[Article] Article: raw feeding
- Thread starter Dory Berkowitz-Bukowski
- Start date
Mr. Argumentor
I fab shitboxes and shitbox accessories.
There is a pretty easy way for determining if something is scientifically based or not
I find it annoying when people in niche industries like to play up the soul-crushing, industrial giants. It's counterproductive. If the niche market is better, it will prosper. No need to scream that the sky is falling. Just the opposite, no dog food maker is in the business of killing dogs. Ya see, it's also counterproductive. And a single study of 500 animals with data seemingly provided by some animal rights group isn't exactly unbiased, peer reviewed science.
That said, April and I have put quite a bit of thought into the food we feed our animals. We didn't come to the same conclusion that you did.
But an expensive way. As has been covered before, rigorous testing is not going to happen without someone stumping up serious money. As processed pet food is relatively new, feeding dogs on what they had eaten until recently is not actually that big a stretch. Is feeding a canine raw meat really that odd? I can't see it. I can understand anyone saying they find canned food and kibble easier but it's hardly a 'natural' diet for a dog is it?
So raw food is now a 'niche industry' is it? What would you estimate this 'niche industry's' advertising budget is to enable it to grow? And no-one has suggested (in the hysterical way you imply) that pet food manufacturers are out to kill dogs. What they are out to do is sell their product. That makes research funded by them dubious.
Last edited:
Mr. Argumentor
I fab shitboxes and shitbox accessories.
That's not what I meant at all.
In reference to the post I quoted, it doesn't matter if you consider no other arguments about one topic, you can still determine if something is based scientifically or not.
I'm not commenting on what is odd or not, 300 years ago it was not odd to treat maladies by ingesting mercury.
Petunia
COVID POSITIVE FOREVER
Any research funded by a potential beneficiary is dubious. Do you think if Armitage's (for example) commissioned research into one of their products and it showed it in a poor light it would never see the light of day? The point I'm making is that the only research you'll ever see is that which portrays the pet food companies in a good light. They are, after all, paying the piper. Would you care to enlighten me as to what scientific claims made you decide on the pet food you buy? Shinier coat? Longer life? More active? They all make these sort of claims don't they. one wonders what they're comparing it to.
What you don't seem to accept is that anecdotal evidence can have value.
I'll give you an example. There's a product called Armillatox that can kill honey fungus, white rot and club root. It's been doing that for years. As a result of new legislation, it can no longer make claims to do any of those things. The reason being that there's no scientific proof. The company who manufactures it can't afford the high cost of the mandatory testing that is now in place. Guess what. All we gardeners know it works. We don't need testing to tell us that, our experience does. Interestingly, you will find that Armillatox is on sale in America as a fungicide.
What you don't seem to accept is that anecdotal evidence can have value.
I'll give you an example. There's a product called Armillatox that can kill honey fungus, white rot and club root. It's been doing that for years. As a result of new legislation, it can no longer make claims to do any of those things. The reason being that there's no scientific proof. The company who manufactures it can't afford the high cost of the mandatory testing that is now in place. Guess what. All we gardeners know it works. We don't need testing to tell us that, our experience does. Interestingly, you will find that Armillatox is on sale in America as a fungicide.
Mr. Argumentor
I fab shitboxes and shitbox accessories.
I could easily ask you what scientific reasons made you decide that raw feeding is the best. There is none. Out of all the things that your daughter mentioned on the other page, white poop is the only thing that points to a difference in diet. Apparently raw feeding prevents Kes from allergies, how does she know that? How can she prove that?
In the scientific community, anecdotal evidence has no value.
In the scientific community, anecdotal evidence has no value.
Again I'll ask, where is this maniacal dubious research you keep talking about?
You can ask all you like. i have not claimed that I had scientific evidence. Are you really trying to tell me that you carry out scientific research on every decision you make? Of course you don't, some things seem obvious to you. Kes had what I can only call digestive problems before being put on a raw diet. She had allergies before being put on a a raw diet. Afterwards, neither was the case. This is the sort of report you consider has no value as it's anecdotal. How many similar anecdotal stories would you dismiss as irrelevant? There are a lot of them you know. Eventually, a sufficient weight of anecdotal evidence has to carry weight. I refer you to the Armillatox example. You can remain unconvinced, that's not a problem. But to act as if there's no case to be made is ignorant and closed minded.
All I'm saying is that any claims made about a particular dog food are hardly independent and unbiased are they? I ask again. What did you base your purchasing decisons on when you decided on a diet? April has already stated that you didn't consider a raw diet so you basically weighed up competing claims from different manufacturers? How scientific their claims are is IMHO very questionable so I'm not sure what high ground you are taking about science. After all, they can't ALL be best can they?
Mr. Argumentor
I fab shitboxes and shitbox accessories.
My contention with this is that somehow you think that someone who does not think about what to feed their pet cannot determine if something is unscientific or not.
And I repeat, until it has been measured and quantified, compared to other measurements, and rigorously tested, anecdotal evidence is useless in a scientific setting.
You don't know that a raw diet cured the dog of allergies (did the dog actually go to the vet to get diagnosed for allergies? What were the findings?) all you know is that a change in diet cured the dog of allergies.
If I'm lactose intolerant and I go on a vegan diet I have cured my allergies. It doesn't mean that meat was polluting my body and killing me, it just means that I stopped eating what was bothering me in the first place.
I never said that there was no case to be made for a raw diet, but I guess, deep down, my entire problem with everything I have heard about the raw diet is that it has the same taste as hearing "gluten-free diets cure autism!" and other bullshit spouted off by parents of special needs kids.
Something to ponder: kibble is raw meat + additives + nutrients (basically, the constituents of a raw food diet) that's steam cooked, formed into pellets and dried.
Start with good ingredients, and admit that cooking food doesn't significantly alter its nutritional value, and you've got an end product that's just as good as raw food. Right?
Start with good ingredients, and admit that cooking food doesn't significantly alter its nutritional value, and you've got an end product that's just as good as raw food. Right?
Syrup Beaver
pants log
I think you'll find that most kibble has substantial quantities of grain so hardly how you describe it.
http://www.canadasguidetodogs.com/health/nutritionarticle2.htm
Nature's Recipe Lamb & Rice kibble. What are you envisioning? Dried meat and rice? Well the main ingredient is ground whole wheat. Not, I'm sure what you expect with that name.
Last edited: