raw foods: I want to know if any of the raw food advocates can find actual scientific evidence from studies which proves that feeding a raw diet is better for dogs than feeding high-quality kibble? I'm asking for actual research studies with the information from reputable universities, etc. I don't want any hearsay. I want real, documented facts. If you can provide it, I'll stop telling people not to feed raw. But I'm still not feeding it to my dogs.|||Check with Cornell Unv. and their canine nutrition reports...several yrs ago now they did not feel any food on the market was good for a dog based on wild dog eating habits and lab results from testing....|||Hi there... Unfortunately, actual scientific evidence that raw feeding is better than kibble does not exist. Very few, if any, studies have been done on the subject of raw feeding dogs. If you think about it, who would fund such studies? certainly not the dog food companies. If studies were done and they showed conclusively that raw WAS healthier in the long term, could you imagine (in terms of profits especially) the deep trouble the food companies would be in... IMO, you shouldn't be telling people not to feed raw as it is entirely their own choice. I personally feed partly raw and my dogs enjoy the benefits. I aim for half raw/half kibble as I like the convenience of kibble but also appreciate the benefits of raw...as a result, my dogs teeth are dazzling, their poops are less frequent, they hardly smell doggy at all and most importantly, they LOVE their meals (even my two fussy eaters eat with enthusiasm) and they are getting food that is biologically appropriate for them. Trickster|||As someone has said, who is going to fund this? Certainly not the dog food manufacturers, that's for sure. The only evidence you are going to get is anecdotal. (Like my dogs fed raw for 13 years.........no illnesses whatsoever in that time.) But since dogs have *exactly* the same digestive system as the wolf and wild dog, it surely follows that a raw diet is the best? Dogs fed raw have a high immune system, and don't fall ill with salmonella, etc., and therefore it is safe to feed raw meat. I personally would be interested in scientific evidence to show that kibble is better than raw. Considering that the dog food manufacturers have had years to perfect their food, why can't they get it right? Why are foods being recalled because they are *killing* dogs with kidney failure? It's your decision whether you don't feed raw or not. As for your decision to tell people *not* to feed raw....where is *your* evidence? The evidence that ordinary people have is in front of their eyes........bad teeth, smelly coat, skin problems, allergies, hot spots, arthritis, etc., etc. If anyone wants to know how to feed a balanced raw diet, you will be made welcome on the list below.|||The BARF or 'Raw foods' diet isn’t as good as most advocates claim it is. It is however better than ALL dry food you can buy at wal-mart or other similar stores. Wal-mart bought food isn’t human grade, so it is often made with spoiled meat, dead on arrival animals, and always from the scraps left over (example: snout, hooves, etc). By feeding your dog Fresh foods they contain more nutrients than Kibble. There are Plenty of Human grade dry dog foods out there that are more nutritionally sound than raw food, but they still don’t offer the variety of a raw diet (assuming you do rotate what you feed). BARF carries some risks of it own, like salmonella that you don’t hear about. I can do the exact same study and come up with as many different answers as I hire scientists to read the data, so Studies won’t help you here. Just go with the basics that have been proven: Processed food is worse for you than fresh Home grown is better than store bought Anything frozen, thawed, and cooked will lose nutrients. So for Maximum “nutritional” value a freshly killed farm raised, hand feed, cow eaten raw will have the most nutrients. Does this mean its better for you…..Maybe? It just has the potential for being better. I would rather lose a small amount of “nutrients” (that really wont matter at the end of the day) for the benefits of time, effort, and energy it would take to gain a handful of vitamins by eating raw.|||Hi, I switched my 11 year old girl over. Her teeth actually become totally white, her gums stopped bleeding, her fur become softer and her dandruff went away, and she became as energetic as she had been five years before. I also feed by puppies BARF and they have never had any health issues at all. I guess scientifically I;m not prepared to answer, however, what is right about ground up food, that has fillers, often times by products, preservitives, all ground up, baked, stored in a bag in a wharehouse for how long? then on a store shelf for how long? that just isn't the way dogs or cats were intended to eat, by nature!|||Joseph Wakshlag, professor of clinical nutrition at Cornell University's College of Veterinary Medicine in Ithaca, N.Y., was cited as saying that uncooked meat can harbor harmful bacteria, such as salmonella, and for that reason, veterinarians usually don't advocate a raw food diet. Wakshlag was further cited as saying he's aware of only one study that analyzed the pros and cons of feeding dogs a raw food diet. And that study concluded that "fresh diets are pretty much OK." Ultimately, it's up to the owner to decide what to feed a pet. If raw diets were proven better and commercial diets were proven harmful, there would be a tremendous backlash against the pet food industries and the veterinary profession that is so entrenched with it. Legal rammifications would be a highly probable option: people suing vets for recommending a product that harms their pets; people suing the pet food companies for creating a harmful product without warning consumers of its dangers, for falsely advertising that product as healthy, and for lying and covering up the information that indicated otherwise; and vets suing the universities for providing an inadequate, faulty education. Thousands of people would be laid off, a multi-billion dollar industry would crumble, hundreds of veterinarians would find themselves jobless, and society would no longer have an 'acceptable' outlet for disposing of its dead, dying, and diseased meat, its grain waste, and the some 40% of euthanized pets that find their way into rendering plants and kibble, barbituates and all (Lonsdale, T. 2001. Raw Meaty Bones.; Martin, A. Foods Pets Die For.). All of this is what they have to lose if the results of a raw diet study reflect unfavorably on commercial foods. Can one see the incentive in never performing or publishing a proper study that objectively looks at raw diets and their effects on the overall health of the dog? Now, since you carry the title of Top Expert... Why don't you do a little research and read some literature on this matter? www.rawmeatybones.com www.rawfed.com/myths www.rawlearning.com|||I ask you to follow the same challange. Find real scientic proof it is better to feed them high quality kibble that has been processed with preservatives. Anyway here is a website that compared KIBBLE since that is what you feel you should feed your dog. Read the first page where it states raw is better, then you can compare kibble to your hearts content.