Raw meat or Cooked

[Guest ashwoodvale]

im getting 10Ib bags of frozen beef,chicken and tripe for the dogs,its top quality,and was just wondering ,which was best for them,raw or cooked

i mix it with nuts and brown bread aswell

 

 

atb ash

Edited May 12, 2009 by ashwoodvale

[Guest fence_hopper]

im getting 10Ib bags of frozen beef,chicken and tripe fro the dogs,its top quality,and was just wondering ,which was best for them,raw or cooked

i mix it with nuts and brown bread aswell

 

 

atb ash

 

 

raw, long as its been frozen 3 weeks to kill all the nastys worms etc

[craigyboy 1,274]

raw mate all the way and plenty raw bones, chicken wings and breast of lamb,and youl see the benefits in the dogs overall condition

[Guest ashwoodvale]

thanks for the replys guys

[blackpack 70]

raw only mate never cook also raw veg aswell

[jeppi 49]

raw all the way mate

[Attack Fell Terrier 864]

Raw, without fail Raw!!!!!

[sandymere 8,263]

I feed any meat raw for ease but cooking doesn't do any harm in fact, in the main, it allows for very good digestion.

[Rainmaker 7]

I feed any meat raw for ease but cooking doesn't do any harm in fact, in the main, it allows for very good digestion.

 

Do you have a source (i.e. peer reviewed scientific reference) for this hypothesis/statement? I'd argue the exact opposite. For example, cooking meat changes the structure of the proteins, amino acids enzymes etc. Cooked meat is, in fact, carcinogenic! Healthy, energy and life-giving fats are turned to grease as part of the cooking process; not something a dog is geared up to digest naturally. As a consequence, the pancreas is forced to work overtime which weakens the system and facilitates the development of disease. Not to mention, you lose tooth-cleaning ability compared to feeding a whole raw carcass or meaty bones.

 

I know you said you feed raw anyway, but I wanted to add this as bandying around statements like "cooked meat is easier to digest" can lead less knowledgeable people into unhealthy feeding practices.

 

ATB.

[riohog 5,751]

raw meat every time its the natural way

[Attack Fell Terrier 864]

I feed any meat raw for ease but cooking doesn't do any harm in fact, in the main, it allows for very good digestion.

 

Thats true, it doesnt do the dogs any harm, but they don't get the full benefit out of the meat/poultry etc as what ever it is you're cooking will lose nutrients moisture and fat through being cooked.

 

There's no point to cooking a dogs meal, if they've evolved to eat raw meat fat and bone.

[sandymere 8,263]

I feed any meat raw for ease but cooking doesn't do any harm in fact, in the main, it allows for very good digestion.

 

Do you have a source (i.e. peer reviewed scientific reference) for this hypothesis/statement? I'd argue the exact opposite. For example, cooking meat changes the structure of the proteins, amino acids enzymes etc. Cooked meat is, in fact, carcinogenic! Healthy, energy and life-giving fats are turned to grease as part of the cooking process; not something a dog is geared up to digest naturally. As a consequence, the pancreas is forced to work overtime which weakens the system and facilitates the development of disease. Not to mention, you lose tooth-cleaning ability compared to feeding a whole raw carcass or meaty bones.

 

I know you said you feed raw anyway, but I wanted to add this as bandying around statements like "cooked meat is easier to digest" can lead less knowledgeable people into unhealthy feeding practices.

 

ATB.

 

Indeed cooking changes the structure as does digestion, cooking begins the weakening of amino acid bounds so aiding digestion which is just that a process of releasing/breaking bonds of proteins/carbs to a usable form. If you have any "peer reviewed scientific reference" says otherwise post it. Burning food may have a carceniogic risk but if cooking was realy so then why are we all eating cooked food? The pancreas is ,maybe, damaged by high fat intake in dogs and humans which has been suggested as increasing the risk of diabetes but fats, oils etc (lipids) cooked or otherwise are processed into smaller and smaller units by digestion untill absorbable in the same way. Please fats turned to grease? All food has risks cooked, raw, processed unprocessed etc ut diet is about common sense and looking for balence rather than blind belief and remember a little of what you fany does you good.

Edited May 16, 2009 by sandymere

[Rainmaker 7]

Nonsense, tbh. Too much fat is bad for a dog? How high a percentage are we talking, exactly? Raw fat is the optimum energy source for a dog, period. Dogs are not humans, and to equate the two is frankly silly. Dogs have zero requirement for carbohydrate, and fare best on an energy source comprising carcasses (raw meaty bones, organs, fat, skin etc). Even sled dogs today are fed >60% fat in their diets, as it's so calorie dense AND the best source of energy for dogs (i.e. the one their bodies are naturally geared up to use above all others). Dogs are not people. Dogs are carnivores. The Smithsonian and Small Animal Clinical Nutrition (a veterinary textbook) will back up those facts if you care to read it.

 

Cooked food doesn't seem to be doing us much harm? Have you ever compared the studies showing what happens to the population when they switch from a natural, raw based diet to a processed (i.e. prepared and cooked) one? Check out Pottenger's studies, the Hawaiians and Okinawans. Cancer, coronary disease, strokes, diabetes, dental problems... all surface after moving to a Western style cooked diet. In native peoples, such things (from cavities in teeth to cancer) simply don't occur. Even worse for our captive carnivores! The litany of disease facilitated and caused by cooked, grain based, grease soaked processed junk ('pet food') is obscene and the anecdotal and scientific literature backs this up to the hilt.

 

Read "Raw Meaty Bones" by Dr Tom Lonsdale as a first starting point. That has over 300 pages of peer reviewed scientific literature with an appendix half an inch thick of references to back up everything I said. Saves me listing it all here. Check out Sir Frank Colyer's works, Pottenger's peer reviewed and published literature, and even things like Small Animal Clinical Nutrition. All will confirm what I've said as fact.

 

Dogs are not designed to eat cooked foods, period. Dogs (like all predatory carnivores) are designed to eat raw carcasses and the parts thereof. You said this yourself, when you stated that cooking renders (unsuitable) foods into a usable form for the canine carnivorous digestive system (you referenced carbohydrates, for example). The fact they need to be so altered does in itself show it's not a natural foodstuff, and cooking is merely in this sense a facilitator to allowing the use of an un-natural and otherwise useless food item. If you have to cook it half to death (rendering plants spring to mind) to make it useful, what does that tell us? Let alone the fact that a dog fed such foods craps out almost as much as it takes in at the mouth end! No such concerns for a raw fed dog, whose stool volume is not only physically different, but around 1/3 of the volume (i.e. the food actually got digested and utilised).

[dogman27 0]

my dogs have always had raw and plenty of raw bones aswell

[sandymere 8,263]

Lordy here we go again lol. Sorry a little late replying been a little busy but wanted to make time in support of all those who are forced to prefix posts about nutrition with a warning to the raw brigade to lay off.

I’ll go through Rainmakers reply using italics to quote then Ariel for my replies.

 

“Nonsense, tbh. Too much fat is bad for a dog? How high a percentage are we talking, exactly? “ (Rainmaker 09)

 

A quote from Canine and Feline Diabetes Mellitus: Nature or Nurture, Waltham International Science Symposium: Nature, Nurture, and a case for Nutrition. “Extensive pancreatic damage, likely from chronic pancreatitis, causes 28% of canine diabetes cases. Environmental factors such as feeding of high-fat diets are potentially associated with pancreatitis and likely play a role in the development of pancreatitis in diabetic dogs†(Rand, J. et al 2004) .

 

“Raw fat is the optimum energy source for a dog, period. Dogs are not humans, and to equate the two is frankly silly†(Rainmaker 09)

 

Both dogs and humans digest and utilize the three food groups in the same way though there are some minor variance i.e. dogs can utilize lipids (fats) more efficiently than humans but they use the same biochemistry to do so.

 

“ Dogs have zero requirement for carbohydrate†(Rainmaker 09)

 

Please see my posts on carbohydrate management in dogs where I discuss this subject in depth and reach a conclusion that indeed dogs, like humans, can do without carbohydrate in their diet as they, like ourselves, can, in laymen’s terms, change lipids into glucose but this is a slow process whereas feeding appropriate carbohydrate is more efficient. Also, after a lamping session, the stores of glucose may not be re-stocked in time to work again the next day when an animal is just depending solely on the slower fat and protein.

 

“Even sled dogs today are fed >60% fat in their diets, as it's so calorie dense AND the best source of energy for dogs†(Rainmaker 09)

 

Sled dogs are not lurchers and have markedly different nutritional requirements than the lurcher that the post was discussing. We need to feed to requirements i.e. lurchers will do well on a different diet to a working husky, lap dog etc.

 

“ Dogs are carnivores. The Smithsonian and Small Animal Clinical Nutrition (a veterinary textbook) will back up those facts if you care to read it.†(Rainmaker 09)

 

Dogs as with most creatures are able to utilize a variety of food sources, again see my post on carbs, and don’t realy fit into such neat little boxes as carnivores etc but rather are along a continuum from carnivore to herbivore. Humans sit nicely in the middle section as omnivores, most felines way over towards carnivore end and dogs somewhere between these two.

Continuum

 

Carnivores--------feline-----dog------human-------chimp-----------pig------cow--Herbivores

 

Now we need to move away from the child like idea that animals are fixed on this continuum but rather that they can, as food sources become available, move along it. Consider bears as mainly herbivores spending much of their time grazing eating berries etc but during a salmon run will, for a few weeks, depend almost completely on a pure carnivore’s diet. Another would be humans eating a relatively high meat/fat diet in comparison to a chimp that rarely eats meat yet both have the same digestive system. So “Dog are carnivores†is a very simplistic and, in this context, a misleading statement.

 

"Cooked food doesn't seem to be doing us much harm? Have you ever compared the studies showing what happens to the population when they switch from a natural, raw based diet to a processed (i.e. prepared and cooked) one? Check out Pottenger's studies, the Hawaiians and Okinawans". (Rainmaker 09)

 

Again to blame all the ills of an indigenous population when faced with civilization on cooking is frankly naive.

 

“Dogs are not people.†(Rainmaker 09)

 

Remember this statement!

 

“Cancer, coronary disease, strokes, diabetes, dental problems... all surface after moving to a Western style cooked diet. In native peoples, such things (from cavities in teeth to cancer) simply don't occurâ€. (Rainmaker 09)

 

Cancer does occur in all populations and when linked to modern diets are usually linked with high fat/protein diets and obesity rather than anything to do with cooking. You seem to be beginning a rant against civilization and at this point I’m expecting a call for us to all live in yurts on a diet of green lentils to be next lol.

 

“Even worse for our captive carnivores! The litany of disease facilitated and caused by cooked, grain based, grease soaked processed junk ('pet food') is obscene and the anecdotal and scientific literature backs this up to the hilt.†(Rainmaker 09)

 

Where’s that yurt?

 

"Read "Raw Meaty Bones" by Dr Tom Lonsdale as a first starting point. That has over 300 pages of peer reviewed scientific literature with an appendix half an inch thick of references to back up everything I said". (Rainmaker 09)

 

Read the book by Dr Robert Atkins, of Atkins diet fame, it too will be backed up with “an appendix half an inch thick of referencesâ€. An appendix in a book doesn’t mean the information is correct. In both of these cases the books were written to make the authors money not to add to the science of dietetics. You shouldn’t always believe the sales man.

 

“Dogs (like all predatory carnivores) are designed to eat raw carcasses and the parts thereof.

 

I didn’t know they were designed I thought they were moving along an evolutionary pathway.

( Apologies to any creationists, each to their own)

 

You said this yourself, when you stated that cooking renders (unsuitable) foods into a usable form for the canine carnivorous digestive system (you referenced carbohydrates, for example)â€. (Rainmaker 09)

 

Please quote what I say accurately rather than put words in my mouth.

 

“The fact they need to be so altered does in itself show it's not a natural foodstuff, and cooking is merely in this sense a facilitator to allowing the use of an un-natural and otherwise useless food itemâ€. (Rainmaker 09)

 

Not natural lordy where’s that yurt? Natural is a much overestimated state and used term. Anyone who thinks nature is best should try it and will soon be back in their un-natural house with its un-natural utilities etc.

 

"If you have to cook it half to death (rendering plants spring to mind) to make it useful, what does that tell us? Let alone the fact that a dog fed such foods craps out almost as much as it takes in at the mouth end! No such concerns for a raw fed dog, whose stool volume is not only physically different, but around 1/3 of the volume (i.e. the food actually got digested and utilised)". (Rainmaker 09)

 

Back to poo they always fall back on poo. Seems to be a worrying interest in stool volume, I feed a varied diet and don’t seem to have a problem with poo, perhaps I need to develop one lol.

 

Thank you I enjoyed this little chat please feel free to comment, Sandy.

Edited May 19, 2009 by sandymere