'Are we killing our pets?' Petfood article.

Greenbynature

I feed a totally raw diet to my dogs and have done since November 2002, I have 3 kids in the house. None of us have become ill through our dogs. I have always warned the kids that the dogs have just been fed etc and not to let them give them a "kiss"
I wash everything properly after I've prepared the dogs' food - just like I would with raw meat the humans were eating.


Also, I don't know about other people's dogs but mine love drinking dirty/filthy water when we're out on walks - what are the health risks there?

snowman2_2

Going back to the vaccine posts, it is very difficult to make a claim relating duration of immunity between pets and humans. The only disease we vaccinate our pets against and ourselves on a routine basis is rabies. In humans the initial course is 3 injections, in pets it is one. Boosters are every 3 years for all so cats and dogs actually get vaccinated less. You cannot compare tetanus (which is a bacterial toxin) with FeLV or parvovirus which are viral infections. With vaccine duration of immunity you can only compare like with like and we are limited to rabies. Different species also respond differently with different levels of immunity. Cats are different from dogs who are different from humans.

As to anything the Daily Mail prints, I pay no attention as the article was so imbalanced. There were long quotes from the anti-brigade and only a few lines from the pro-pet food side. It is sensationalist and why just blame vets? What about the supermarket who sell much lower quality food and have much more marketing clout than a single vet. One special offer from Tesco will sell more bags of one food in a week than I can in a year.

As to whether the diet works, who knows? Done well it is probably just fine but too many people will get in wrong and be dangerous. Tinned or dried food will be safer and easier for large proportion of people. My pets have been on a commercial diet all their lives and I have a cat aged 18, a dog 13, cat 12, cat 10 all of whom have excellent teeth and no health issues other than mild arthritis in the oldest cat following a broken hip as a kitten and 1 cut leg. I can find you sick and healthy animals in both food groups but after seeing a 7 month old puppy on a home cooked diet with a bendy jaw due to calcium deficiency, i would choose a commercial diet any day.

As to food companies doing vet training, we had 2 hours on a Sunday at a local hotel to discuss food and diet. Please credit me and other vets with the intelligence to realise they had an agenda and I sell very little of that brand of food and we have to order it in specially. We have changed brands twice when I see something better available. Vets are used to seeing drug / food company reps and , yes, I will try something new, but if it doesn't work and do what I expect, or it isn't better than the old stuff, I wont change.

Fire_Fox

snowman2 wrote: »

What about the supermarket who sell much lower quality food and have much more marketing clout than a single vet. One special offer from Tesco will sell more bags of one food in a week than I can in a year.

Excellent point. :T

BubbleFrogette

I've got a PhD in biochemistry (although evidently I can't remember the immunology from my undergraduate degree!) and I regularly eat sushi and sashimi - never suffered any ill effects.

I also feed my cat standard premium food and I'm happy with this choice. Our old cat has been fed on standard supermarket food all her life and she is now 19.

To be honest, as with everything, we can fret and worry and argue about what's right/wrong/makes no difference, but at the end of the day no two people (or animals) are the same and what is good for one is not neccesarily good for another. So I don't beat myself up about it.

Greenbynature

BubbleFrogette wrote: »

To be honest, as with everything, we can fret and worry and argue about what's right/wrong/makes no difference, but at the end of the day no two people (or animals) are the same and what is good for one is not neccesarily good for another. So I don't beat myself up about it.

totally agree with you

foreign_correspondent

I think we can get too worried - the bottom line is that all commercially made dog foods (whether £10 or £60 a sack) will provide a dog with the basic nutrition it needs. I have no doubt that bones and raw food is a good diet too, if you have the time, inclination and freezer space!

However, in a climate where people are giving their animals up because they cannot afford to keep them, I think we do have to question whether some of the very expensive pet foods available are really vital... in my experience, most dogs will thrive for very little money on a diet of basic, cheap kibble - and for variety and extra nutrition, the odd raw meaty bone, chicken wing, dollop of bio yoghurt, leftovers, bits of fruit and veg, or a tin of sardines are all well received!

Whilst I appreciate the idea that 'more meat = healthier dogs', in the absence of a great deal of unbiased research, I also think it is worth noting that greyhounds, the performance athletes of the canine world, whose fitness and condition is paramount, are often fed on a 'muesli' type food, high in cereals - - http://www.k9capers.com/shop/proddetail.asp?prod=2581

I also suspect that poor breeding is probably at least partially responsible for 'killing our pets' (as the article puts it)! When we have created some breeds who are not generally expected to live beyond six or seven years old, I am not convinced that feeding them any specific diet will change much!