Re: [pyrnet] Hi protein

["Tracy Bassett" <espinay@bigpond.com>]

<<There's probably some used to be raw feeders who have hit the risks who
probably wouldn't agree with you now and didn't know the real risks until
they hit them.>>Janice

There are often stories like this that go around.  It is very very rare to
ever find one who can personally relate a story.  If you know any, please
send them my way as there are plenty of us trying to compile actual first
hand factual accounts of problems caused directly from feeding raw foods
(someone I know is keeping a 'database'.  After quite a few years the
entries are still very minimal.  Most leads have ended up being
unsubstantiated rumours or falsehoods).

 << I think anybody who goes that route should be educated and informed
about what they're  doing.>>

Sit on a rawfeeding list long enough, ask the questions (yes the
'controversial' ones too) and there will be lots of info to keep even the
most information hungry busy.  The lists I recommend are 'rawfeeding' and
'K9Nutrition' both at www.yahoogroups.com .  K9Nutrition BTW is not just a
raw list, but also has many folks who cook and/or feed kibble.

<<I've already heard too many that really weren't, they didn't know, were
uninformed that could happen to their dog. >>

Again, were these first hand accounts or' I heard it from someone, who heard
it from someone' ?

<< you're getting into what you buy the animals are fed stuff to make them
grow fast, given antibiotics, and mass produced together for slaughter, and
now getting into genetically engineered to produce more, it isn't what it
was 40 or so years ago. >>

One thing with feeding raw is you get to learn a lot more about the meat
production process.  This is true in some cases.  There are many variables
between what you cite and organic however.  While some do choose to go all
organic, there are also choices like 'grass/range-fed' or 'free-range' (even
that is a 'catch-word' in some cases though) or choosing from particular
suppliers who minimise hormone/antibiotic use (It is not permitted to use
hormones in chicken and pork production BTW).  There are also choices like
deer in season, rabbit, emu, kangaroo, ostrich and others from producers
that also produce for the human market.  While organic is the ideal, not all
can choose to feed it to themselves let alone their dogs.  Not feeding a raw
diet simply because meat is not as good as it used to be is IMO throwing the
baby out with the bathwater.  That same meat (or more likely worse) is in
commercial dog foods too.  No amount of cooking will destroy the hormones,
the antibiotics or the condition they were raised in, nor that fact that it
may have been 'genetically engineered'.

<< I fail to see how that can be seen as healther and will reduce the risk
of cancer<gr>.  >>

Commercial foods are cooked at high temperatures.  Through the
cooking/rendering process, many of the nutrients and amino acids in the
foods are destroyed.  While dog food companies add some of these back in
artificially, they do not add them all.  Many natural amino acids for
example are not included.  The amino acids arginine and glutamine for
example help with immune building and have been shown in tests to reduce
toxicity in the body.  The natural live enzymatic properties of the food are
also lost.  Commercial foods also include a high percentage of grains.  The
extrusion process pretty much guarantees that this is the case (as do cost
factors).  This is despite the fact that carbohydrates are not considered to
be a requirement for dogs (see that wonderful tome 'Nutrient Requirements of
Dogs).  Dr Oglivie from Colorado State University has done some research
into diet and cancer.  Tumors need glucose to live, which are simple sugars
found in many carbohydrates.  Removing/reducing carbohydrates from the diet
and providing energy instead in the more useful form of fats (in particuler
essential fatty acids) helps to 'starve' the cancer.

Tracy Bassett
Murrumbateman, Australia
espinay@bigpond.com