raw diets for health

Re: raw diets for health

pete coleshaw — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:17:15 GMT

[quote user="sophia guymer"]they nod and agree it sounds brill, but I dn't think any of them have actually changed over yet. [/quote]

I actually spend about 20 mins or more with each client, and we have set ourselves up to supply whatever 'level' they are comfy with - they all get a sample of our meatymix plus advice about rmb - we sell Works Wonders, and we also sell Orijen as the best kibble we can find. I am very positive about a more-natural diet, which is required to get people to swap - but as my own boss I can do what I want, and sell what I want. It is also a case of having the confidence -which only comes with time, and seeing the benefits and lack of problems. Guess your best route is to tell people how you feed your own dog, which no doubt you are already doing!

pete

Re: raw diets for health

sophia guymer — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 15:22:50 GMT

[quote user="pete coleshaw"]the reason I said that is that i've stopped getting the communications![/quote]

Hmmm,. that is odd, I do think they should be really pleased with what you do. All I can do is advice my clients at the moment, and only gingerly at that as my boss doesnt agree with the whole thing, they nod and agree it sounds brill, but I dn't think any of them have actually changed over yet.

O well, one can only try.

Sophia

Re: raw diets for health

sophia guymer — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 15:20:46 GMT

Thanks for that Roger,

I will hang in there a bit longer, weight him this am and he has lost weight, down to 24.2 kg whereas I got him up to 25 kg from 24 kg on RMB before.

Still, if he does keep loosing I might just chuck in an extra chicken carcas as a sec feed a day, as I only feed him once daily, may be he can't get enough out of the meal in one go? I don't want to half his meals and give it over two meals as the chunks would get too small.

Will keep you posted ,

Thanks again.

Sophia

Re: raw diets for health

pete coleshaw — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 08:35:44 GMT

[quote user="sophia guymer"]No that is not quite true,[/quote]

Hi sophia

the reason I said that is that i've stopped getting the communications!

I do appreciate their issue with minced carcases - what I am very keen to do is to break the polarised situation whereby half-way house is seen as not good enough - if we could all accept a hieracrchy of dietary desirability (as-in-the-wild top, low grade kibble at the bottom) with some acceptance of the actual (as opposed to percieved) risks of each option, then I believe we can get a lot more people feeding better quality diets even if all do not go for RMB. Education is the key - and it takes a lot of time as you know.

pete

Re: raw diets for health

Roger Meacock — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 22:14:16 GMT

Hi Sophia

I'm not doubting your lurcher looks to have lost weight however I think that the leanness you get with a RMB diet is correct and different from leanness you see on a commercial diet. I just think on RMB the body composition changes to a lower ration of fat which will be accentuated in leaner breeds such as lurchers, greyhounds etc. With the commercial diets I think it is impossible to get that same body composition without them being deficient in protein/muscle too. The result is that we have got used to a certain look that when the correct muscle covering is there has a higher body fat too that may even include a higher water retention within tissues.

Funnily enough it is something I have found with my own weight and body condition over the past 4 or 5 months. I have always eaten what most people would consider to be a healthy diet and people wouldn't have described me as over weight before but for the last 4-5 months I have almost totally eradicated all grains, dairy, potato and other high GI/starch foods. Without trying to lose weight specifically I've lost a stone and a half and got much leaner. I've even noticed it on areas that I wouldn't have said were fat at all before such as my arms ...

I think with RMB we maybe need to adjust what we see as normal. If the body condition from the lumber muscle point of view is OK, there's lots of energy and happy etc then I doubt there's anything to worry about. I think it just says more about the body composition of dogs on commercial junk.

Best wishes

Roger

Re: raw diets for health

sophia guymer — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:28:55 GMT

Hi Pete,

[quote user="pete coleshaw"]I think I have been excommunicated by the UK RMB group for advocating minced foods, so I am a pariah in both camps - RMB and commercial!!![/quote]

No that is not quite true, in fact they really appreciate what you do, as you still do get the people to stop feeding kibble and that in itself if a large improvement as you say yourself, they agree. They have just asked you not to actually talk about the minced option on the RMB forum as most people on there already are or planning to feed RMB and THEN the minced option would be a step back.

Thats all.

Actually, on that note, as you know I do feed my Seamus (25kg lurcher) RMB. I looked at him tonight and think he has lost weight again (will weigh him tomorrow to check but he looks thin). That is rather annoying as he has been fed 3-4% of his body weight for quite some time now! He gets quite a good variety I think. Rabbit, Deer (roadkill), Tripe+some lamb ribs, Liver+lamb ribs/chicken carcasses, brisket on bone/pork on bone/ lamb on bone depending on the week, Tripe+bone again, half a chicken. Thats about a weeks worth.

I wormed him not long ago (am planning to change to advocate(+droncit now and again) when funds allow)so that should not be a prob either.

I know this is not really the place to ask these things now, but as I was writing anyway, I took the liberty to do it anyway

So Pete, or Roger, if you have any advice for me I will be very happy to hear it.

O yes, his feaces is lovely! (he is happy, active, not ill etc etc)

Re: raw diets for health

Roger Meacock — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 17:47:15 GMT

Hi Jenny

Probably very wise of you to swap over here and I can be more open in what I say too! Well done! Firstly I have no doubt other companies sponsor evenings etc too but the subliminal links still exist and the goodwill is still created. We used to get a free or heavily subsidised bar only in my day!

With regard to veggie diet research I suspect it largely depends on who sponsors it and how the data is analysed to get results. Were the cats lab cats or were they cats fed veggie diets in the population where the cats had access to birds, mice, rats, other diets in neighbouring homes to supplement their veggie food?

[quote user="Jenny Smith"]Does the risk of zoonotic bacterial disease concern you when advising a raw food diet?[/quote]

No. I advise the same precautions people use for handling their own meat products - separate boards, knives etc and wash hands properly etc. If human grade food is used for pets I see no reason why human and pet meat products need to be separated. Obviously if people are going to use roadkill or other sources then abvsolutely there needs to be health/storage considerations associated with that. It all comes down to common sense.

The acidic nature of the stomach for carnivores dissolves bones. I think it also deals with bacteria largely. I recommend decent quality meat too so the bacterial contamination is going to be far less than the carcass they find on a walk, their friends bum, the chew that's been buried for a week etc. Risks are relative and of course I advise everybody not to let pets lick mouths and be careful with children etc. On the other hand dirt builds the immune system and a healthy immune system is likely to cope with the odd lick. I suspect pet owners are more healthy for living with pets for that reason. In Peru they found babies who had antibodies to E.coli that killed people in UK hospitals! I think we risk creating an immune-incapable population if we try to guard everybody from everything ...

I think we should also remember that Salmonella has been found in bags of pet food too - it isn't restricted to raw but the perception is that the commercial feed is processed and clean and you could argue that people take more risks with their hygiene feeding kibble under that assumption. Commercial feed also produces a lare volume of faeces that is largely insoluble fibre of no nutritional value other than to bulk out the feed. Being insoluble it sits in parks as a far larger health hazard than raw-fed poo that goes white, crumbles and gets washed away. What is the overall bigger health hazard if we widen our thinking?

It is interesting that it is always assumed that it is the raw feed that is the source of any digetive upset, zoonosis or mortality when there is frequently no evidence that is the case. As I said pet foods can just as easily be contaminated and the environment can just as likely be the source. It should also be remembered that presence of bacteria doesn't always equal disease either.

[quote user="Jenny Smith"]just in terms of making sure that the diet is balanced[/quote]

Balance is a concept designed by the pet food manufacturers to justify the fact that they want to be the sole source of food and they can't sell different bags for different days! Provided the diet contains sufficient nutrients in all categories and nothing is massively in excess (eg liver only diet!) then the body takes what it needs and excretes the rest. Pets no more need me to check every meal than you or I do. Provided we have a good variety of ingredients that together provide sufficient of everything over a 2 or 3 week period the body does the rest. There are tables on the internet where you can look up nutrient content of different meats etc and there is nothing that a raw carcass does not provide in sufficiency. That is all owners need to know and that's why it is a very easy diet to feed.

As an example my Patterdale Terrier is 5 months old. He gets a raw chicken leg in the morning, a raw chicken carcass (that the butcher has removed legs, wings and breast fillets from) in the evening and every so often he gets ox/lamb heart, liver and kidneys. It takes him 20-30 minutes to eat each meal which gives him plenty of work on his jaws, teeth and gums and releases endorphins from chewing. He's left happy and full and it doesn't cost me the earth as I get my carcasses from the local butcher for free!

I vary the source of protein and I will also add in rabbit, lamb breast bones etc soon. The only other thing I vary is amount - based on body condition. If he's growing a lot and looking a bit thin then I feed a bit more. If he ever gets a bit fat I'll feed him less. It's that easy. Being a very low carb diet he won't get fat because his own diet satiation will kick in before he massively overeats as dogs on kibble etc do.

[quote user="Jenny Smith"]How much variation is there in the day to day feeding, and is there any difference in the diet you would recommend for say an elderly cat with early signs of renal failure, or a young large breed pup? I'm just interested because these seem to be areas where small differences in diet (e.g. calcium phosphorous ratio and protein content) are considered to be important (Elliot et al Journal of Small Animal Practice (2000)41.235-242) [and yes I know this my college working with a pet nutrition company][/quote]

You jumped the gun! Research looks at diet assuming all diets are commercially based. None of the research compares to raw because they know it doesn't match up. I advise feeding the same diet to renal cases. Firstly the raw carcass is mostly water, secondly the protein is very high quality and is used as the primary energy source so is mostly dealt with by the liver. I would make sure the bone content isn't too high for the Phosphorus content but otherwise I don't worry. My previous terrier had a kidney issue when he was 14 but I didn't alter his diet and he lived to nearly 17 and didn't die of kidney failure. The protein content of renal diets is a myth. The research shows it doesn't affect the course of kidney disease but because protein is more expensive to use in a diet you get a higher profit by restricting it and following the old outdated science. I've posted the paper somewhere on here but if you message you I can probably attach it to a private message for you when I'm on my own PC at home.

Talking of large breed pups it reminds me that there are studies that show that food particle size is a factor in gastric torsion and dilatation and kibble is the prime size to cause it. How many vets tell owners of deep chested dogs not to feed kibble? How many sell it to them?! Large piece RMB is definitely the way forward!

I look forward to your further questions.

Best wishes

Roger

Re: raw diets for health

pete coleshaw — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 10:35:27 GMT

[quote user="Jenny Smith"]

Also, just in terms of making sure that the diet is balanced, (again, please excuse any ignorance on my part here!) do you have a diet sheet that the owners are expected to stick to? How do you come up with this (just the basics, I know that this is a massive question in itself!)

How much variation is there in the day to day feeding, and is there any difference in the diet you would recommend for say an elderly cat with early signs of renal failure, or a young large breed pup? I'm just interested because these seem to be areas where small differences in diet (e.g. calcium phosphorous ratio and protein content) are considered to be important (Elliot et al Journal of Small Animal Practice (2000)41.235-242) [and yes I know this my college working with a pet nutrition company]

That's everything I can think of for the moment, but I'm sure your reply will stimulate me to think of a few more questions!

[/quote]

Hi Jenny

I've been away and missed all the Mail excitement - how nice to see someone participating with an open mind.

I advocate and sell a prey-model diet (minced) as well as advocating RMB. Whilst ideally all pets should be on a naturally formulated diet, this is not a route that everyone will adopt. I think I have been excommunicated by the UK RMB group for advocating minced foods, so I am a pariah in both camps - RMB and commercial!!!

My explanation to clients is of decending desirability, increasing convenience, with live prey at top, then dead whole prey , minced whole prey, minced whole prey equivalent, processed whole prey equvalent (mopist), or high quality kibble. Swapping to any of these from high starch, low meat-content diets has to be better than nothing - the higher up the ladder the better.

We sell our own minced diets based on whole prey - ie similar content of bone, flesh and organ meat to a whole animal. By definition, this should be pretty much balanced without further additions, though we tend to recommend salmon skin-oil for added omega 3.

We shift around one tonne every 5 weeks, all sold frozen to be fed raw.

[quote user="Jenny Smith"]When introducing a client to a raw diet, do you discuss the potential of zoonotic infections? How do you ensure that any risks to public health are minimised? Do you recommend storing the animals food separately from the family's? [/quote]

I do discuss risks of Zoonoses - but the fact is that most food poisoning is a result of poor food handling/preparation. All free range chickens apparently carry Campy, but we are happy to eat them and their eggs as free range is fashionable and politically correct.

All the studies I have read confirm high levels of potentially pathogenic as well as non-pathogenic species of campy in normal dogs, and most cases of 'campylobacter' infection' are non-typed strains isolated from diarrhoeic cases - but since 50% of normal dogs carry campy anyway, how secure is this diagnosis??

I believe most cases of bowel problems/infections have diet as a very high contributory element - strarchy diets probably providing an ideal substrate for proliferation (this is my opinion only)

Certainly most squitty kittens respond within 24 hours of a simple swap to prey-based diet - ones that have had metronidazole, protexin etc etc

With regard to renal failure, we recommend increasing/adding in tripe (greatly reduced phos content) and put them on high quality protein to TREAT renal railure - i.e. getting them off the low-biological-value rubbish that most of them have been on. If you want to created nitrogenous waste, high-temperature-rendered meat derivatives must be a great starting point. Poor appetite and loss of body mass are countered by appetising fresh meat!

For pups, just feed a 'proper' RMB diet. IMHO most of the diet categories eg senior, junior, bigdog, little dog, dachshund etc etc are there either as marketing strategies, or to address the fact that the company's standard diet is so removed from the ideal that the pet will suffer if the diet is not changed. I seem to recall that Hills introduced senior diet to adrress the oxalate lithiasis that resulted from feeding maintenance in older cats. Cleverly, the companies all have diets to address the conditions that their products create. So if you feed mainteance and the cat gets fat, feed obesity diet. When it becomes diabetic, feed diabetic diet. Why not feed properly in the first place and avoid either problem.

But there again, perhaps I am just a miserable cynic.

Oh, by the way, how many cases of Salomenella or Campy have we had resulting from our dietary recommendations? Zero!!

So to those of you who know it makes sense, but dont have the courage to go for it, be reassured - I know it is difficult advising contrary to (and that you may be judged against) the professional norm, but are we here to advise what we honestly believe is right, or to run with a sadly misguided profession?

For our own dietary recommendation see my website www.bunnieseatgrass.com

Re: raw diets for health

Jenny Smith — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:20:35 GMT

Hi Roger,

Thought it might be best to continue the discussion in here, just because we were getting a bit far from the actual Daily Mail article!

Firstly I have a few little bits and pieces I meant to say in my last post but forgot, and also some responses to your last post, and then I've got a few questions for you. Hope thats ok!

We get fed at most evening lectures, regardless of whether they are sponsored. Not sure if my original post made it seem like only the ones by the pet food companies had such a perk! Even our SU meetings are catered. :D Pizza is a simple choice for all involved, because we (as a college) have a discount arranged with our local pizza delivery company, it's easy to mass cater and the veggies can join in!

[quote user="roger meacock"]

As I said before, the branding influence comes from seeing whatever your vet school sells/advises during your clinical experiences, the posters on walls etc. It is all subliminal and there for a reason. Advertisers know exactly how to influence people - you only have to watch someone like Derren Brown to see how it works. They don't put money into these things without reason.

[/quote]

As well as being a vet student, I also work part time in practice. The practice I work in stocks mainly Hills food, and they have paid for me to do the Hill's pet nutrition advisor course.... yet I feed my dog a completely different brand. (Yes I am a commercial diet feeder).

I was actually quite surprised with the papers on the subject of vegetarian diets that were presented. From early on in college we were taught about cats being obligate carnivores and the need for particular vitamins and amino acids which could only be obtained from meat sources, and so was surprised (as were my colleagues) that there were vegetarian cat foods available commercially. There have been some studies done looking at the nutritional profile of a few commerically available (in US) and home formulated vegetarian diets for cats (Comp Cont Ed Pract Vet Suppl 2001 23:81) which showed the diets were deficient in the key meat derived components despite apparent supplementation. However, a different study (Wakefield et al, JAVMA 2006 229(1):70) showed that when bloods were taken for analysis from cats fed a veggie diet there were no critical deficiencies in taurine or colbalamin (3 had marginally low taurine), which really surprised me.

Now then, onto my questions for you. Some of these are points (and some literature) which were discussed in my lectures, some is just interest on my behalf. I've found it difficult sometimes to get straight answers to some of these. I am involved in a dog rescue, and some of the other owners/fosterers are raw feeders, but whenever I ask questions about it they immediately go on the defensive. It might be because they know I'ma vet student, and so think I'm against what they think, but I as a person like to question things and ask about things. Forgive me if I am being exceedingly ignorant in some of these questions, or if they have been answered previously in this very long discussion. I have had a brief look through it but there is rather a lot of it!

Does the risk of zoonotic bacterial disease concern you when advising a raw food diet? I would be concerned, taking raw chicken as an example of the risk of campylobacter. Rather annoyingly I can't find the reference now, but there was some work done recent showing that about 66% of chicken carcasses sold for human consumption were contaminated with campy. Now I know that dogs (and maybe cats? not 100% sure) can have campylobacter spp isolated from the faeces of normal animals, but equally I have seen clinical cases of animals with diarrhoea associated with campylobacter infection. Is this a concern when feeding raw chicken to animals as part of their diet. Also, even if the animal is having a non-symptomatic infection, is there then not a public health risk for the family with the dog, especially children if the bacteria is being actively shed from the animal.

I know some work has been done looking at Salmonella and raw diets. I believe one study (granted a very small study) showed that dogs infected with Salmonella from raw food can shed the bacteria for up to 13 days (Finley et al, abstract 14th ACVIM congress 2004). There have also been reports of cats developing fatal salmonellosis, which was shown to have come from the raw food diet they were being fed (JAAHA 2003, 39:538).

When introducing a client to a raw diet, do you discuss the potential of zoonotic infections? How do you ensure that any risks to public health are minimised? Do you recommend storing the animals food separately from the family's?

That's everything I can think of for the moment, but I'm sure your reply will stimulate me to think of a few more questions!

Jenny

Re: raw diets for health

pete coleshaw — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:22:02 GMT

hoorah - I agree with you for once Alec!

Shame it's only about the quality of the daily mail

Re: raw diets for health

Alex Gough — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:58:39 GMT

[quote user="pete coleshaw"]well done Daily Mail - a very balanced and factual piece[/quote]

This must surely qualify for the regular slot in Private Eye's "Scenes you seldom see!" ;)

Re: raw diets for health

pete coleshaw — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 10:56:04 GMT

well done Daily Mail - a very balanced and factual piece

Nicky Paul would seem to need a bit of educating - I can show her a cat or two that reverted to a non-diabetic state when swapped to a meat and bone-based diet

and just try those squitty kittys on the same diet - you will be amazed!!!

but I wont go on, as it has all been said before, and those who have never tried it will never-the-less have very strong views on why it is wrong!

Re: raw diets for health

Libby Reys — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 12:36:15 GMT

Can't stand the "Daily Hell', but found this quite interesting... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1244595/Is-food-youre-feeding-pet-killing--making-vet-rich.html

Lib

Re: raw diets for health

Roger Meacock — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 17:16:23 GMT

The first time you posted the 100,000 year myth it was referenced to an internet article written by a pet food manufacturer employee. Choosing references that predate more recent contradictory ones doesn't cut the mustard either. The scientists who wrote the recent paper had another one published earlier in 2003 too. The paper is published in Molecular Biology and Evolution with the leading scientist being Peter Savolainen. I'm sure if you really want to look up the peer-reviewed paper you can.

It is funny how that now we've discovered evidence that domestication is much more recent than you previously thought that you are now describing the domestication argument as a distraction!

You have still provided absolutely no evidence other than anecdote that there is a net improvement in health in dogs and cats fed commercial as compared to fed raw diets. I on the other hand have provided evidence that oral hygiene is better in individuals fed raw and that poor oral hygiene leads to periodontal disease and other systemic diseases. Putting those two ideas together it is obvious to anybody without a vested interest in the status quo that raw fed cats and dogs are healthier than those fed commercial.

Cheers

Roger

Re: raw diets for health

Niall Taylor — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:28:37 GMT

[quote user="Roger Meacock"]I suggest you verify your sources as "real" before quoting biased writings by stooges/employees of the pet food companies.[/quote]

I realise that the only tactic you and Tom have left is to personally attack anyone who disagrees with you rather than counter arguments rationally and with evidence but in this case even that argument is bogus as the 100,000 year claim was not made by a "stooge" but (as I have stated at least three times previously) was in a genetics paper. At the risk of doubtless incurring further abuse, the reference is as follows:

Wayne, R.K., and Ostrander, E.A., (1999) Origin, genetic diversity,and genome structure of the domestic dog, Genes and Genomes BioEssays 21:247–257

and can be found on-line at - http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/55003333/PDFSTART

The introduction reads:

We will review recent studies of genetic diversity and genome mapping of dogs to demonstrate the use of genome information in evolutionary and biomedical studies. Initially, we will discuss the evolutionary history of dogs and their relationship to other canines and carnivores as revealed by DNA-based research. These results show that canines belong to a very unique and long distinct genetic lineage of carnivores. Thereafter, we will describe new genetic studies suggesting that dogs were domesticated over 100,000 years ago. Although all dogs appear to have been derived from the gray wolf, origination or interbreeding events may have occurred several times over human history. Gray wolves may continue to influence the genetic diversity of dogs through the interbreeding of dog-wolf hybrids and domestic dogs. We will conclude with an overview of dog genome mapping studies and their relationship to similar studies in humans and other mammals. Progress in the physical map of genes has been slow because dogs have a high numbered karyotype (2n 5 78) and the smallest chromosome elements are difficult to identify. However, recent advances in banding studies and the development of hypervariable markers and chromosome paints have resulted in more extensive syntenic and physical maps.

Actually I think the whole genetics thing is a bit of a distraction. You have still provided absolutely no evidence other than anecdote that there is a net improvement in health in dogs and cats fed raw as compared to fed commercial diets. The aim of my previous post was to point out that all the peripheral points - dentition, nature knows best, genetics and evolution etc can be argued either way and are no justification for feeding raw. Like Tom's list of essential reading which included Animal Farm by George Orwell they have little to do with the core argument.[quote user="Roger Meacock"]

You want evidence - well here it is provided by those with no vested interest in the pet food scam

Dogs are descended from wolves that were tamed 16,000 years ago

[/quote]

This is a newspaper article about a scientific paper, not a scientific paper - reference the paper itself and we'll all have a look.

Cheers,

Niall

Re: raw diets for health

Roger Meacock — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 20:15:43 GMT

[quote user="Niall Taylor"]the genetics argument is bogus because dogs have been living and evolving alongside humans (the 'human niche' - remember?) for 100,000 years... What else was there again (other than opinion and speculation please)?[/quote]

Niall,

Quite clearly it is you who are speculating and selectively choosing flawed opinions to suit your own idea and support your own view that dogs are omnivores in order to justify feeding rubbish diets.

You want evidence - well here it is provided by those with no vested interest in the pet food scam

Dogs are descended from wolves that were tamed 16,000 years ago

I suggest you verify your sources as "real" before quoting biased writings by stooges/employees of the pet food companies.

Roger

Re: raw diets for health

Niall Taylor — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 10:02:47 GMT

[quote user="Roger Meacock"]It's been provided but you refuse to accept it.[/quote]

Look at my reply - the operative word was "real" - anecdotes don't cut the mustrard for the type of claims you are making.

[quote user="Roger Meacock"]I presume you have a peer-reviewed published paper to back up this statement?[/quote]

It was you who made the original suggestion that urban foxes were "mangy", suggesting, a propos of nothing at all, they were less healthy than their rural counterparts. The burden of proof is firmly with you - please back this claim with evidence.

[quote user="Roger Meacock"]Looking at dentition is only one aspect of the whole picture that tells us dogs are carnivores and I have never claimed anything else. I have also never thought of cows as carnivores...[/quote]

The dentition argument is invalidated because foxes thrive on an omnivorous diet, the salivary amylase argument is invalidated because cows don't possess it either, the genetics argument is bogus because dogs have been living and evolving alongside humans (the 'human niche' - remember?) for 100,000 years... What else was there again (other than opinion and speculation please)?

[quote user="Roger Meacock"]It would have to be making a profit to be considered as true commercialism.[/quote]

It would be Tom who has told you he's not making a profit from RMB I'm guessing - how have you verified this assertion?

Cheers,

Niall

Re: raw diets for health

pete coleshaw — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 09:07:22 GMT

[quote user="alex gough"]God, so it must be my next door neighbour who keeps knocking my bins over and eating the rubbish[/quote]

"Do foxes rifle dustbins?Foxes rarely rifle bins

This is a common misconception.....Magazines often publish photographs showing a dustbin lying on its side with a fox going through the waste that is spread out in front of the bin. These are manufactured scenes. Foxes are far too small to tip over a dustbin full of rubbish". - taken from www.thefoxwebsite.org

[quote user="alex gough"]

>cases of salmonella, campy, etc etc? nil!!

How are you looking for them?

[/quote]

I'm not looking for them - but I know I will see any nasty cases of G/E that result. I have to say I am not bothered if one proves positive to an un-speciated campylo subsequently provided it remains healthy

[quote user="alex gough"]

Foreign eggs seem to have much higher salmonella levels:

"The Government's food watchdog said that one in 30 boxes of imported eggs had salmonella, a bacterium that can cause nasty - and occasionally fatal - food poisoning. In Spanish eggs, the figure was one in eight."

Would you this make you not illustrate your point in the same way now?

[/quote]

no, not at not in at all (sic) - I have not seen any proof that you contract salmonella infection from fresh eggs - as far as I am aware salmonellosis results from letting broken ( as in opened) contaminated eggs ferment for a day or two at room temp. Please correct me if I am wrong - I am sure you will.

Most food poisoning is from poor hygiene and storage, permitting bugs to multiply from non-infective to infective/toxin producing levels. Again, please prove me wrong.

[quote user="alex gough"]Yeah those professors of microbiology do know very little about bacteria I find.[/quote]

bit like vets who feed cats on corn, I find.

Pete

Re: raw diets for health

Roger Meacock — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 21:55:23 GMT

[quote user="Niall Taylor"]I thought it was self evident that your reply was completely incomprehensible and as such I was unable to formulate any response other than levity.[/quote]

The reply was very simple to understand and impossible to make any simpler. Don't blame me for your shortfall in failing to make your post clear. Perhaps you shouldn't try to be clever and we'll understand what you're saying even if we don't agree with it.

[quote user="Niall Taylor"]I am hoping that one time we might get some real evidence to back your claims.[/quote]

It's been provided but you refuse to accept it.

[quote user="Niall Taylor"]If he believed in pet nutrition rather than simply denigrating fellow members of his profession then of course Tom would have done more research and published the results, that's how science works. As I said in my post preliminary trials wouldn't be too expensive - a few histopath reports confirming atrophy of the intestinal villi in commercially fed dogs compared with raw few dogs would be a start - perhaps he could pay for the tests out of some of the profit he makes from book sales and lecture tours.[/quote]

Tom clearly has a far better understanding of pet nutrition than you do or are you hiding your prize-nominated book on nutrition from view? Neither you or Alex would accept the preliminary histopath reports you suggest as cheap evidence so why pretend you would? If you think Tom has made a profit from his books and tours to date you are seriously delusional. Tom does what he does despite the costs and loss to date only because of the health benefits he has seen and had reported from feeding the RMB diet.

Your arrogance in assuming that you know everything about what happened in the peer-review process of Tom's book is quite staggering, but equally revealing. I'm sure Tom couldn't care less how you rate his books on a literary basis relative to Alice in Wonderland given that you have nothing of note published or nominated for a prize yourself. I'm sure he's more than satisfied that internationally acclaimed veterinarians who are regarded as leaders in their respective veterinary fields saw fit to recommend his book for the award.

[quote user="Niall Taylor"]There is no evidence that urban foxes are any more mangy than rural ones although disease in a denser urban population may spread more quickly due the closer proximity of the members of the population, nothing to do with diet.[/quote]

I presume you have a peer-reviewed published paper to back up this statement? Of course you're right that diet has nothing at all do do with immune status (sarcasm). Do you also have a paper to back up your sweeping statement that urban foxes are "happy" on an omnivorous diet? No? Didn't think so. Once again you're making unsubstantiated claims to muddy the waters to fit your preconceived ideas.

Looking at dentition is only one aspect of the whole picture that tells us dogs are carnivores and I have never claimed anything else. I have also never thought of cows as carnivores .... but it seems some commercial nutritionists, associated vets and feed manufacturers did when they included sheep in the diet to maximise their profits. And we all know where that led ... It seems the profession is once again ignoring the warnings of feeding species inappropriate diets, only the consequences aren't quite so dramatic in our pets - it takes longer for the periodontal disease to cause the other diseases ... that large conglomerates who own pet food companies and some of the pharmaceutical companies and vets make money from treating ... If one was cynical it could easily lead to conspiracy theories!

[quote user="Niall Taylor"]I agree absolutely and I am surprised that you can't see why promoting Tom's web site, book sales and lecture tours isn't commercialism.[/quote]

It would have to be making a profit to be considered as true commercialism. Given that Tom's RMB advice to his clients when he was in practice resulted in him seeing his clients less frequently and them needing less treatment so spending less money, to accuse Tom of commercialism is rather a joke.

[quote user="Niall Taylor"]I will try to keep things more simple in future.[/quote]

Good idea - that way you won't confuse yourself.

Cheers

Roger

Re: raw diets for health

Niall Taylor — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 20:47:14 GMT

[quote user="pete coleshaw"]daft thing is that urban foxes dont tend to eat from bins anyway - one of those foxy myths[/quote]

[sarcasm] Oh gosh, that's my argument shot down in flames then. [/sarcasm]. Pete, you also seem to have missed my point, namely foxes, with identical dentition to wolves live quite happily on an omnivorous diet. So it follows that dogs' dentition is no indication as to whether or not they can live on omnivorous diets. Whether they eat from bins or fish and chip wrappers is immaterial.

[quote user="pete coleshaw"]we are currently shifting 100kg of raw meatybone mix a week[/quote]

I hope this "mix" is in the Lonsdale approved, non-minced form, you know how Tom feels about minced diets. 100kg is a heck of a lot, are you sure you're not selling this diet out of commercial interests or anything?

Cheers,

Niall

Re: raw diets for health

Niall Taylor — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 20:33:13 GMT

[quote user="Roger Meacock"]If your reply above is not an agreement with my post then quite frankly you should be more careful how you reply. My light-hearted suggestion that you going back on this apparently agreed position might be attributed to Alzheimers is clearly incorrect. It would appear that you prefer to go back on whatever agreement you have previously posted in order to satisfy whatever set-in-stone opinion you began the debate with and think that if you leave sufficient time then we'll all have forgotten what you said before. That's twice now you've found that tactic doesn't work.[/quote]

OK, I confess, I was being sarcastic and entirely in keeping with my previous statements (as 2 other members had already realised), I thought it was self evident that your reply was completely incomprehensible and as such I was unable to formulate any response other than levity. Many apologies for over estimating your ability to correctly interpret my postings, I will make sure they are kept suitably simple in future. Neither was it part of a clever 'tactic' - I have always, quite consistently, been unhappy with pretty much all of the RMB arguments posted to date. I can't think why you'd imagine it would be neccessary for me to have you believe I was in agreement at one point and then say I was in disagreement about the same point at a later stage.

[quote user="Roger Meacock"]you keep going back over the same old ground as if it's going to change for some unknown reason.[/quote]

The reason is very obvious to most people apart from yourself - I am hoping that one time we might get some real evidence to back your claims.

[quote user="Roger Meacock"]Tom has had peer-reviewed papers published in more than the one journal you credit him with but given that the profession have chosen to ignore his and others' papers that together have indicated the damage done by commercial feeds to our carnivorous pets why would he want to publish any more?[/quote]

Please supply links or specific references to research papers published by Tom in peer reviewed journals other than the one previously mentioned.

If he believed in pet nutrition rather than simply denigrating fellow members of his profession then of course Tom would have done more research and published the results, that's how science works. As I said in my post preliminary trials wouldn't be too expensive - a few histopath reports confirming atrophy of the intestinal villi in commercially fed dogs compared with raw few dogs would be a start - perhaps he could pay for the tests out of some of the profit he makes from book sales and lecture tours.

[quote user="Roger Meacock"]Given that you were and are not privy to the precise sequence of events surrounding the peer-review process and publishing of Tom's book you are not qualified to comment on it. It is perfectly possible for the peer-review process applied to a journal paper to be likewise applied to a book. The fact that you don't like what the book says doesn't preclude that process from having taken place. The fact that those who took part in the peer-review process of Tom's book are prepared to openly put their names to it instead of remaining anonymous as journal peer-reviewers do gives the process far more credibility and transparency in my opinion.[/quote]

Perhaps you could refrain from such claims until you have familiarised yourself with exactly what the "peer-review" process is. Alice in Wonderland is a book which has had "reviews" and has won many literary awards, it is not "peer reviewed" however. Tom's book has also been "reviewed" and been nominated for (though not awarded) an award by a couple of people; it also is not "peer reviewed", neither is it as good a work of literature as Alice in Wonderland.

[quote user="Roger Meacock"]The act of feeding raw is easy. [/quote]

All the examples of the logistical problems with feeding raw were taken from this list or from raw feeding web-sites and forums - you appear to be in denial of the experiences of your fellow RMB'ers.

[quote user="Roger Meacock"]If you think mangy city-living foxes are healthy then I can't help you. You are the only person who tries to link foxes to domesticated dogs by the way. All raw feeders recognise they aren't that closely related.[/quote]

What about the non-mangy ones though ? There is no evidence that urban foxes are any more mangy than rural ones although disease in a denser urban population may spread more quickly due the closer proximity of the members of the population, nothing to do with diet. On what do you base your assertion that urban foxes are less healthy than wild wolves, what is the incedence of, say mange in wild wolves?

I am perfectly aware that foxes are not as closely related to dogs as wolves are, you have once more missed the point, namely it is impossible to tell whether an animal is a carnivore by looking solely at the dentition - foxes (and dogs) living quite happily on an omnivorous diet have dentition that is identical to wolves. As for the salivary amylase argument - are you going to maintain that cows are carnivores?

[quote user="Roger Meacock"]

As vets our duty is to advise the feeding of the healthiest diet possible regardless of pandering to commercialism and convenience.[/quote]

I agree absolutely and I am surprised that you can't see why promoting Tom's web site, book sales and lecture tours isn't commercialism. I certainly will always try to resist bullying tactics from all directions in order to give balanced, evidence based options to my clients.

It is by no means proven that there is a net gain in health from feeding raw. Anecdotes from raw feeders and commercial diet feeders suggest that cats and dogs can and do live out long and healthy lives on either diet - all else is merely opinion and spin.

[quote user="Roger Meacock"]Debating with you Niall is pointless[/quote]

It seems from your posts to date that you may be used to scientifically naive people agreeing with your opinions with little in the way of argument, I can see why you would have this opinion.

[quote user="Roger Meacock"]All other points you raised have been addressed previously so there's no point revisting them because even if you were to post that you accepted any of the points raised now, no doubt you'd go back on that opinion in a few days time anyway.[/quote]

None of the points raised have been addressed adequately and my opinions have been entirely consistent throughout although you may have misunderstood some of my previous posts; as I said at the start, I will try to keep things more simple in future.

Cheers,

Niall

Re: raw diets for health

Alex Gough — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 13:51:34 GMT

[quote user="pete coleshaw"]daft thing is that urban foxes dont tend to eat from bins anyway - one of those foxy myths[/quote]

God, so it must be my next door neighbour who keeps knocking my bins over and eating the rubbish! [Insert sarcastic smiley here].

>cases of salmonella, campy, etc etc? nil!!

How are you looking for them?

[quote user="pete coleshaw"]a reply from a prof of microbiology who warned of the dangers of raw food,[/quote]

Yeah those professors of microbiology do know very little about bacteria I find.

BTW - latest consensus seems to be that Edwina Currie was right. See

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/the-big-question-was-edwina-currie-right-about-salmonella-in-eggs-after-all-424625.html

Interestingly, from this report, since vaccination for salmonella in laying chickens started: "there have been falls almost every year in the number of human cases of Salmonella enteritidis. In 1997, there were 22,254 cases. In 2005, there were 6,677." The latest FSA study, in 2003, found salmonella in 0.3 per cent of UK eggs.

Foreign eggs seem to have much higher salmonella levels:

Would you this make you not illustrate your point in the same way now?

Alex

Re: raw diets for health

Alex Gough — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 13:32:07 GMT

Without wanting to put words into Niall's mouth, I suspect that given how often he has made the point that clinical experience provides very poor evidence for efficacy of an intervention, the sarcasm would be taken for granted.

Alex

Re: raw diets for health

pete coleshaw — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 09:10:55 GMT

Hi roger

daft thing is that urban foxes dont tend to eat from bins anyway - one of those foxy myths

we are currently shifting 100kg of raw meatybone mix a week

cases of salmonella, campy, etc etc? nil!!

I educate my clients about the myths propogated by the petfood industry (and much of the vet profession) by directing them to rawfed.com

I entered into a discussion on VIN which included a reply from a prof of microbiology who warned of the dangers of raw food, and how even a dishwasher doesnt kill all the nasties in raw meat. I asked if he only ate processed foods - the answer was no, he did buy fresh meats, but he dealt with them differently. When I asked what he does differently , the conversation ended. I always illustrate the point to clients using the edwina curry egg-on-face saga, where I gather millions of eggs were sampled for salmonella, and none came up positive. It's grabbing the concept of bug presence versus infectivity, and that food poisoning/infections are 99% the result of poor hygiene practice, usually in a commercial catering situation.

But there again, you know all this.

Keep up the good work

pete

Re: raw diets for health

Roger Meacock — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 22:52:23 GMT

[quote user="Stephen Ashman"]Or we need a sarcasm smilie to make it clearer! [/quote]

Quite so. I'm not sure in who's book a "big smile" would equate to sarcasm but certainly not mine. Given that the logic in my original post that Niall quoted was fairly obvious, sarcasm really wasn't very appropriate. For once I thought Niall had progressed to a gentle concession over a genuine oversight on his part which was why I didn't press the point further as I thought a dignified acceptance of the concession was the most appropriate course.