Do raw fed dogs live longer?

When I got Teenie, I started feeding her good kibble, with RMBs. She dropped years, with the pounds. Her grey hair fell out (a LOT of it did), and was replaced with red hair. She's still a little grey around the lips, but not much. As I replaced kibble with fresh foods, I watched her (and Emma, who is up to 17 pounds and slightly chubby) change, even more. I did have to do a dental, b/c of the huge amount of buildup and a no-no on my part (she cracked a tooth on a Nylabone--- BAD MOMMY!), but.... She looks five years younger than the day I got her. It's amazing. She's not even totally raw fed. She mostly eats cooked food, with Emma, and gets some RMBs.

I also know a GSD mix, who lived to be almost 17 on Ol Roy. His last year of life, he ate chicken, rice, and mixed veggies (with only joint supplements, olive oil, and Pepcid as his supplements). He wasn't incredibly healthy at the end (multiple tumors, rotting teeth, and hip dysplasia, he was also deaf and blind), but he lived 17 years. That's a pretty long life for a dog, who was probably a good 75 pounds when he was healthy. I can't imagine how long he would have lived, fed fresh foods all of his life. His owner now has two yound GSDs and feeds only a cup of kibble a day, per dog. The rest is raw, or cooked, fresh food (mostly raw, b/c she's a vegetarian, and won't cook their meat). It'll be interesting to see if they live longer than Tom did.

It's really funny but I suspect that if the study is ever done, it will be evident that genetics are the #1 factor in longevity.  We can probably all swap equal numbers of Ol Roy versus raw stories, all day long, and end up with about an equal number of amazing stories on each side.  That's the way anecdotal memories work - you really only remember the really extraordinary stuff best - like my forgetting the testimonial of my own dogs - their story is not exactly astounding and seems pretty everyday to me, in fact!

The thing to remember is that the important question is the original one posted - is raw feeding (or holistic feeding) a significant factor in longevity.  And I suspect it is not.  I believe it is a significant factor in quality of life, and may add a year or so, but things like cancers and organ failure and pulmonary disease are all laying in wait in my dogs' DNA, and I'm not confident that my holistic approach will significantly put off any major problems.  I do feel my dog will have an advantage fighting most anything with my holistic approach - I've seen that with my own eyes and so has my vet.  But I feel that it is not a sensible expectation to believe that the cure for every ill lies in what I put in my dogs' bowls.  []

A few years ago I managed to get hold of an old Cavalier book for a couple of weeks. It was written by a prewar English breeder who fed adults and pups on very little more than whole raw herrings for many years. Wish I could remember the names but I can't.
Raw feeding isn't as new as some like to think []

I did try my Cavalier on raw fish....... the 'You must be joking' look was enough, he prefers his fish cooked and his meat raw.

We are what we eat as are our dogs ~ genetics comes into play but the food fed is the most important factor..... as long as the exercise equals the food intake, fat dogs are never going to live as long as they should.

My family raised coonhounds for many years and we feed raw to those coondogs. We had a male that lived to be 19 years old. His name was Sailor. Till this day I feed raw to my animals. And they are health. And I must say that a certain person needs to look a little closer to the BARF/Raw diet. And I must laugh at that statement.

Oh, the things I could say here.....but, I don't feed totally raw so will refrain from commenting. []  But gosh, it's HARD!

I've never fed a raw/BARF diet.  But our Husky/GSD lived to be 17, and Mick is 15 1/2.  As willowchow said, more than food factors into how long a dog lives.  In our case, I think a lot has to do with the fact that our dogs /didn't/don't get leftovers (different than raw/homecooked/BARF), and we didn't/don't allow them to get overweight.

you'd have to do a study to know for sure. My own observation is that dogs fed exclusively on kibble seem in general to show signs of aging and develop age-related diseases at younger ages than dogs that get at least some fresh foods, raw or not. 
 
 

ORIGINAL: brookcove
The thing to remember is that the important question is the original one posted - is raw feeding (or holistic feeding) a significant factor in longevity.  And I suspect it is not.  I believe it is a significant factor in quality of life, and may add a year or so, but things like cancers and organ failure and pulmonary disease are all laying in wait in my dogs' DNA, and I'm not confident that my holistic approach will significantly put off any major problems.  I do feel my dog will have an advantage fighting most anything with my holistic approach - I've seen that with my own eyes and so has my vet.  But I feel that it is not a sensible expectation to believe that the cure for every ill lies in what I put in my dogs' bowls.  []

 
Very well put !  I completely agree with this.

I think the question was asked before if it was known from an actual case study or friends with lab or lab mix owners who's dogs were showing premature signs of aging from eating kibble as opposed to the fountain of youth of raw. I don't know of such a study and was hoping that someone could find one.
 
 
 

Ok I know you guys only want people that have used raw food diet to comment here but I guess I just cannot leave it alone.

All I want to see is that it is marvelous that all these dog's have lived so long on raw or home cooked for but my 10 cents I would like to add in is that I am sure we could pull just as many stories of dog's living past their "life expectancy" on other types of diets as well.

All depends on the dog !!!!

All I want to see is that it is marvelous that all these dog's have lived so long on raw or home cooked for but my 10 cents I would like to add in is that I am sure we could pull just as many stories of dog's living past their "life expectancy" on other types of diets as well.

All depends on the dog !!!!

 
And a number of us have come to that conclusion. But, by all means, when in doubt, get bloodwork done.
 

  Sasha; I appreciate your insight; you said you've worked in the veterinary field and have taken nutrition courses so you definitely have an educated opinion. However the statement you made in your OP about raw having no nutritional value was almost certain to cause a nasty raw versus kibble debate. They have gotten very contentious in the past and I wanted to avoid that so that's why I commented on your OP. I was really hoping for several raw feeders to comment on the effects of a raw diet on the longevity of their dogs whether it be positive or negative but there doesn't seem to be enough raw feeders on this board to get a good consensus. What's interesting is those who have commented have been conservative in their observations of the effects of feeding raw on the health of their dogs.
  Have you seen the thread titled "Raw has no nutritional value?" ? It was started by brookcove and I know that she would love for you to offer your opinions on that thread. []

ORIGINAL: Sasha0999

Working in the veterinary field and the many nutritional courses I have taken I have never seen any kind of proven litterature suggestion a dog to live past his life expectancy because of raw food.

The total opposite is to be said in a sense. Raw food has little to no nutritional value in it...

 
This comes as no surprise.  The dog food industry is in the business of selling food, and the big names in the field (Purina, Iams, Hills, etc.) are they ones who supply the information.  They do the testing, the studies, the research and have for many years supplied the information to Veterinarian schools, canine nutritionist schools, the vet office, etc.  They (the big players) don't want people feeding raw, it cuts into their bottom line.  Therefore many received skewed and biased information.
 
What Sasha is saying is only partly true.  There are many commercial diets being sold that contain raw vegetables. Raw
vegetables are unusable for carnivores.  They cannot breakdown cellulose.  Therefore, one could assert when only giving half the story, raw has little or no nutritional value.  The other half of the story is raw in the true sense of the meaning (meat, fat, blood and bone; natures diet) is more nutritional than kibble food, so much more value there not even in the same ball park.
The irony here is the same folks supplying the information to Sasha who would criticize raw will dream up many ways and skew numbers in there direction justifying the cheaper ingredients in their products.
 
 

This is the reason (witness all people) why I assert, when the canine nutritionist speaks, take it with a grain of salt, and if you see a red-flag pop up in your head, tread carefully.  I personally would be running for the door holding onto my wallet the minute they start talking about alpha sprouts, chicory root, etc,...

I personally would be running for the door holding onto my wallet the minute they start talking about alpha sprouts, chicory root, etc,...

cc;  I think if ingredients like you mentioned are cooked they can be beneficial in a dog's diet in small amounts. I haven't been offering any opinions up to this point because of the purpose of this thread but I disagree with Sasha about raw having no nutritional value;  I don't feed totally raw but Jessie's been getting raw meat with one of her meals for a while. Are you sure raw vegetables are unusable for carnivores? I know dogs lack the enzymes to digest cellulose but I thought if the vegetables were pureed so the cell walls were broken down dogs could digest them.