Of course, the effects of aging and disease, or
genetic defects or allergies, can interfere with this ability, and more
careful choice of diet is required. And a variety of good quality food is
always a good idea.

Paul and Muttley

On 30 Mar 2009 12:47:09 -0400, (Melinda Shore) wrote:

In article ,
sighthounds & siberians wrote:
Completely setting aside the meaningless, unanswerable question of
what domestic dogs might eat in the wild, just because a dog wouldn't
find a loaf of bread or a bag of flour "in the wild" doesn't mean dogs
shouldn't eat bread. The fact that something isn't found "in the
wild" doesn't make it harmful.

Right - sorry for nerd mode. I was focused on the
structural problems with argument she was making. I agree
that bread isn't inherently harmful, although I wouldn't
feed my dogs a bunch of it.

No, I know you weren't saying that it is; but it sure seemed to me as
though that's what chard was saying:

Dogs shouldn't have breadcrumbs or any kind of flour. It's not something
they would naturally eat.

She goes on to say that anything that's a carb is something that dogs
don't need. She ought to tell that to my old husky with kidney
disease.

I think you need to be more specific. For example, I don't believe
that she is as smart as a sack of Siberian husky hair, or a sack of
Border Collie hair.

I think the challenge of finding a type of hair that she is
smarter than looks intimidatingly difficult.

I think she might be as smart as the guy who gave us his greyhound
this weekend.