Supplement Question For Raw Feeders

[RobinM]

Ollie eats raw duck parts, ground duck with bone and organ, duck hearts, liver and chopped beef/organ/liver. I put some grizzly salmon oil on his food. (he is allergic to chicken)

 

 

Teddy gets Chicken parts, liver, hearts,, ground chicken/bone/organ/, ground beef/bone/organ and he too gets grizzly salmon oil.

 

Do they need vitamin supplements? My concern is that it's not balanced and something could be missing.

[Guest Swifthounds]

I wouldn't add vitamin supplements. A lot of people give them as a "just in case" supplement, hoping that if the diet is somehow sufficient it can't hurt and might help. The two issues I have with that approach, especially with pet multi-vitamins is that most all of them are manufactured in other countries and when tested have high amounts of metals. The second thing is that they add vit/min that aren't water soluble, meaning that if the dog is getting too much of something, the levels can build in thier systems. Some of those things can have quite toxic effects (Vit A for example).

 

The key to feeding a nutritionally balanced raw diet is balance over time, which means you feed a variety of foods without trying to micromanage the nutrition. You might want to add a bit more variety (I know that's easier to do with Teddy than with Ollie) at some point, but if they are doing well I wouldn't fix what's not broken.

 

I feed mostly chicken, beef and pork as "meaty meat" with the chicken providing the 10% bone content. Other things like turkey, duck, lamb, fish (usually salmon, mackerel, or sardines for Omega 3s), venison, bison, etc. when they're inexpensive or free. The 10% organ I feed up to 5% liver (either chicken or beef because that's what's readily available) and 5% "Other organ", which for me is usually beef kidney (other things are rotated in when I can get them).

[NeylasMom]

Can you add in more variety in terms of what proteins they are getting, or do you find that each of them has issues with certain proteins? I would do less poultry, more beef and try to add in some lamb and maybe some pork and/or fish although I see you are already supplementing with fish oil.

 

If you can't add variety, I would probably add a supplement to be safe. I am totally blanking right now on the username of the person who was so helpful to me in re-evaluating my dogs' diets, but hopefully she will pop up in this thread, mcsheltie I think???, but she mentioned that most often what raw fed dogs are deficient in are B vitamins so she recommended supplementing for those. I came across info recently about dogs being able to get shots like humans can for B vitamins so that might even be an option.

[Guest FreddyGirl]

how important is the organ meat? I bought chicken livers and none of my 3 will eat them whole. theyget some organ in gthe ground chicken I buy- about 1/3 of the wt of the meal

[Guest Swifthounds]

how important is the organ meat? I bought chicken livers and none of my 3 will eat them whole. theyget some organ in gthe ground chicken I buy- about 1/3 of the wt of the meal

 

You want to feed no more than 3-5% of the total weight of food fed as some type of liver. Some people like to feed the 80/10/10 each day, some spread that out over a week, and some use bi-weekly or monthly. If you're feeding a meal that 1/3 of it is liver, whether that's too much, not enough, or just right will depend on how often you feed that mix. If you feed that every night, then that would be 33% of the diet as liver, which is way too much. If you feed that occasionally, it's probably fine.

 

I tend to pick and "organ day" once every week to two weeks or so. A 60# dog eating 2.5% of his ideal body weight is eating about 1.5# of food per day - or 10.5# per week or 21# every 2 weeks. That equals out to a very small amount every day or a max of just over half a pound of liver (and the same amount of some other organ) per week or up to 1 pound of liver (and the same amount of some other organ) every two weeks.

[Remolacha]

Their diets sound pretty good, you've got poultry, beef, and fish covered . You might want to try some turkey and pork occasionally for variety (if they can tolerate it). Another good thing to add for "trace" stuff is green tripe. I prefer the frozen stuff, but you might find canned easier to deal with. It stinks, but I've gotten used to it over time. One warning, do NOT, under ANY circumstances, heat it up! The smell is beyond dead body disgusting!

 

There are so many things Fletcher can't eat that I worry too, but he's been on raw for six years and robustly healthy. The only supplement type thing he gets is Fresh Factors & Joint Health for his arthritis, which might have some micro-nutrients as well.

 

None of mine will eat raw liver, from any animal. They don't seem to like the "slimy" texture, so I saute a bunch at one time and freeze it so I can dole it out in small amounts over time.

 

I hate liver myself, what we do for these dogs

[RobinM]

For Fish- just a salmon filet? and what type of pork? I have no idea why I am all of a sudden underlining my words. What the heck did I hit on my keyboard?

[Remolacha]

Salmon is fine but I usually give canned sardines, they are cheaper, and mine don't really like raw fish (the slimy factor again).

 

Pork, I buy what's on sale, usually boneless except for ribs. Pork can be rich, so I don't feed it more often than a couple of times a month. OTOH, I have a friend with a Coonhound who feeds pork than any other meat because that's what Ruth likes and does best on.

[Guest FreddyGirl]

How do you account for the canned tripe in the daily weight? Is it weighed like the other raw meats?

[Guest Cris_M]

I don't add supplements to Duncan's food. He's been raw fed for 4 years. Sadly, he doesn't get a wide variety of protein on a regluar basis. He gets chicken, pork, beef, and venison. Unfortunatly, chicken takes the highest percentage.

 

Duncan is also extremely healthy. He gets bloodwork done twice a year and it is perfect. He's bouncy and full of energy.

 

I can't imagine that vitamins would make any positive difference for Duncan. Plus dogs are like humans. Any excess water soluble vitamins (not A, D, E, and K) get peed out.

 

Liver tip: Freeze it, then nuke it until it is hard slush. Duncan won't eat thawed liver happily, but he chomps down on semi-frozen.

[Batmom]

You're not going to fulfill a dog's minimum nutritional requirements by feeding meat/bones alone. Feeding a little liver or tripe now and then doesn't really change that. For the longterm health of your dogs, really best to do your nutritional research from peer-reviewed, scientific sources rather than hoopla on internet boards.

[Guest Swifthounds]

For Fish- just a salmon filet? and what type of pork? I have no idea why I am all of a sudden underlining my words. What the heck did I hit on my keyboard?

 

The underline key on the screen.

 

You can feed raw fish or you can try a bit of canned (packed in water) as an introduction to see how well it goes over. Usually the canned (though cooked a bit) is more palatable to a dog that hasn't had raw fish before.

 

Pork loins, shoulder, boneless pork chops, ground are all fine. The only thing you want to avoid is what has small bones or saw cut bones (ie bone in pork chops).

 

How do you account for the canned tripe in the daily weight? Is it weighed like the other raw meats?

 

Yep. I don't actually weigh anymore. I mostly just eyeball it.

 

You're not going to fulfill a dog's minimum nutritional requirements by feeding meat/bones alone. Feeding a little liver or tripe now and then doesn't really change that. For the longterm health of your dogs, really best to do your nutritional research from peer-reviewed, scientific sources rather than hoopla on internet boards.

 

I wasn't aware that kibble manufacturers were actually researching and publishing on raw? No one else funds dog nutritional studies. Oh wait, they're not, because it doesn't help them sell anything. It would be nice to have multi million dollar research in support of raw, but in the absence of that I'll settle for dogs living longer, healthier lives than their kibble fed counterparts across the board - pretty amazing stuff if they're not getting their minimum requirements.

 

There's something passing hilarious about folks en mass feeding cooked 4D meat and farming industry carb/grain discards cooked and extruded and paying a premium for it whilst making dire predictions about the fate of raw fed dogs. Even sadder when they pass judgment on what they don't really understand and for which they don't have any real frame of reference.

[RobinM]

Salmon is fine but I usually give canned sardines, they are cheaper, and mine don't really like raw fish (the slimy factor again).

 

Pork, I buy what's on sale, usually boneless except for ribs. Pork can be rich, so I don't feed it more often than a couple of times a month. OTOH, I have a friend with a Coonhound who feeds pork than any other meat because that's what Ruth likes and does best on.

 

Canned sardines at the supermarket vs raw at the Chinese market?

 

How do you account for the canned tripe in the daily weight? Is it weighed like the other raw meats?

 

Yep. I don't actually weigh anymore. I mostly just eyeball it.

 

 

 

yes, but for those of us who are anal about weighing, it's accounted for as a weighing? That's what I have done in the past.

 

or.. Nancy, you could get the real deal tripe at Hare today.

[Guest Ola]

If they will eat raw fish, that's better because then it's raw (vs. cooked in cans). But some dogs don't "do" fish, I have one of those myself. I figure it's just another protein, nothing magic. Like tripe - good for variety but I don't think it has magical powers.

 

For pork items, ribs/riblets are usually good to try at first because they have a fair amount of bone which helps to offset the "new protein" loose stools that can happen. Personally I don't find pork to be particularly rich, for my dogs anyway it's less rich than beef. You kind of have to go by your dog's reaction though, start small at first to let them get used to it.

 

You're not going to fulfill a dog's minimum nutritional requirements by feeding meat/bones alone. Feeding a little liver or tripe now and then doesn't really change that. For the longterm health of your dogs, really best to do your nutritional research from peer-reviewed, scientific sources rather than hoopla on internet boards.

Yeah, you sure can. We're at almost 6 years now with excellent results. Sorry, I don't buy into the idea that feeding a dog is so much more complicated than feeding myself (assuming you know the general rules).

[Batmom]

I wasn't aware that kibble manufacturers were actually researching and publishing on raw?

 

Who said anything about kibble?

 

Raw meat is meat. Plenty of studies about the nutritional content of various meats and other food items, about the nutritional requirements of dogs, and sometimes about the two together.

 

You have to read something besides enthusiast message boards to find those, tho.

[Guest Swifthounds]

Canned sardines at the supermarket vs raw at the Chinese market?

 

Raw at the chinese market, provided they haven't been brined, are great! Some dogs aren't crazy about the taste/texture of raw fish. Give them a try raw. If they're less than thrilled, try mixing half raw and half canned and working down the ratio to all raw.

 

yes, but for those of us who are anal about weighing, it's accounted for as a weighing? That's what I have done in the past.

 

Then, yes, you should weigh it. If you don't have access to fresh or frozen tripe (or you have a weak stomach) and you feed it canned, you probably don't even need to weigh it - it should say on the can (though you might have to do mental conversions, so weighing could be faster).

 

You're not going to fulfill a dog's minimum nutritional requirements by feeding meat/bones alone. Feeding a little liver or tripe now and then doesn't really change that. For the longterm health of your dogs, really best to do your nutritional research from peer-reviewed, scientific sources rather than hoopla on internet boards.

Yeah, you sure can. We're at almost 6 years now with excellent results. Sorry, I don't buy into the idea that feeding a dog is so much more complicated than feeding myself (assuming you know the general rules).

 

:nod Pretty simple.

 

 

Who said anything about kibble?

 

Raw meat is meat. Plenty of studies about the nutritional content of various meats and other food items, about the nutritional requirements of dogs, and sometimes about the two together.

 

You have to read something besides enthusiast message boards to find those, tho.

 

There's plenty of nutritional data and analysis on meat, certainly.

 

Why just read the studies and the published works? Research the funding as well.

[Batmom]

Robin, do your research. You've got a couple of young dogs and I'm sure want them to lead a healthy life. Best luck!

[Guest greyhound9797]

You're not going to fulfill a dog's minimum nutritional requirements by feeding meat/bones alone. Feeding a little liver or tripe now and then doesn't really change that. For the longterm health of your dogs, really best to do your nutritional research from peer-reviewed, scientific sources rather than hoopla on internet boards.

Robin, do your research. You've got a couple of young dogs and I'm sure want them to lead a healthy life. Best luck!

Batmom, are you implying that raw is not nutritionally balanced? Because if you are, you might want to let the wolves know that.

 

You're replying to a thread titled "Supplement Question For Raw Feeders" yet do not suggest raw feeding. While it's true that there IS a lot of hoopla on internet boards (and everywhere else on the net), there is also a lot of valuable information, facts and experiences shared by raw feeders that endorse raw feeding. As swifthounds mentioned, who is going to fund the research on raw feeding? I think the proof is in the fact that wolves have been around for thousands of years without becoming extinct while still eating what you refer to as "not meeting nutritional requirements".

 

I think Robin IS doing her research by asking experienced raw feeders advice. I've spent more time reading, feeding and researching raw food than vets spend learning about nutrition in college.

 

Sandra

[Batmom]

Batmom, are you implying that raw is not nutritionally balanced? Because if you are, you might want to let the wolves know that.

 

So, let's see. You want your dog to live as .... long .... and as ... healthily ... as a wild wolf?

 

Holy crap.

 

"Raw" is not a food item. It's a physical state, which has no nutritional value attached to it at all.

[Guest Swifthounds]

Batmom, are you implying that raw is not nutritionally balanced? Because if you are, you might want to let the wolves know that.

 

So, let's see. You want your dog to live as .... long .... and as ... healthily ... as a wild wolf?

 

Holy crap.

 

"Raw" is not a food item. It's a physical state, which has no nutritional value attached to it at all.

 

Where did Sandra say wild wolves? The U.S. particularly has large numbers of wolves living in captivity, eating as nature intended (and not just in zoos) and they live quite long, healthy lives. Despite man's best efforts to drive them to extinction, wolves do still exist in the wild in North America and to the extent their lives are cut short, it cannot be blamed on the diet they eat naturally. Eating a natural diet is wholly unrelated to bullets, poisons, traps, and vehicles - those kill wolves, dogs, and other creatures without regard to their dietary intake.

 

"Raw" is actually just a word and has different meanings in different contexts. "Raw" as used by the OP in posting is a shorthand reference to a particular diet modeled after the way dogs were evolved to eat - but that was obvious.

 

This is way off topic from the OP (and way off the reservation as well). If you don't like raw feeding, simply don't feed it. To not like raw feeding, not have experience with raw feeding, and then offer an opinion on how raw feeding should be supplemented having never actually done so is a bit like reading about how a car should be constructed and then offering an opinion on a particular car's construction to people who actually construct that car. Not to mention it's not particularly helpful to the OP.

[Batmom]

To not like raw feeding, not have experience with raw feeding, and then offer an opinion on how raw feeding should be supplemented having never actually done so is a bit like reading about how a car should be constructed and then offering an opinion on a particular car's construction to people who actually construct that car. Not to mention it's not particularly helpful to the OP.

 

 

No, I think most of the posts in this thread would fall under the heading of offering advice on supplementation when you have no knowledge of dogs' nutritional requirements or of the nutritional content of various food items.

 

"Raw," again, is merely a physical state. I'm surprised that people don't understand that.

Edited October 29, 2010 by Batmom

[Guest Swifthounds]

No, I think most of the posts in this thread would fall under the heading of offering advice on supplementation when you have no knowledge of dogs' nutritional requirements or of the nutritional content of various food items.

 

 

By which you both assert you actually know the extent of others' knowledge and expereince and imply that others whose extensive research and expereince has led them to a conclusion not in line with your own opinions necessarily has no knowledge of dogs' nutritional requirements or of the nutritional content of various food items solely because they hold different views than your own.

 

"Raw," again, is merely a physical state. I'm surprised that people don't understand that.

 

Perhaps you're not a linguistics buff, but there's nothing about context and word selection that requires much beyond 4th grade language arts to understand. The word "raw" has multiple meanings, all of which are context dependent. One's feelings may be described as raw, the weather can be described as raw, and then there is raw as in "uncooked," raw as in "unprocessed," etc. "Raw" as used by the OP in her original posting as well as Sandra in her reply posting is a shorthand reference to a particular diet modeled after the way dogs were evolved to eat.

 

Apparently some feel compelled to rail against "raw feeding" or "PMR" or the physical state of raw rather than just agreeing to disagree. Dogs are carnivores. There's no evidence that their physiology, nutritional requirements, or natural style of eating has magically changed with domestication.

 

Setting aside all of the philosphical arguments to be made, the plain truth is that by all accounts the OP's hounds are doing better on a raw diet than they were before. That she wants to improve their diet and variety is laudable. That she's handling meat is personally commendable in and of itself. For all the rending about the sky falling, the dogs are doing well. Let us not lose focus of what is important.

[Batmom]

OP's question was about supplementation, not about feeding raw meat.

 

My posts were likewise about supplementation, not about feeding raw meat.

 

I'm not sure why your posts continue to argue about feeding raw. I don't understand what you're protesting against. No one has said anything here against feeding raw meat, except you.

 

Reviewing a limited all-meat diet quickly reveals some significant nutritional deficiencies. If people are saying that a one- or two-meat diet fulfills all the known nutritional requirements of the domesticated dog, they don't have adequate knowledge of nutrition to properly advise OP.

Edited October 29, 2010 by Batmom

[Guest greyhound9797]

In an effort to attempt to clear up any "confusion" on the topic of this post....

 

 

To not like raw feeding, not have experience with raw feeding, and then offer an opinion on how raw feeding should be supplemented having never actually done so is a bit like reading about how a car should be constructed and then offering an opinion on a particular car's construction to people who actually construct that car. Not to mention it's not particularly helpful to the OP.

 

No, I think most of the posts in this thread would fall under the heading of offering advice on supplementation when you have no knowledge of dogs' nutritional requirements or of the nutritional content of various food items.[/size]

 

"Raw," again, is merely a physical state. I'm surprised that people don't understand that.

 

First, let's start with the definition of raw. According to the Merriam Webster dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/raw

Definition of RAW (as an adjective)

1: not cooked

2a (1) : being in or nearly in the natural state : not processed or purified

Definition of RAW (as a noun)

: a raw place or state

— in the raw

1: in a natural, unrefined, or crude state

 

I'm going out on a limb here, but I believe this is the definition the original poster was referring to when she titled the topic "Supplement Question for Raw Feeders" (as opposed to home cooking feeders or kibble feeders). No matter how you look at it, adjective or noun, raw is defined as uncooked, in a natural state. So yes, I will agree with you that raw is a physical state, however, it is the state of the food item we are talking about. She was referencing raw food as opposed to cooked food (which includes home cooking - buying raw food and cooking it in your home, as well as commercial dog food - food that is purchased in a bag, box or can that has already been cooked).

 

Heading out on another limb in reference to your comment "No, I think most of the posts in this thread would fall under the heading of offering advice on supplementation when you have no knowledge of dogs' nutritional requirements or of the nutritional content of various food items.", I am assuming that it is not a requirement to be an expert on a particular topic that is discussed. According to the home page at http://forum.greytalk.com/index.php?app=portal (posted by Jeff),

 

Welcome to Greytalk.com.

Greytalk has been on the internet since August of 2000. The community has served over 16 thousand members and currently has over 3000 active members and growing daily. Greytalk has a rich and diverse culture with members from many countries throughout the globe.

Greytalk exists to provide people with a unique, fun and informative place to discuss the many facets of owning retired racing greyhounds.

Here you will find forums with topics ranging from health and medical issues to training and behavior and food and dietary. There are also "Off Topic" forums, just for fun, with topics ranging from jokes and human interest stories to personal triumphs and tragedies.

We have one goal and that is to be PRO greyhound.

We are a moderated community. We feel this is in the best interest of Greytalk and its members. In being moderated, we hope to keep the information flowing and lend a friendly, welcoming atmosphere.

We hope you will find Greytalk an interesting, informative and fun place to be a part of and visit often.

 

So, taking this welcome into consideration it appears that we are indeed allowed to offer advice on supplements in response to the original posters question.

 

 

OP's question was about supplementation, not about feeding raw meat. My posts were likewise about supplementation, not about feeding raw meat. I'm not sure why your posts continue to argue about feeding raw. I don't understand what you're protesting against. No one has said anything here against feeding raw meat, except you. Reviewing a limited all-meat diet quickly reveals some significant nutritional deficiencies. If people are saying that a one- or two-meat diet fulfills all the known nutritional requirements of the domesticated dog, they don't have adequate knowledge of nutrition to properly advise OP.

 

Correct, the OP's question WAS about supplementation and Swifthounds responded

 

I wouldn't add vitamin supplements.

.

 

Your first and second responses were

 

You're not going to fulfill a dog's minimum nutritional requirements by feeding meat/bones alone. Feeding a little liver or tripe now and then doesn't really change that. For the longterm health of your dogs, really best to do your nutritional research from peer-reviewed, scientific sources rather than hoopla on internet boards.

Robin, do your research. You've got a couple of young dogs and I'm sure want them to lead a healthy life. Best luck!

 

So again I comment and say "Batmom, are you implying that raw is not nutritionally balanced? Because if you are, you might want to let the wolves know that. You're replying to a thread titled "Supplement Question For Raw Feeders" yet do not suggest raw feeding." and provide this advice to anyone looking for information - take what you want and leave the rest. Robin asked for and received advice on supplementing. As oftentimes happens in threads, readers commented on their own experience. You took it upon yourself to somewhat "hijack" the thread by giving negative views on the topic. Of course that is allowed, however, you should have known that people who feed raw food to their dogs (and are probably the vast majority of the readers of a thread with raw feeding in the topic line) would "protest" against your comments and defend our decision to do so. If you would like to create a thread titled "The Cons of Feeding Your Dog Raw Food" you are welcome to but please be prepared for raw feeding enthusiasts to provide their comments, experience and knowledge (albeit not EXPERT knowledge) on the PROS of feeding our dogs raw food.

 

So....to answer Robin's original question of

 

Ollie eats raw duck parts, ground duck with bone and organ, duck hearts, liver and chopped beef/organ/liver. I put some grizzly salmon oil on his food. (he is allergic to chicken)

Teddy gets Chicken parts, liver, hearts,, ground chicken/bone/organ/, ground beef/bone/organ and he too gets grizzly salmon oil.

Do they need vitamin supplements? My concern is that it's not balanced and something could be missing.

 

I say no, they do not need vitamin supplements.

 

Sandra in FL

[Batmom]

I didn't say anything about feeding raw food.

 

How is it negative to respond to OP's question by responding in essence, "Yes, you do need supplements"? It's simply a different answer from some of the others. As far as I know, that's what public forums are for.

 

What a very bizarre thread.

Edited October 30, 2010 by Batmom