dangers of feeding raw bones

ORIGINAL: Edie

whereas Billinghurst may have been referring to raw meaty bones ?

Yes he was.Rmbs either have enzymes,fatty acids,proteins,vitamins and minerals or they dont!One is right and the other wrong IMHO.

 
the other one is referring to JUST the bone!  NOT meaty bones.   so yeah, they could BOTH be right!  any nutrients are probably in the MEAT on the bone and not the bone itself.

Bones are pure calcium, no?

Mineral. Not vitamin, not protein, not enzyme....

Personally I think every person should know ever aspect of any decision like this.  What one swears by, another swears against.  But it is like this with everything.  I know it was ProHeart6 that killed my Hunter, but others whose dog had no problems is ticked that it was taken off and believe it 100% safe.  Those who had a dog die while on rimadyl curses it, those whose dogs are doing well on it love it and want it for their dog. Those whose dogs had blockage or death due to Greenies will never give another.  But those who have never had a problem will continue to give them.   It is like that with everything.  But I agree with Jaye--everyone should read everything both pro and con before deciding and then go with what your instincts tell you.  Everytime I think about chicken necks, etc for my dogs, I think of that lab puppy with punctured stomache, peritonitis and then death.

I deleted my reply. I couldn't figure out a way to reply without hurting feelings.

Jennie, I have a question for you regarding Emma and the bone problems.When she ate the turkey neck, did she eat it by itself, ie was it turkey neck for a meal with no additional meat?Same for the pork.I'm getting conflicting advice out of the books I'm reading [been switching Mattie to full raw from an only art raw diet / art homecooked and kibble].Some advocate a meal of for instance turkey neck or chicken backs or wings etc for the rmbs, then a meal of muscle meat for the second meal,while others say to never feed boney parts like that without plenty of meat to 'cushion' them.Thats why I'm wondering if she ate them alone, and did that perhaps contributed to her problem?

I don't honestly think that Jaye's intention in posting the link was to cause trouble or to stir the pot.  She is a fairly new dog owner, clearly doing a ton of research and ran across something that she THOT that others would find interesting.
 
In the past this board has had some converts to raw who sooooo reminded me of Born Again Christians and their zeal to share and covert everyone in their path to THEIR way of thinking.  We have many raw feeders now who go about their lives and do their own thing without feeling the need to convert others.  And we have MANY who feed raw and just keep that info to themselves.  We have folks who feed stuff I wouldn't GIVE to the shelters we have folks who are lured into what they THINK is "only the best" for their dogs when it truely isn't and all of us feel the need to defend our OWN position.
 
And, that's fine.  But for the love of heaven, lets do it NICELY without attacking one another.  And, lets respect the choices that others make for their own dogs.

ORIGINAL: ron2

I deleted my reply. I couldn't figure out a way to reply without hurting feelings.

 
luckily i got to read your post in my inbox and i thought it was really great.  sure wish youd reconsider posting it

I actually think my regularly feeding raw bones to my dogs makes them safer. In my experience, it takes time and experience for a dog to learn how to safely eat a bone. It also takes time and regular feeding for the dog to properly induce digestive enzymes to handle bones. When you hear horror stories about dogs and bones, 99% of the time it's a dog who doesn't normally eat them-- trying to swallow them whole, unable to digest them, gobble them down before the owner takes them away, etc. The world is full of bones and dogs will find them and eat them.

When she ate the turkey neck, did she eat it by itself, ie was it turkey neck for a meal with no additional meat?Same for the pork.

The turkey neck was fed with some ground turkey, a good spoonful of pumpkin, and some greens. The pork bone was eaten alone, b/c she wasn't supposed to consume it.

I actually think my regularly feeding raw bones to my dogs makes them safer.

Maybe so, but Emma has been given bones regularly since puppyhood, and has never done well with them. I've continued to try, because I want her to have the good benefits of bones. After our recent bad experience, I've given up. Of course, Emma is a special case. She is not, however, a gulper. She was at one point, and I held the bones and taught her to chew. If she tries to gulp, I take her food. She does not swallow large peices of bone, or of anything else.

But for the love of heaven, lets do it NICELY without attacking one another.  And, lets respect the choices that others make for their own dogs.

Agreed Glenda!
There does NOT always need to be an argument in this discussion.  It is an important discussion since bones are given so frequently. The link was a good one Jaye,,,no matter whether any one WANTS to believe it or not. Its the possibilities that makes the link a good one to read.  And so is this discussion,,,because there are pros and cons to bones and we all should be aware of them,, no matter how ones blood boils!   For instance,,,mudpuppys post is excellent, something that I hadn't thought about.

I think my post was accurate and to the point but it wouldn't decrease the boiling of blood, which normally doesn't concern me. But I think it would have detracted from that actual subject of this discussion. For once, I would like to see the discussion have a lack of acrimony. As Glenda would say, let's do it nicely. This is just a discussion forum and there is no reason for blood to boil. We all have different opinions and experiences and I learn from everyone, somehow, someway.
 
In real life, I can be quite confrontational when needed and have no problem getting right in someone's face. I was raised if I can say something about a person, I can say it to that person.  I just think we can have a mature discussion and realize that not every person will think the same way we do.
 
A kinder, gentler Ron.
 

mudpuppys post is excellent, something that I hadn't thought about.

 
  I agree; and Kelly's observations about the examples on the website were good points too. I agree with Glenda and Ron that it is far more preferable to have these discussions in a civilized manner. The threads accomplish much more when we discuss different points of view in a friendly manner and I, for one, learn a lot from them.

I have a question.....not sure if I am a bit off topic here or not, but the subject of feeding bones made me think of a guy I know who feeds his dog (a Cocker Spaniel) nothing but bones (I am assuming that they're those marrow bones) that he buys from a local meat market.  He states that the bones are his dog's main/only diet.  So, my question is......is this a nutritious enough diet for a dog?  I am just asking because I have no idea, I thought that other foods, whether raw or otherwise, were necessary for proper nutrition.

it really doesnt sound nutritious enough to me.  even if there is meat on the bones he feeds, they need other things in their diet.