Quote:
Originally Posted by woof99
I think the tough issue as to is one better than another is that dogs will live to be around the same age when fed quality kibble vs raw.
If dogs fed raw lived significantly longer, then vets would pay attention, but they do not.
... I would love for the raw food makers to have studies done, I know we would love to have more info for clients.
|
I think framing the question as 'what diet will make a dog live longest' is kind of flawed. I don't think a raw diet is a magical anti-aging formula which will make my dogs live to be 110, nor do I think feeding kibble, of any kind is likely to result in my dogs dieing at age 4. Clearly dogs are adaptable creatures and can survive a long time on diets as bad as Ol' Roy.
The issue, to me and I'd guess a lot of people who have chosen to go with raw or homecooked diets, is not my dogs surviving, it's a question of thriving. They may very well die at a totally average age, their less than stellar genetic material will likely have an effect on how long their lives are, but for however long they're around I want them to be in the best shape possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by luckypenny
Because of lack of scientific info, I did extensively read up on it before I decided to switch my dogs over to raw. And that included all the pros and cons.
|
I think this brings up an important point. Feeding raw is not free of risks, but then neither is feeding a kibble diet. I think it comes down to an individual weighing of risk vs. benefit. In cases like LP described, and my own, feeding kibble means having an unwell dog most of the time, so perhaps the choice is easier than for a dog who genuinely does quite well of a decent quality kibble.