Captain Thomas Lasky wrote:Seems hypocritical to say there is no consensus on whst a balanced raw diet is and then say feed balanced raw. Seems also a bit irresponsible. Also seems very bias as well. Basically blindly preaching raw is good despite know it's not a balanced diet.
Which is the most irresponsible thing a diet advocate can do. At least I did my research to see if it was,safe or even beneficial i mean vets don't support raw for a reason because there us no science to back it up.
Want more people to support it get people who buy raw food from raw food companies to ask the companies to conduct research ask them to.
zot's up to the consumer to demand of the companies that they research it.
There's no consensus on specifics, such as BARF vs. Prey. There is general consensus that just throwing your dog a bunch of chicken legs isn't balanced. So it's not hypocritical. There is consensus on the general amounts of muscle meat, organ meat, and bones to feed. It's not irresponsible if you understand what balanced raw is as opposed to unbalanced raw.
I did my research too, so did my, and many other, veterinarians and canine nutritionists who support raw feeding. Most vets don't support raw because they are not educated on it, not given a lot of nutritional education in vet school (most of which is sponsored by pet food companies) and the AMVA and the has come out against it.
Again, the trials you mention in regards to corn are not lifetime studies, and are not independent. That is hardly definitive on the subject. I disagree on on natural being irrelevant. Then again I wouldn't feed my human children only fortified cereals and the like either. Their bodies were not designed to absorb and use nutrients in that manner. What shows up in a blood test and what is absorbed and used in the body aren't the same things.
We do not know that " we can make kibble diets that are complete and balanced, safe to consume, and healthy" over a lifetime of a dog compared to whole food based diets whether raw or cooked.
To me it will never make sense to cook food to the point it's digestible (why not feed food that the animal can digest in the first place?) stripping it of nutrients which have to be added in later.
And to me the argument that those experts make of bacteria risk is a moot point when both humans and animals are getting sick from kibble. If you feel comfortable feeding it and trust the pet food companies then fine, not one's stopping you from feeding it. I don't believe the evidence is there proving it is superior to feeding them what nature intended. Just as I don't believe the evidence is there to prove that the vitamin and mineral fortified cereal is superior to eating fruits and vegetables.