dog wont eat raw

her theory that evolutionary changes to the digestive tract of domesticated pets compromises their ability to digest raw food

 
The same could be said for humans. We didn't always cook our food. We also didn't live as long. At some point in time, with the mastery of fire, man got to cooking his food and liked it better that way. He wasn't getting as sick as often. Now, a person could eat raw and technically be okay. But I wouldn't try it.
 
Dogs have been with man 100,000 years. That's an archeological fact. I find it hard to believe that in all that time, not once did our ancestors, not once at all, in spite of no written record, give a dog some cooked food. Even cooked leftovers. Evidently, everyone everywhere fed raw all the time in the past 100,000 years, even at - 96 F and we only started feeding kibble (cooked food) through part of the 20 century. And our pets were living 3 to 5 times as long as a wild dog on this evil kibble.
 
As I've always maintained, the study has value, marred only by the inclusion of Dr. Newman's supplements, and before, I have mentioend that, as a disclaimer. Yes, she is trying to make a profit with the supplements, just Ian Billnghurst makes a profit with his book. I would hate to think it's okay for Billinhurst to make a profit from his philosophy and Dr. Newman be discredited because she is trying to make a profit from supplements. I haven't determiined whether or not the use of her supplements undermines the study. I think you could have crumbled in a Centrum vitamin and achieved the same result, so to speak.
 

I for one think its a lot of hog wash. She only done the study for her use (her products). And why didn't she put in her articel what she fed the animals I'm not talking about the 75% meat 25% raw vegetables "recommended at the time", I'm talking step by step of what meat, what veggies nothing was said about fruit. Some dogs and cats can only handle certain veggies. And why was the sixteen dogs and seventeen cats that were fed the high quality commercial dry and/or canned food given supplements. If they were being fed the high quality kibble and can food then they wouldn't have needed the supplements. All this study was for to show how well her supplements did for the dogs and cats. This study was for her benefit.

75% meat 25% raw vegetables

 
A wild dog would be eating everything raw and not have access to Dr. Newman's or anyone else's supplements. So, the dogs in the study were fed a fairly close approximation of a wild dog diet, though they got to eat more often than a wild dog does.
 
I submit that when we started adding a number of vegetables and fruits and supplements, we are straying away from what most wild dogs have access to or appetite for. Secondly, I don't care where you buy your meat from, if it came from a meat plant, there is some cross-contamination. The only way to guarantee non-cross contamination is to hunt your food, ala Ted Nugent, who has not eaten store bought meat since 1969. Even then, you have a host of other issues. For the meat you bring down yourself is not tested for bacteria or parasites. To that end, I know several hunters. They always cook their food. And they never feed their dogs raw, especially their hunting dogs. And it's not always concern over whether or not the dog would learn to munch a kill that it is retrieving, but to keep the dogs healthy.
 
But at least, we have a starting point as far as feeding style studies go, good or bad.
 

Yes, she is trying to make a profit with the supplements, just Ian Billnghurst makes a profit with his book. I would hate to think it's okay for Billinhurst to make a profit from his philosophy and Dr. Newman be discredited because she is trying to make a profit from supplements.

 
Your right Ron!  Most everyone has an agenda  and there is nothing wrong with that either. 
What is happening again is we are picking and choosing the study that we WANT TO BELIEVE!  We must keep an open eye on all studies to be on top of things.
 

And why was the sixteen dogs and seventeen cats that were fed the high quality commercial dry and/or canned food given supplements

 
Linda Arndt who has studied generations of kibble fed large/giant breed dogs says: " there is NO food on the market that is 100% complete!" 
Many, if not all of the suggestions on feeding raw also suggests supplements of some kind.

I've got to agree with luv4gsds here.I think that study was heavily weighted to show her supps in a favorable light, and no info is given on exactly what was fed to the homecooked and raw feeders.Even my son, who is in the 7th grade[just finished a 2 month project where they had to compare studies and results for a science fair project],says he would have failed with a study like that.The only fair way to compare kibble, homecooked and raw diets would be to have the same nutrients in each diet, not one heavily supplemented.Why didn't she add her supplements to the other diets as well? Probably because they were trying to stack the deck in favor of the kibble.
It doesn't say they were trying to copy a wild dog diet , they used a raw diet that was popular at the time.
On the hunting dogs, I know several dozen hunters, [bird dogs] and belong to several hunting dog forums. 95% will not feed raw because they are afraid the dog would try to eat the retrieve.Theres some pretty heavy arguments on some of those boards if its even ok to even give the occasional marrow bone.They are just afraid to give any raw meat whatsoever for that reason, though many of them do add raw eggs to the kibble.On the other hand if you look at foxhound owners over in England, many of them feed the packs raw.

   If we assume for the purposes of discussion that both Dr.Billinghurst and Dr.Newman are geniune in their beliefs about what is best for our pets, the main difference I see between Dr.Billinghurst and Dr.Newman is that Dr. Newman has a PH.D. in animal nutrition and has conducted several years of research concerning commercial, home cooked, and raw diets; I have not been able to find anything specific about any detailed, long term study that Billinghurst has done.

 They are a lot of animal nutritions out there be it kibble, cooked or raw and evey one of them will have different oppinions about kibble, cooked or raw. But raw and cooked diets have been around a lot long then kibble has. As for Dr.Billinghurst he has published three books Give your dog a bone, Grow your pups with bones, and The BARF diet and Dr. Billinghurst is also a animal nutrition and a Australian vet. There also a Australian veterinarian surgeon by the name Tom Lonsdale who has a two books out called Raw Meaty Bones and Work Wonders.
[linkhttp://www.rawmeatybones.com/]http://www.rawmeatybones.com/[/link].
 
Here some information on Dr. Billinghurst
[linkhttp://www.barfworld.com/html/dr_billinghurst/meet.shtml]http://www.barfworld.com/html/dr_billinghurst/meet.shtml[/link]

I truly believe that independent studies are the best, most accurate and unbiased.  When the person/group are out to decided WHICH ONE is really the best and not that a CERTAIN ONE is best,  I think what they find is much more likely to be correct. 
 
Trying different ways of feeding is like visiting several different churches and learning their beliefs, etc, and then deciding for yourself which way you want to go.  But the thing is,  we ALL want the same thing at the end, just taking different roads to get there..  We all want our dogs to be healthy and go the way we feel is best for them.
 
I asked on one of my golden retriever boards how many fed raw wings/necks to their dogs and out of the 17 or so that replied, only one did.  Several of the others said their vets had said NEVER feed chicken bones to their dogs, a couple  just didn't like the idea of chicken bones (but would give the MRB) and others just flat would not give raw anything.  I have not asked on any of my other boards yet.

My dog is the reverse of Jake.
 
My dog came from the shelter.  He was skin and bones and you could feel his spine and ribs.  Now, you think that a starved dog would gooble down any food.  NOT!  He would not eat the Science Diet the shelter had him on and sent home with me.  I said "thats OK I have California Natural at home".  Well he would not eat SD or Calif Natural.  Desparate,  I gave him a MacDonalds quarter pounder which he goobled.  So I figured he survived on bread and he still likes bread.   
 
I tried all the best kibbles, Innova, EVO, Solid Gold, he would not eat any.  I resorted to cooking rice and cooking meat and Heinz gravy mixed on the dry kibbles.  He would pick out the meat and the rice and leave the kibble.  I begged him to eat and stood with him coaxing him to finish.
 
I decided to give raw a try and thats all she wrote.  He LOVES his raw Nature Vaiety patties and now he begs for more after he inhales his raw burger.  And now, his stools are perfect whereas they were runny before.  He has gained about 15 pounds .  

I agree with you, Dyan. And, at least, I finally got a reponse or two on the study, good or bad. Now, if we can raise money for the MS walk, if I can squeeze out a few dollars every week for the Sherman Animal Shelter, if some of people have enough money to sit on the computer half a day and debate, then perhaps, we can squeeze together the money to fund a study. Perhaps, some of our animal science majors here can find out what it takes for a school to apply for a grant to study this. Talk about some worthwhile post-graduate work.
 
Ian Billinghurst has a B.S. of Animal Sciences from an university in Australia and that and whatever board exams, if any, are enough to be a vet, plus I think he is also a surgical vet.
 
In America, a vet is a medical doctor and the amount of education is greater and longer and requires a higher degree than a bachelor's. Billinghurst is a doctor only in Australia, lacking the creds to be a doctor in America. I don't say that to slight him, it's just a fact of life.
 
I would ask luvs4gsds how long their dogs have lived on raw.
 

HELLO! is this thing on I said he was a Australian vet. He must be doing something right has published three books. He has been a vet since 1976.
 
I can tell you how long my dogs have lived but you wouldn't believe me if I told you so why tell you but you seem to really want to know. We had one dog to live to be 19. He was a black & tan coonhound named Salior. My family use to breed coonhounds when I was growing up and yes we fed them raw and no it didn't change nothing about their hunting.
 
And I want to say something for the remark you said about

if some of people have enough money to sit on the computer half a day and debate, then perhaps, we can squeeze together the money to fund a study.

Let me tell you I have a 14 year old son that has all kinds of medical problems from seizures, asthma, brain damage, diabetes, and stomach problems. My husband and I have just spent over $800.00 dollars on just his diabetes supplies alone. Then I have two other kids besides him. So I don't have enough money to set on the computer and debate all day.

  Well I guess it was too good to be true;  can there ever be a raw vs. kibble debate that doesn't turn nasty?

And I want to say something for the remark you said about

 
luv,,, there was nothing said personal here!   Its a great idea.... no one is doing a REAL study, wouldn't it be great if we could get one going!!!

I'm sorry but I'm not here to try and switch everyone here to raw. I'm here the same reason why everyone else is here. I didn't come here to argue either. If I took the post out of contrast then I'm sorry. I'm not a hag that sets at the computer and tries to stir up trouble.

Its a great idea.... no one is doing a REAL study, wouldn't it be great if we could get one going!!!

 
  I agree but it would probably be difficult to get animal science majors to find out how to apply for a grant; papillon806 is the only grad student I'm aware of studying animal nutrition.