Raw Has No Nutritional Value?

This is a tricky one for me to talk about as I do not feed raw at all.  However, I most certainly do think raw has a nutrition value.  I mean even if not a person had ever come on this board and said they fed raw and their dogs were going great, I would still have believed it had value. It would h ave to or there would be no meat eating wild animls (wolves, coyotes, fox, lions, tigers, and on and on) alive today.  To me that just makes common sense that raw has to have value.  Unless I totally misunderstand the topic, raw has no value, but cooked does!  Strange, I learned in my 3 years of cooking, and nutrition etc, in high school that cooking DELETES a lot of the value. 
 
What I have learned for sure is that ExpertA says "Dogs have to h ave some grain in their food."  Test prove it.  Then Expert B comes along and says' They don't need grain at all.  They need raw meat." Tests prove it. Then here comes Expert C and he says "Well, tests have shown that raw meat can be dangerous  and grains have no value, so they need canned with cooked meat and no grains."  Then here comes Expert D and he says "Vegetables don't do any good, dogs can't digest them,  but it won't hurt the dogs to eat raw veggies.  However, ....
 
What it boils down to is there are so many " experts" with so many different versions of what is best to feed you dog, how in the blue blazes can you possibily know which is right.  In my opinion each one is saying just what HE believes and it isn't necessarily true that it is proven fact.  And this also includes dog food companies.  Each is going to say their's is "proven" etc, etc.

ORIGINAL: sandra_slayton


What I have learned for sure is that ExpertA says "Dogs have to h ave some grain in their food."  Test prove it.  Then Expert B comes along and says' They don't need grain at all.  They need raw meat." Tests prove it. Then here comes Expert C and he says "Well, tests have shown that raw meat can be dangerous  and grains have no value, so they need canned with cooked meat and no grains."  Then here comes Expert D and he says "Vegetables don't do any good, dogs can't digest them,  but it won't hurt the dogs to eat raw veggies.  However, ....

What it boils down to is there are so many " experts" with so many different versions of what is best to feed you dog, how in the blue blazes can you possibily know which is right......
 

 
Amen to that! I feel like I don't know WHAT to believe. Trying to find the best food possible for my dog has been practically making me pull my hair out! [&:]  Finally this week I've decided to just not worry about it as much. Since there's not much agreement at all in the nutrition area, I'm just going to use my best judgement and cross my fingers. 

Then, I surmised that perhaps diet can affect the immune system, thereby leaving a dog open to inhalant allergies and such. That receive a little better reception. But doctor Pollock is saying that the majority of chronic allergies are food based? Which is it?

Veterinary dermatologists say that inhallant allergies are much more common than food allergies, including the one I take Jessie to who teaches veterinary students at Purdue University;  I think they know more on the subject than Dr.Pollock.  One thing that concerns me sometimes is how often allergies in dogs are blamed on something in the food and how owners will keep changing foods to alleviate the itching. As far as diet goes according to three books I've read by holistic veterinarians as well as numerous articles online and in other publications it is much better for a dog to eat a meat based diet than one with grains as the first ingredient because dogs lack some of the enzymes we have to utilize certain amino acids from grains. They utilize amino acids from meat more readily. I think you've done quite a bit of reading about canine nutrition too and probably know more about that than I do. It just makes sense to feed dogs meat based diets because that's what their bodies are meant to have like it makes sense for us to eat a lot of fruit and vegetables to be healthy.  My thinking on pureed vegetables is that they would probably take the place of the stomach contents of the prey a wild canid ate. As for whether or not that they benefit more from a raw diet and whether or not they need grain I'm as confused as Luvnzus.

But a cooked grain is 90 percent digestible and they don't need the enzyme. I like your idea that pureed vegetables would be similar to stomach contents. The stomach contents of a deer or bison would be mostly grain and grass, though they might also eat wild tubers, or anything they can pick off of a bush. It kind of illustrates a point. Raw is, for a lot of people, a prey model of feeding. They feel their dog should eat as much like a wolf as possible, considering most of us don't let our dogs free-hunt. (I know dingos are a special case).
 
After you consider all the stuff added, including supplements, it bares not much resemblence to an actual kill. And some of the ingredients are more plentiful and varied than they would actually find, hunting in the wild. For most dogs, they would be doing well to catch rodents and squirrels.
 
Once again, I'm not against raw. And all the extra stuff we add in to balance their diet is good, raw or cooked. If my dog could free-hunt, he would be getting all kinds of by-product. With me feeding him, he doesn't get by-product. So, I'm just as guilty of feeding him per what I think is best, whether he could use it, or not.
 
Contrary to the thoughts of Robert K. Wayne, my dog is not a wolf, though descended from wolf like canids. Humans have nearly the same amount of genetic difference from chimpanzees as dogs do from wolves. Are we then, overgrown, relatively hairless bipedal apes (thanks C.S. Lewis)?

Just to clarify - I am under the assumption that those who feed raw in the manner that they are buying raw meat and preparing it themselves, are adding whatever nutrients necessary to make the food complete for a dog's diet.  It's not just throwing a hunk of raw meat into the dish and that's dinner - right?  I am feeding the Nature's Variety Raw Meat medallions, but that has supplemental veggies and vitamins in it already.  I don't have the time to actually homecook/prepare the raw diet - nor would I attempt to without proper research.  If I am wrong about my above assumption, please correct me.   I enjoy all the threads on this forum, but nutrition has been, by far, the most interesting of all, and I just want to make sure I understand what the raw feeders are actually doing.  For example, I know Glenda homecooks, but that's not raw...just curious....Thanks everyone - you're all such a wealth of information and a great daily fix of mine!

Many people actually follow a BARF recipe. It includes raw meat, sometimes on the bone or with ground bone meal and raw, pureed vegetables. Judging by the recipe most use, the prey model would be a kill wherein stomach contents would make up at least half, if not more than half of the meal. Some also add supplements. It has been proven, time and again, through clinical lab tests that raw meat alone, is not a balanced diet for a dog. Meat contains phosphorous and must be balanced by calcium. In reality, cooked vegetables or grains would be closer to partially digested stomach contents, as they are being broken down. The nutrient profile of cooked meat is not that different from raw meat and is easily compensated for with supplements. I, as a human, may be missing certain nutrients in raw meat but I ain't stupid, after a few cases of illness from meat not cooked well enough, to go eat some raw meat. I'll keep cooking my meat and taking the herbal supplement that I do. As for the point that some people make how the human GIT is longer and slower than the dog GIT, I have become sick in less than 12 hours from eating meat that wasn't cooked well enough. Another time, I have eaten rare steak and suffered no problems.
 
Other people feed their dogs raw meaty bones (RMBs) and not much else and seem to be doing okay. Actually, the dog should also be eating organ meat, as it is rich in vitamins and minerals. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest that dogs do well on completely raw, and some scientific evidence to suggest that they don't. Caveat Emptor, buyer beware. You decide what risks are acceptable and what suits your dog best.
 

no one has done any studies as to which "diet" leads to optimal long term health for dogs. Bottom line, dogs are very robust organisms. They can and will survive on pretty much anything you feed them or they can find to eat. Humans too. You have to eat a really unbalanced diet for a long time before any overt illness appears-- so be careful when you try to decide whether your feeding program is actually working for your dog. You may be mistaken and won't find out for another five years.
But use your eyes and nose-- I go to doggy events and gatherings and look at the dogs. And quietly ask questions about their diets. You get so you can tell at a glance and a sniff which dogs are eating grain-based diets and which are eating meat-based diets. I think we can all agree dogs diets should contain more meat than any other kind of ingredient, right?

deer hide contained beta-carotene and potassium and vitamin E

Well, actually, not sure about the other two items (though I could find out pretty easily), but it does contain available vitamin E.  Hide/skin also contains selenium, by the way.  Raw (really raw, fresh off the animal) hide contains much highly digestible material, and dogs can even digest a good deal of hair.  My dogs eat fresh sheep hide complete with wool, and very little is evident on the other side.  If an entire fleece passed through undigested, the dogs would do nothing but poop for the next day!  I recently fed Ben and Doug the Dog a ram with a full fleece that normally weighs in at shearing at four pounds.  Their stools were normal in volume, though wooly, the next day.  []

I have a friend who is a research biologist (PhD) who explored this thoroughly with the intent of turning up deficiencies in the "prey model" diet - and ended up switching hers, about five years ago.  She discovered that there are a balance of necessary nutrients in the appropriate prey (rodents, fowl, and small ruminants for medium sized dogs) and that if fed over time will be absolutely complete by any standard.  Plus, the nutrients are all presented in the most bioavailable form (to our present knowlege).

A small amount of nervous tissue (eye, brain, spinal tissue) will provide massive levels of vitamin B, which is lacking in "just meat" and is the reason for supplementing with grain, usually. It also provides choline and DHA, which I've never seen supplemented in ANY diet, except a very few that include kelp. 

The feet of fowl, waterfowl particularly, contain biotin and folate at high enough levels that just one bite will provide plenty for good health.  They are another source of vitamin B12 and selenium (pigs' feet are another good source of these essential antioxidants).

Heart contains taurine as discussed elsewhere, among other vital nutrients like iron, etc.  Cats consume an entire kill in their natural state, so they are adapted to require a complete nutrient profile at every feeding.  Dogs are opportunistic and are adapted to do well on a diet that is balanced over time - they don't require every nutrient at the exact levels, at every feeding.  I reserve judgment, however, on the highly manipulated breeds - I sometimes think my Crested is something other than a dog!  []  So I am more careful with her.  Most raw feeders offer a variety of offal to provide the micronutrients that are available in these tissues.  Kidney, fresh green tripe, brain (see above), heart, liver, these all are vital in a complete raw diet.  They are generally fed every few days in a prey model approach, or a very small amount daily, and not every item every single time. 

My dog that is most disadvantaged in terms of overall health, and which I am forced to feed almost entirely on the prey model diet, actually looks the most brilliant most of the time.  He's the one a couple vets who didn't know him pegged at seven or eight months old a couple months ago (he's almost ten years old). 

I found it.  Potassium is in the organ meats.  It's easily confirmed via the USDA nutrient profile database (link above).

Gee, feet, eyesballs, spinal stuff---it sounds like the by products are better for the dogs than the parts humans eat.  Maybe the Chinese have something with eating chicken feet and esophagus(?).   I don't think i would care for either of them, but sounds like a good deal for my dogs.

They would both be very good for your dogs!  I forgot trachea which is full of um, chondroitin or glucosamine, or maybe both, I forget.  Anyway, trachea is very good for arthritis.    I don't know what esophagus is supposed to do but maybe it just tastes good. [] Chicken feet feature in genuine Mexican cuisine also - my granddad loved them smoked or bbqed.  They are also popular "down east", a borrowed taste from Gullah cuisine.  It's very easy to find them in groceries in rural areas.

We are a very rich society that has gotten into wasting a lot of the animal.  That's not terrible, I suppose, the by products have created a lot of jobs and given many lower-income people access to cheap dog food with a better balance of nutrition than those dogs got in the past.  I personally prefer to feed those parts fresh, however!! Many of the nutrients in those parts are extremely unstable (Vit E for instance, and Se binds with Ca very easily and would be lost in the heating process).

I think we can all agree dogs diets should contain more meat than any other kind of ingredient, right

 
Yes, I agree with you on that. At the very least, meat should be the first ingredient. I am excluding dogs with kidney problems or meat allergies.
 

HAHA - Sandra - your comment about the Chinese eating chicken feet and esophogus....well, I am Chinese and I grew up around all of that and then some.  I am not the most adventurous eater, I just flat out don't like sea cucumber and chicken feet, but I will watch fear factor and see things that we order in fine restaurants in Hong Kong and WE PAY to eat them.  Crazy huh?
And to agree with Becca, yes, our country (USA) is very rich with our resources, we can afford to waste, and we have, in abundance.  The Chinese ate every part of an animal because they could not afford to waste anything.  They would stretch what they had. We had relatives come from Beijing and we took them to a steak house - imagine their shock when each person had a piece of steak that could feed a whole family when sauteed in tiny strips with veggies.   They couldn't even stomach the amount of meat they had on their plates.  We are so lucky here, our pets eat better than most of the country people in china.  My mom thinks I'm crazy for sending Winston to day camp.  It's a different world here.  I am looking forward to adopting a baby girl from China in the next few years.  My Italian husband and I look forward to having our own kids, but we also want to save one.
SORRY to go off on a tangent....thanks for reading....

It was actually a Chinese girl on another site that told about the chicken feet and esophagus.  It had come up about "junk dog food" that included unfit "trash"  like the feet, etc, and she said that was not unfit trash in China,  but very much desired.  At first i really thought she was teasing, but did some checking, and by gum she is right.  (My Mom was Australian and ate the horrid, nasty, gut wrenching vegemite). It really is strange how different foods are looked upon so different in different countries.  As i child (and didn't know better) I ated scrambled eggs with calf brains.  The thought gags me today.  Yet I love chicken gizzards, lives and hearts, beef liver, tongue, etc.   And that gags other people.  I can't eat meat that isn't cooked almost black and the idea of eating half cooked or raw meat gags me.  But woudln't the world be boring if everyone was just alike.

From the post aboe about the good nutrition in the chicken feet, etc, I would be just happy if they are in my dog food.