Ok,i know there are many different ideas when it comes to raw feeding- or a natural diet and i am not wanting to thrash out my ideas as being right for all ....however i thought i might share some theories that i have.....
When feeding the dog as naturally as possible( obviously bearing in mind that for many many generations dogs have not needed to hunt for themselves in order to eat) the first question is how much have their dietry requirements altered from their closest ancesters? if at all?
I dont believe that it has,i hear some people say their dog cannot eat this or that but if a dog cannot eat a totally natural diet then of course ,if it was a wild animal,it would perish,so forget the dogs with iffy bellies etc.
I try to feed either what i consider natural prey items ( i consider these birds,rabbits,lamb) or if i am using beef and pork i try to feed in a way mimicking how a larger prey animal( resulting from a pack effort) would be eaten. This would mean for example offal on day one,muscle only for two days,then meaty bones for three days.Then probably fast on the following day but excercise,mimicking the way a wild canine might live.
I think if feeding natural prey items than it is kinda important that the whole animal is fed( fur,guts etc) For the working dogs it has to be fur/feathers off though.
If feeding larger animals( pork,beef or horse) then i believe it beneficial to feed in the way above.
So does anyone else have any theories or am i mad? ;D
Post by ragingstormkennels on Feb 9, 2010 9:57:54 GMT -5
I run on the same principle with my dogs and everything they eat is very close to what they would in the wild, however I do incorporate vegetables and some brown rice and brown pasta (Ive been told 5% of either is beneficial for them). I personally dont think dogs digestive system has changed from their ancestors in the wild and I think this is evident especially when a kibble fed dog is changed over to eating raw......I saw a huge difference in my two older girls. Im hoping this is also going to help extend their life expectancy as without the preservatives and additives they get from commercial dog food, I would imagine they'd have less chance of developing any illnesses linked to the production of dog food. Great topic, would be interesting to hear some more views.
same here more or less but i do feed mine of the spring some time's, i find the dog's tend to feed more natural in that they tear and rip at it as in the wild, slowing the eating time down rather than wolfing in down in second's plus they get a work out, seem's to work for my lot.
I use raw/kibble/cooked meat/alot of other foods lol.. i think the barf diet is good however i have found that when a dog is working alot every day the food doesnt digest as fast if its barf, where dry food digests faster and gives them more of a direct source of energy- this is in the case of dogs who are working for 3-4 hours constantly a day. also if their bellies are full it affects their working ability the same way a dog wil hunt when its belly is empty and fat reserves are down i use a similar theory when training some of my dogs to get the best out of them,
sometimes it is forgotten and extremely important that the dog will also eat the contents of the stomach of its prey and its guts. this can supply many different minerals and vitamins that would not be found in raw meat and bone alone.
i think a pure barf diet is not the way to go on a long term basis, my dogs a very varied diet and stay on the same dry food aswell.
also...survival and living IMO are two different things, poor people in part of the world survive on bread and water, In some parts of the world for example suburban parts of asia the foods people eat there are so basic for them yet they are so healthy and live for such a long time, unlike ppl in big towns n cities half the crap we eat is killing us theres more chemicals in a packet of crisps than a nuclear war head!