Do you use raw food - or have you found it too much hassle?

[loveyouradvice]

Hmm... I've realised that his Lily's kitchen is NOT giving him the best diet and have been reading up on Allaboutdogfood. (Great website!)

Although I love the idea of having all the benefits of raw food, I am a bit concerned it might be quite a hassle

What's your experience?
How have you made your life easier doing it?
What's your least favourite thing about it?

And what do you do when travelling ... my wee fella is a brilliant traveller but would love to take easy food with us - can he switch to freeze dried or something else for a few days?

Or claim to be a proponent of Hil's/RCW? You seem to be struggling with comprehension
Ah yes, when unable to answer a simple question, resort to rudeness/insults.

If you won't accept evidence based, developed by nutritionists, an no risk to public health as sound reasons then I can't help you
On the contrary, if you could provide a good argument as to why the brands sold in vet surgeries (Hills and Royal Canin) are superior and really good for my dog I’d go out now and buy a bag.
As I said, I’m not ‘set’ and always open to persuasion.

If you'd rather feed a diet with no evidence basis and a known public health risk as a protest vote that's up to you.I'm not here to tell you how to think. I assume you're a grown up
I don’t even feed raw! 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Though I do think it’s the healthiest diet for a dog.
But as I said, for the third time now, if it does pose a human health risk that has to be taken very seriously.

Tbh @Veterinari you are in the wrong profession.
Are you sure you aren’t really an MP?
Because you are doing a great job of not offering a proper answer.

It is a simple question and I suspect the reason why you can’t answer it is because you know very well a dog food mostly comprised of maize, wheat, wheat gluten and oats is shit and you know those ingredients are cheap fillers, you know it’s not what dogs were designed to eat and you know it doesn’t support best canine health.

The skeptic in me would say that a food that doesn’t support best canine health is preferable from a business point of view so it makes sense for vets to sell it.
💰

@blowinahoolie you really shouldn't be feeding raw and kibble together, the stomach digests them both completely different and can have detrimental effects on your dog's tummy years down the line.

@Snaplittledragon

Or claim to be a proponent of Hil's/RCW? You seem to be struggling with comprehension Ah yes, when unable to answer a simple question, resort to rudeness/insults.

If you won't accept evidence based, developed by nutritionists, an no risk to public health as sound reasons then I can't help you
On the contrary, if you could provide a good argument as to why the brands sold in vet surgeries (Hills and Royal Canin) are superior and really good for my dog I’d go out now and buy a bag.
As I said, I’m not ‘set’ and always open to persuasion.

If you'd rather feed a diet with no evidence basis and a known public health risk as a protest vote that's up to you.I'm not here to tell you how to think. I assume you're a grown up
I don’t even feed raw! 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Though I do think it’s the healthiest diet for a dog.
But as I said, for the third time now, if it does pose a human health risk that has to be taken very seriously.

Tbh @Veterinari you are in the wrong profession.
Are you sure you aren’t really an MP?
Because you are doing a great job of not offering a proper answer.

It is a simple question and I suspect the reason why you can’t answer it is because you know very well a dog food mostly comprised of maize, wheat, wheat gluten and oats is shit and you know those ingredients are cheap fillers, you know it’s not what dogs were designed to eat and you know it doesn’t support best canine health.

The skeptic in me would say that a food that doesn’t support best canine health is preferable from a business point of view so it makes sense for vets to sell it.
💰

Okey doke. For clarity - what's the actual question you'd like me to answer?

I'm afraid I may have become lost in the convoluted arguments you're attempting to construct

The skeptic in me would say that a food that doesn’t support best canine health is preferable from a business point of view so it makes sense for vets to sell it.

Yep personal insults - lovely

@moosemama

As you’ve probably noticed I am rather on the fence, having fed both raw and kibble at different times.

I will admit that I hadn’t considered raw in terms of wider public health, just mine and my family’s, which I felt we managed last time with fastidious hygiene.

I am still researching what’s available in order to decide what I will feed when we get our next pup and was leaning towards raw, but now I have a question. Actually, I feel like every time I get close to making a decision about which direction to go I find there are yet more questions. I have had dogs for over 30 years and am constantly learning, so I really feel for first time owners trying to work out what to feed their dog.

Veterinari do you think the complete foods that are regulated by DEFRA and PFMA and have each batch fully tested against Enterobacteriaceae-Salmonella and Ecoli are as much of a risk as DIY raw?

I have looked at LOTS of complete raw food company websites over the past few weeks (as well as websites for cooked complete, kibble and dehydrated) and was surprised how few have their testing and certification easily accessible so you genuinely know what you’re getting. I thought I’d finally found one that looked good, with every batch tested against the above. So I’d be interested to know if the batch testing genuinely makes any difference to the safety of their product or if I am back to the drawing board and need to have a rethink.

Veterinari do you think the complete foods that are regulated by DEFRA and PFMA and have each batch fully tested against Enterobacteriaceae-Salmonella and Ecoli are as much of a risk as DIY raw?

Great question

It's tricky to answer because I'm neither a nutritionist nor a public health expert. But my understanding is that all of the research to date and public health concerns have arisen from commercially available raw pet foods sold legally. It's also worth noting that whilst batch testing helps to identify batches contaminated with some pathogens, there is no mandatory batch testing for other pathogens eg campylobacter

If you read through the links I posted below, certainly commercially available raw foods are sources of pathogenic bacteria and parasites, as any meat is, and like any raw meat product there will always be some risk

Tuberculosis outbreaks in cats were certainly traced back to commercial raw foods icatcare.org/tb-in-uk-cats-fed-a-commercial-raw-food-diet/

Why are Hills and Royal Canin so heavily promoted when they're consistently shown to be of poor quality and full of fillers such as maize and oats?

Is it because it's undergone certain tests that other brands haven't gone through and so vets are "safe" to promote them?

Whenever you look on comparison sites for dog food, both brands consistently rank very poorly for both nutrition and value for money.

Okey doke. For clarity - what's the actual question you'd like me to answer?

The dry food for healthy adult dogs sold by vets is almost always Hills science diet or Royal Canin, as the ingredients in those foods appear to be very cheap with very little meat can you explain why a general dry adult food by Hills science diet or Royal Canin is superior to another brand with apparently higher quality ingredients (E.g. crave, Applaws, Millie’s etc)?

And if it isn’t superior to another brand and is indeed a poor quality food can you explain why the vast majority of vets sell it and recommend it?

Thank you Veterinari.

I will have a read of the links tomorrow.

I’m genuinely wanting to weigh up the pros and cons of each option, but being ‘like Brexit’ as someone said upthread, people tend to be evangelistic about their favoured option and gloss over the potential problems. It’s not always easy to find the important information you really need to make an informed choice.

It actually makes more sense to me now, as thinking back we were told not to feed our boy raw when he was on Pred and Atopica for IMT. We weren’t feeding raw anyway, so I didn’t really think much more about it at the time, but obviously, being immune compromised, he would have been at serious risk from any pathogens.

As I said, I was aware of the necessity for scrupulous hygiene around the food, but not that dogs can then be carriers/shedders. Having had a rescue pup who came to us as a very poorly boy and had to be nursed through campylobacter, resulting in him missing all his critical socialisation (same dog that eventually developed IMT actually), you’ve definitely given me food for thought. (Excuse the pun!)

can you explain why a general dry adult food by Hills science diet or Royal Canin is superior to another brand with apparently higher quality ingredients (E.g. crave, Applaws, Millie’s etc)?

No, as already stated, I've not recommended these brands nor stated these are superior - you seem to be asking me to defend a position I've never stated

And if it isn’t superior to another brand and is indeed a poor quality food can you explain why the vast majority of vets sell it and recommend it?

Asked and answered to the best of my ability already - see post at 22.43

Btw 'not superior' is not the same as 'poor quality'.

As already stated if you're expecting me to have insight into the business practices of every UK vet clinic, you need to adjust your expectations

Could you answer my question up thread please @Veterinari

@moosemama

Thank you Veterinari.

I will have a read of the links tomorrow.

I’m genuinely wanting to weigh up the pros and cons of each option, but being ‘like Brexit’ as someone said upthread, people tend to be evangelistic about their favoured option and gloss over the potential problems. It’s not always easy to find the important information you really need to make an informed choice.

It actually makes more sense to me now, as thinking back we were told not to feed our boy raw when he was on Pred and Atopica for IMT. We weren’t feeding raw anyway, so I didn’t really think much more about it at the time, but obviously, being immune compromised, he would have been at serious risk from any pathogens.

As I said, I was aware of the necessity for scrupulous hygiene around the food, but not that dogs can then be carriers/shedders. Having had a rescue pup who came to us as a very poorly boy and had to be nursed through campylobacter, resulting in him missing all his critical socialisation (same dog that eventually developed IMT actually), you’ve definitely given me food for thought. (Excuse the pun!)

Yep totally agree - as you can see from this thread posters are asking me to defend specific pet food brands that I have not personally recommended on this thread. Because obvs as a vet raising calud public health concerns, I must be in the payroll of 'big pet food'

Obviously If I'm raising valid scientific concerns, then I must also be getting paid by pet food companies that I've never actually recommended

There're definitely no balanced reasonable middle ground

One thing you might want to look at is something like butter box I have no personal experience of it and no, they don't pay me but they're a cooked whole food dog food supplier. So you get the home keep/whole food idea but it's nutritionally balanced and the cooking eliminates the public health concerns.

@raspberrysundaes

Why are Hills and Royal Canin so heavily promoted when they're consistently shown to be of poor quality and full of fillers such as maize and oats?

Is it because it's undergone certain tests that other brands haven't gone through and so vets are "safe" to promote them?

Whenever you look on comparison sites for dog food, both brands consistently rank very poorly for both nutrition and value for money.

Heavily promoted by whom? The companies that make them? I assume to make money - like in any business..

Isn't that why any business advertises - I'm not really a marketing specialist

@raspberrysundaes

Could you answer my question up thread please *@Veterinari*

I really do think that many pet owners on this thread have totally mismatched expectations of the connections between vets and pet food manufacturers/advertising

No - I want to know why both Hills and Royal Canin are recommended and stocked by vet practises up and down the country?

Is there a reason why the vast majority of vets feel able to recommend those brands above other commercial foods?

Especially when both brands consistently do very badly on comparison websites when it comes to nutrition levels?

@raspberrysundaes

No - I want to know why both Hills and Royal Canin are recommended and stocked by vet practises up and down the country?

Is there a reason why the vast majority of vets feel able to recommend those brands above other commercial foods?

Especially when both brands consistently do very badly on comparison websites when it comes to nutrition levels?

Answered at 22.43. RTFT

I'm not talking about how individual companies advertise

Vets up and down the country stock Hills and Royal Canin - but why? They don't rank well when it comes to value for money OR nutrition so what's the reason for vet practises to stock them?

Why don't they stock other brands instead? Surely you can see why people think money comes into it!

That doesn't really answer my question, though.

Why are poor quality foods sold by vets if not to make them money?

I'm not talking about prescription foods either - unless that means something different to you?

I'm wondering why a vet practises would recommend that a healthy dog with no underlying issues be fed such a poor diet?

@raspberrysundaes

That doesn't really answer my question, though.

Why are poor quality foods sold by vets if not to make them money?

Because they're only poor quality in your opinion. Not in the opinions of the expert nutritionists that formulate the diets so I expect that aspect is relative. What is your nutritional expertise?

Almost no one except for people needing prescription diets buy their foods from the vet. Prescription diets are specifically formulated to meet medical needs. Vets recommend them because they are supported by clinical evidence. Thus vets stock prescription diets because that is what clients need.

I'm not sure what your rationale is for suggesting prescription diets don't work or are poor quality - please share it..,

@raspberrysundaes

I'm not talking about prescription foods either - unless that means something different to you?

I'm wondering why a vet practises would recommend that a healthy dog with no underlying issues be fed such a poor diet?

I think you need to provide your evidence that suggests clinically proven prescription diets don't work.

Otherwise you're asking me to argue against a fluctuating personal opinion based on nothing.

For dog owners worried about protein or that dogs should eat like wolves - they don't:
We performed diet selection studies in 5 breeds of adult dog ( Canis lupus familiaris ) to determine whether these domesticated carnivores regulate macronutrient intake. Using nutritional geometry, we show that the macronutrient content of the diet was regulated to a protein:fat:carbohydrate ratio of approximately 30%:63%:7% by energy, a value that was remarkably similar across breeds.

academic.oup.com/beheco/article/24/1/293/2262442?login=true

Up to 30% protein is a dog's normal intake

For anyone considering raw feeding have a look at the facebook page called BARF UK. It has lots of useful info on there and advice re how to start your dog on a raw diet without having poorly tummies etc. Also has guides on how much you expect to feed a dog depending on their weight and health situation. I have found the admins on there to be very helpful when moving my dogs over to raw.
Also look at the websites for The Dogs Butcher and Paleo Ridge to get ideas of how raw can be presented to dogs and the costs etc
The dogs can be offered ‘complete’ meals or you can diy with chunks or even go the whole prey model.
I would not try to convince anyone to feed raw or tinned or kibble but to do their research and see what suits their own dogs and own lifestyle the best. But be warned. Raw feeding can become addictive! There is nothing like seeing the faces of your dogs bouncing with excitement and what food they are getting today! We vary the food -they have completes some days and chunks /offal/bones other days. Supplemented with raw sprats and eggs and rabbits ears etc as treats in the week. The bowls are always licked clean. Teeth are gleaming. Poops are small. Dogs are happy. Never bored with their food!

Thanks again. I have looked at Butternut Box, as well as Different Dog and a couple of other complete, cooked, frozen foods. I think of the two I’d probably go for Different Dog, as Butternut seem a bit lentil heavy.

The other thing I still have to sort out in my own head is the whole grain free thing, as I think every brand I’ve looked at is grain free, but I know there has been some research done to suggest completely grain free isn’t good for dogs. I have some info around that bookmarked ready to read, but I’ll probably still end up tying myself in knots about it!

I fed my dog raw from around 6 months as everything else made her very ill. She lived to 11 years old and although not perfectly healthy she would have suffered a huge amount if she'd had commercial food - to the extent where we probably have had her PTS.

Needs a big freezer and remembering to get the next batch out on schedule. Holidays weren't a problem. Just take a big cooler box with plenty of cool packs. Most of the food should stay completely frozen until you get it to the destination freezer. Use the outside slightly defrosted food first.

@Veterinari so are you telling me that if I walked into your vets practice tomorrow I wouldn't find a display of specific brands of dog food? Because if there is such a display you cannot pretend your practice isn't promoting those specific foods!!! You might not be saying to every client you must buy this food but by having any association with any food brands you are promoting them. And I'm afraid I find it extremely hard to believe that there isn't some form of benefit for the practice by having such a display - monetary or otherwise. Or else why would you have it.
Isn't it also true that the small amount of nutrition training vets do receive whilst training is provided by dog food manufacturers themselves? Hardly an unbiased source!
Much of the research carried out on dog food has been done by the manufacturers themselves. So again it's hardly unbiased research.
The websites that are giving good quality and well researched advice from independent nutritionists all rate the dog foods that vets sell very badly.