So i have been thinking about a raw diet, so i am not saying this to refute the premise. However, i do find it interesting how in any topic found on the internet, there is an extreme certainty by which things are said. This is quite apparent regarding the raw diet crowd and the kibbel crowd, and there truly seems to be a stark dichotomy between the two (although there are alot of people that have commented on this post asking about a combination of the two).

the principle tenet of this food regiment is that dogs are carnivorous and not omnivorous and therefore cannot process carbohydrates. however, a nature paper (Axelsson et al, 2013) just came out which indicates that dogs have evolved mechanisms specifically TO digest carbohydrates early in the the domestication process. Infact, it is even suggested that these mutations are contributing factors to the domestication process.

another thing i would like to mention is regarding the literature on feeding yams, sweet potatoes, etc. i have also read articles indicating that these foods are good for BM's. i believe this, and i would like to compare it to lettuce and other indigestible carbohydrates in humans. We, as humans CANNOT digest lettuce, yet it acts as an important regulator of bowel movements by controlling water content. It is likely that this undigestible portion of food, (e.g. the bones in the raw diet) is what is necessary for adequate BM texture. therefore, why would yams, sweet potatoes, etc not perform the same function as bones in the raw diet.

another aspect of the debate that intrigues me is the debate over feeding your dog bones. I understand that feeding cooked bones is extremely dangerous and almost EVERYONE agrees with this. But it has been stated on many occasions that even raw bones that are ingested can be hazardous, can cause splintering, lodging, etc. How do you feel about this debate?

I think what i am getting out of the literature is that it is not so much an aspect of the raw diet, but an aspect of removing the artificial from our animals lives. Kibbel contains dyes, flavorings, vitamin salts (instead of natural vitamins), and fillers, and it seems to me that the artificial is what we need to get away from. Even in humans there is a monstrous push to get away from the fake, the processed, etc and that is because we are beginning to see significant health declines associated with this. and furthermore, it seems like variety is what is essential, just like in a humans diet.

that is just my two cents and any discussion based off this is both highly welcome and encouraged. i don't do this to discredit the theory, but merely to play devils advocate and understand the full extent of everything, learn as much as i can, and stimulate as much conversation and knowledge sharing as possible.

the principle tenet of this food regiment is that dogs are carnivorous and not omnivorous and therefore cannot process carbohydrates. however, a nature paper (Axelsson et al, 2013) just came out which indicates that dogs have evolved mechanisms specifically TO digest carbohydrates early in the the domestication process. Infact, it is even suggested that these mutations are contributing factors to the domestication process.

They still lack amylase, regardless of what scientific finding have been constructed by large scale corporations. Amylase is located in the saliva of omnivores (humans) and breaks down starch so it is more digestible.

another thing i would like to mention is regarding the literature on feeding yams, sweet potatoes, etc. i have also read articles indicating that these foods are good for BM's. i believe this, and i would like to compare it to lettuce and other indigestible carbohydrates in humans. We, as humans CANNOT digest lettuce, yet it acts as an important regulator of bowel movements by controlling water content. It is likely that this undigestible portion of food, (e.g. the bones in the raw diet) is what is necessary for adequate BM texture. therefore, why would yams, sweet potatoes, etc not perform the same function as bones in the raw diet.

It is a different function. Yes, yams, sweet potatoes and pumpkin firm the bowel, but they also make it bigger in mass. Bone is not the same, the bone does not add mass to the stool, it simply firms it. If comparing stool that is an all muscle meat meal to a bone-muscle meat meal you will see a dark color and likely anything else, because the body fully digests it. If you continue to feed muscle meats and organs only, stool will become loose because that biding agent is missing. This is because of calcium. A good calcium rich diet will have nice, formed stools. Bone is adding nutrients and ultimately curing the problem, starches just patch it up. Like a bandaid.

another aspect of the debate that intrigues me is the debate over feeding your dog bones. I understand that feeding cooked bones is extremely dangerous and almost EVERYONE agrees with this. But it has been stated on many occasions that even raw bones that are ingested can be hazardous, can cause splintering, lodging, etc. How do you feel about this debate?

It depends on the bone. I don't feed weight bearing bones and I don't feed turkey bones aside from necks, they are sharp. But the majority of poultry bones and fish bones are completely digestible and even pliable. If you aren't sure about feeding whole bones, feed ground bone-mixes.

I think what i am getting out of the literature is that it is not so much an aspect of the raw diet, but an aspect of removing the artificial from our animals lives. Kibbel contains dyes, flavorings, vitamin salts (instead of natural vitamins), and fillers, and it seems to me that the artificial is what we need to get away from. Even in humans there is a monstrous push to get away from the fake, the processed, etc and that is because we are beginning to see significant health declines associated with this. and furthermore, it seems like variety is what is essential, just like in a humans diet.

that is just my two cents and any discussion based off this is both highly welcome and encouraged. i don't do this to discredit the theory, but merely to play devils advocate and understand the full extent of everything, learn as much as i can, and stimulate as much conversation and knowledge sharing as possible.

Feel free to state your opinion, it is always welcome. I hope what I said helps.

Well they do have amylase, just not in their saliva. their is still amylase present in the pancreas.

would food with higher than normal calcium (e.g. salmon, sardines) be sufficient.

Who Salmon & Sardines? Maybe. But, be careful feeding large amounts of fish. I am still cautious about mercury in foods.

Correct about the amylase, but it is my understanding that causing the pancreas to overwork in the production of amylase increases the risk of pancreatitis. Just a thought?

I think Megan covered the other points well enough I won't rehash that.

LoveMyBrat wrote:

I think what i am getting out of the literature is that it is not so much an aspect of the raw diet, but an aspect of removing the artificial from our animals lives. Kibbel contains dyes, flavorings, vitamin salts (instead of natural vitamins), and fillers, and it seems to me that the artificial is what we need to get away from. Even in humans there is a monstrous push to get away from the fake, the processed, etc and that is because we are beginning to see significant health declines associated with this. and furthermore, it seems like variety is what is essential, just like in a humans diet.

Since this was not addressed, I will comment. Feeding raw is far more than just getting away from artificial ingredients that are not necessary or healthy. Feeding raw is also about feeding a dog what it is biologically (and therefore best) made to eat at. Their bodies are made to eat raw meat and can digest it more fully and faster than kibble. Not to mention that raw meat contains more nutrients compared to kibble which has the nutrients cooked out of it and then artificially added back in a form not as easily absorbed.

If it were just about no additives then an identical raw and homecooked diet (assume said homecooked diet replaces raw bone with powdered bone meal) would be equally healthy, right? But they're not, raw will always be the healthier, more nutritious option because nutrients are present in their natural, unaltered state. Sure the homecooked diet is free of artificial additives and is still an excellent diet and very healthy, but cooking destroys nutrients and therefore will never be as good as it's otherwise equal raw counterpart.

And I get how you feel about the two camps, raw versus kibble. I strongly believe in raw feeding but I also feel that other options be it kibble, canned, dehydrated/freeze dried raw, and home cooked all have their place. FWIW, I personally believe a prey model raw diet is the absolute best thing to feed a dog (and cat) but I feed my dogs everything including raw, kibble, canned, dehydrated raw, freeze dried raw, and cooked "people" food.

I pride this forum on being open to all feeding options, unlike many other forums I've been on. We are here not to fight over what's better or force our opinions on others, but rather to educate people on their options so that they can decide what is best for them and their dogs.

Lokipaws wrote:

My biggest concern is definitely the cost. At the moment we feed california natural and we sometimes mix in some other grain free foods for variety. It costs about 36 dollars for a 35 lb. bag which lasts us around 3 weeks.

I'm looking to switch my dog on this kind of diet and did some research in my area - try checking chicken or turkey farms, or any livestock farm really. They might be able to sell scrap parts in bulk. Maybe even Asian marts or other ethnic grocers/butchers in your area - they might have cheaper stuff like that, especially when it comes to organ meat and odds and ends. Or, make friends with a butcher in your area they might be able to get you a deal on the parts humans are less likely to ask for. My parents feed their dog on a raw food diet and told me where to find stuff in my area. There's a couple of poultry farms in my area, one where I can get 50lbs of chicken backs for $20 but it's about an hour and a half drive so if I can't make it there by the time they close on weekdays there's a turkey farm about 30 minutes away that can sell me 40 lbs of turkey necks for about $45, or turkey backs in bulk for $0.69/lb. It's not too badly priced actually, I think it will be relatively cost effective. Right now you're paying slightly over $1/lb so if you compare it that way I think it's a pretty good deal! If I break down the cost for a 60lb dog, I'll assume it's roughly 1.8lbs of meat per day so a case should last about 22-27 days based on that pricing. Hopefully that helps!

We use a meat packing plant .63/lb for turkey necks

What's a good knife/clever/tool for cutting and splitting bone? I don't have a chest freezer so I need to cut into correct size portions before I freeze. I split and froze about 15 lbs of chicken leg quarters tonight and realized that I need a better knife! Especially once I graduate to meats other than chicken with harder bones...

A really good meat cleaver.

..or a bone saw

I've stopped cutting for the most part to make Neeka work for her meal (she wasn't chewing it and that wasn't good) but when I do have to cut it I have a pair of those heavy duty meat cutting scissors and they go right through the bone. If you're doing a lot at a time your hand might end up being sore though! I wonder if a butcher would do it?

I don't cut duck carcass, turkey necks or any number of meaty bones. I do cut meats, because I like to measure out accordingly for my male who needs to put on weight.

guys, for organ especially liver, should i served it on uncooked, or cook first at boiled water?

Raw is meant to be fed raw (i.e. uncooked), this includes organ.

Thanks for the suggestions. I ended up ordering a clever and small hack saw. I got bone in thighs and ruined a knife trying to get in close to correct portion sizes. Hopefully with the new tools it will be a little easier next batch. For puppies,do you feed organ as well, or wait until raw is establishe? I know in the stickie, it suggests waiting until the diet is at 50% red meat before adding organs, just double checking that applies to puppies also. Thank you!

I have just finished reading this fantastic thread and a few of the links!

Now, I have a couple of questions that maybe a bit silly and hope I haven't missed any relevant answers? Here goes... when feeding whole fish, do you need to scale them, or do the scales have some mineral or nutritional benefit?

I know that fresh water fish are quite prone to parasites and freezing is recommended, is this the same with purely saltwater fish?

I hunt ferral animals in my state, namely rabbit, goat and boars. Goats and boars can often have ticks etc, will freezing be sufficient to kill off these parasites and other dangerous organisms. I wouldn't harvest an animal where disease is visible in or around the vital organs.

Kangaroo is another animal in plentiful supply, Kangaroo is particularly lean, is there any need to add additional fat to a meal of roo?

Hello Everyone!

This is my first post. My name is Gabe, and I'm from central New Jersey. If anyone is around and also feeds PMR please let me know, I would love to know where you get your meat. My Gf and I will be expanding our family with a husky puppy. We pick them up July 3rd! We are very excited and have been doing SO MUCH research. I have read through this whole thread and the links provided and we have decided to go with the PMR method. I will be going to the local butchers and market to see what I can find on sale and to start looking at the meats.

I do have a couple of questions (I will also start a new thread just for our dog), but these questions are more general. We will be picking the puppy up at 8 weeks and will wait 1-2 weeks before putting them on PMR. I will start with chicken backs because I have read that was the easiest to transition to. Since I have to wait to add organs, what should the ratio of meat to bone be 9 to 1?

Also, what are the best treats (for training) to give the puppy since we want to give the healthy food we can?

Thanks so much for everyone that is present on this forum your posts have been an insane help. Before reading I was lost and confused, but now I feel a lot more knowledgable about PMR. I can't wait to get to know all of you through here and I will be posting pics constantly!

Thanks again,
Gabe

gabea87 wrote:

I do have a couple of questions (I will also start a new thread just for our dog), but these questions are more general. We will be picking the puppy up at 8 weeks and will wait 1-2 weeks before putting them on PMR. I will start with chicken backs because I have read that was the easiest to transition to. Since I have to wait to add organs, what should the ratio of meat to bone be 9 to 1? 

Also, what are the best treats (for training) to give the puppy since we want to give the healthy food we can?

You may do fine with chicken backs at first. Personally, I had trouble starting my pup on chicken backs when she was 8 weeks old because it was too much bone for her. She just didn't know what to do with it. I had to buy whole chickens for a couple weeks and chop it up. I started her on the bone-in breast, then the wings, then finally the legs, thighs and back. You may have to sear some of the breast to entice puppy to eat it. 

For training, I chop up freeze dried liver treats into tiny pieces (100% raw liver with no other ingredients) That way I don't have to feed fresh raw liver

So, I'm considering putting Dizzy back on raw and I've been looking for bone meal before I start so that hopefully I can limit runny stool during the transition. Anyway, I have looked and looked and can't find KAL bone meal powder. I found one by now foods but it has calcium carbonate and magnesium oxide added. Is this okay or should I keep looking for the KAL?

Are you avoiding actual bone for now?

Not avoiding it per se, but since he's allergic to chicken, I'm going to have to start him on something like pork or beef and will have to buy whatever is on sale for now. For beef, that's usually beef hearts, which I know count as muscle, not organ, but no bone in there. I scored some pork ribs for $1.79 a lb the other day so I bought about 15 lbs of those, so I will probably start there. The bone meal probably won't be an everyday thing, I just want to have it on hand in case things get messy.

Right, it is handy and convenient. Gotcha.

So, any thoughts on the additives?

wpskier222 wrote:

So, I'm considering putting Dizzy back on raw and I've been looking for bone meal before I start so that hopefully I can limit runny stool during the transition. Anyway, I have looked and looked and can't find KAL bone meal powder. I found one by now foods but it has calcium carbonate and magnesium oxide added. Is this okay or should I keep looking for the KAL?

Jen, the Now bone meal powder is a perfectly fine alternative to KAL bone meal. Bear in mind that KAL has 1500 mg Ca and 750 mg P per tsp while the Now bone meal powder has considerably less at 500 mg Ca and 250 mg P per tsp, so you'll want to adjust dosages accordingly.

Huskyluv wrote:

wpskier222 wrote:

So, I'm considering putting Dizzy back on raw and I've been looking for bone meal before I start so that hopefully I can limit runny stool during the transition. Anyway, I have looked and looked and can't find KAL bone meal powder. I found one by now foods but it has calcium carbonate and magnesium oxide added. Is this okay or should I keep looking for the KAL?

Jen, the Now bone meal powder is a perfectly fine alternative to KAL bone meal. Bear in mind that KAL has 1500 mg Ca and 750 mg P per tsp while the Now bone meal powder has considerably less at 500 mg Ca and 250 mg P per tsp, so you'll want to adjust dosages accordingly.

Okay great! Thank you so much.