My Notes On RAW Feeding

I created this page to provide raw feeding/pet nutrition links that have been helpful to me, as I've undertaken a RAW diet (with great trepidation.).    I am a natural researcher, and I my preference is to follow the 'weight of the evidence' balanced with commonsense.  However, any of us would do well to heed the caution of knowing this:  "we don't know what we don't know".

Unfortunately, for RAW feeding, there is very little evidential matter in the form of clinical studies comparing commercial diets v. RAW diets.  Unless there is a well-funded, organized effort on behalf of RAW feeders, that is unlikely to change. To be sure, there are MANY compelling anecdotal observations (and observations have some credibility).  Nevertheless, there are opinions parading around as facts, facts that are true facts, and regurgitated 'ubiquitous' 'facts' that stray far from their original source it is hard to evaluate their quality.

My goal in my space and my writing is simply to relay the facts of my experience and share with readers who stumble in some of the resources that I used.  And part of relaying that experience includes honesty in my fears about such an undertaking and my processing of the information that I've read (subject to all of MY limitations and qualities).

Discerning the differences among the important stuff and the specious stuff is daunting.  While there is much good information out there, there are FEW places where there is complete and balanced information. But they are there.   Further, there are certain biological imperatives with respect to the building blocks of good nutrition (protein, carbohydrates, fats, vitamins and minerals along with BOTH  minimum requirements and proper proportions) that must harmonize well for organisms to function well.  Over time, there might be irreversible deficiencies discovered.  Irreversible because discovery and correction cannot undo the ill that has been done to either bones and/or organs.

Overall, my conclusions based on my research and limited understanding of what I have read leads me to this:

(1) There is an abundance of self-serving opinions among BOTH  RAW feeders and commercial feeders. Some RAW feeders are rabid in their condemnation of commercial feeding interests.  Let's be reasonable:  feeding RAW is a lifestyle commitment and can be costly, both in dollars, time and unintended consequences, compared to commercial feeding availability that is subjected to some minimum standards.  Like our human food that gets tainted with this and that, it happens in pet food as well.  There is certainly room for better standards and less obfuscation regarding sources of ingredients.  Further, these objections against commercial foods for dogs could also be aimed squarely at the feeding choices that many make for themselves as well as their children.

Accordingly there is much room for transparency and balance in understanding the overall arguments.  Ultimately, it is up to each of us to make INFORMED choices that fit within our competence and budget for our lifestyle choices to include the choices we make on behalf of our pets.

(2) There is a preponderance of  what I would call 'wolf romanticism' that has led to an abundance of so-called facts about the dog's ancestral diet.  I call this romanticism for the following reason:  there are some current studies that suggest that dogs are descendant to a formerly extincted lineage.  You can read about it here and here.  Regardless, there is shared DNA to be sure, just as we have shared DNA with chimps.  There is little battle cry for us to take twigs and ant-fish and banana-eat as well as engage in infanticide of bastard children and other behavior that is part of our ancestral heritage.  With this romanticism there are heart-felt arguments about whether dogs are carnivores, omnivores, or obligate carnivores. I'm confident based on MY observations of many, many dogs that they take scavenging to an art form.  I'm in the omnivore camp, and there are several reputable proponents of that thinking.  Nevertheless, they are still carnivores, but as opportunistic eaters, they have a broad range of choices. Further, as there are biologic imperatives for proteins and fats, it makes sense that such is provided best by animal protein.

In tandem with these arguments (depending on which side one is on!) there exists in many venues, emphatic admonishments that dogs should/should not eat vegetables or fruits.  To my eye, this flies in the face of observable fact as well as research on wolves.  While any is welcome to believe what they like, holding beliefs that are not reconcilable with evidential matter falls into the camp of  questionable reasoning.  My intent is not to impugn any.  Far from it.  Bur rather to encourage more grounded discussions in fact v. emotions.

If one is going to apply narrowly ancestral diet beliefs to dog based on shared DNA, then one must be willing to apply to our own DNA that we share with chimps. If applying the same line of logic doesn't make sense for us v. chimps, then why would it make sense for dogs v. wolves?

Having said all of that, I believe that there is lots of room for improvements in the commercial camp and the RAW camp.  Again that gets me to making INFORMED choices.  Perhaps a diet of 25% fruits/vegetables is not what the ancestral diet is, but if it helps my dogs get the nutrition that they need so long as I provide it in a form they can digest, then where's the quibble?

Now, here is the stuff that scares me about MY undertaking and my attempt to make INFORMED choices:  (Incomplete list.....still in progress)

• Appropriate Calcium to Phosphorus ratios COUPLED with the management of the upper limit of calcium both in absolute percentages to calories and absolute grams

• Based on two diets that I have read suggesting that the 'bulk' of the diet be raw meaty bones (RMB) supplemented (supplemented with fruits/vegetables, offal, liver).   
• Based my lay calculations with available information, diets proposing 80-85% RMBs as the majority of the diet are going to be calcium rich AND be a the upper limit of the Ca:P ratio of 2:1.
• admittedly, 
• it took me many hours to find reasonably reliable information on the Ca:P ratio in bone alone;
• I started out with the 80% RMB based on reliance of what I considered good information.  My research led me to conclude that I was too high.
• I'm still unsure if natural calcium from bone can be better regulated by the dog's system (e.g. use what is needed and flush excess); though have seen information in Steve Brown's work that the natural diet of wolves has far more calcium than current diets.