That most vets seem totally closed off to the idea of BARF?

Popped into my vets this evening and got chatting to (not my usual) vet. Mentioned I was switching my girl over to BARF when we move an dit is something I have been considering for a very long time, but have made sure I have looked into as much as possible, read up etc. She said the usual 'feeding bones is dangerous and it's not a good idea to feed raw meat to dogs'.

Simply because they believe they see the "aftermath" of raw meaty bones - probably quite rarely but nevertheless if they find a dog with GI complications and known to be fed or scavenge for bones/carcasses they assume that to be the common cause

I'm fortunate that one of the vets who regular covers in my practice feeds a raw diet but know the others (full timers that is ) are VERY sceptical about the safety.  Funnily enough they don't seem to have any hang ups treating the many cases of skin complaints, intolerances and allergies that dogs get which they put down to ingredients in dry completes other than those they sell LOL.

i think they are against BARF because they can't sell it to you ! cynical i know. my mums westies are all fed BARf and she has totally eliminated all health issues like itchy skin and tummy problems and has never had a swallowed bone problem as raw bones are less likely to shard than cooked especially poultry bones.

i work in a referral veterinary clinic second opinion, so we dont sell dog foods etc and i would say the majority if not all the vets i work with are against the BARF diet simply because theyve all dealt with at least several cases of it going wrong.
we've had in the dogs with bent legs at a year old due to wrong levels of calcium etc, had several bones removed from oesophagus (1 dog died under anaesthesia) and not always cooked bones either. seen dogs with salmonella poisoning and other food poisoning.  had several dogs impacted with bones that have undergone surgery, and seen a few constipated dogs needing enemas to clear them.

And how do they add up, in comparison to the numbers of dogs disgustingly overweight, with vile filthy teeth and infected gums... horrific skin conditions, anal glands that need manually expressing regularly, allergies, hyperactive behaviour, digestive problems... all can be and very frequently ARE as a result of poor quality commercial dog food.

You can say that overweight dogs have owners that feed their dog too much and I will agree.

A dog constipated on a raw diet has an owner who is not paying attention to what they are feeding though, so its not the diet thats the problem there either, its the application of it.

I feed five dogs on a raw diet, they have between them eaten many thousands of raw meals and have not a skin problem, tooth problem, weight or digestive problem between them, and they range from an 18" mongrel to a 28" Deerhound pup, it suits them all.

Thats not to say it suits every dog in existance, just as some human beings cannot tolerate foods widely regarded as being healthy, some dogs will not either.

Vets, in my experience, deal with ill animals. Not healthy ones. They also (and this is in common with conventional medicine, doctors as well as vets) treat the symptoms.. rather than seek out the cause, more often than not. They do not do in depth study on canine nutrition (nor on equine nutrition or feline nutrition or piscine nutrition.... or on normal behaviour of the many animals they treat either), no more than a GP knows very much more about nutrition or behaviour in humans.

As vets see more dogs fed on complete food, the symptoms those animals present, that are NOT the reason for the animal attending the vet, become 'the norm'. Dogs need anal glands expressing, and teeth cleaning. Why? Who cares tbh, they do and it brings in income. Dogs smell doggy and dogs scrat from time to time, and dogs have smelly dog breath.. its what 'dogs do'...

Except when you, like I did recently.. present a 13 year old dog who has the teeth of a dog half her age, the heart sounds of a dog 10 years her junior, the muscle tone and body condition of a dog in her prime... with NO smell and NO sore skin and NO itchy, sore anal glands... (and you actively point out that this dog eats a raw diet and has done for years and get a mutter about it and a shuffle of feet).... vets simply do not see these animals (they saw mine as i just wanted a general MOT done on her, there was no ill health that made me take her in, only her advancing years), so fit healthy dogs are NOT the norm at all.

I recommend a raw diet because having changed my dogs over and seen symptoms I believed were normal just dissappear, I can see that for most dogs, it is the right thing to do.

Vets however do not see these things, and they can only advise on their own experience - since they only see the dogs for whom raw diets have gone wrong... thats all they can really say, UNLESS they have a specific interest in diet. And those who do, I find are much more interested in raw feeding.

And the cynical part of me says if dogs did not need anal glands doing, dentals doing, endless skin problems treated, endless digestive problems treated, didnt need excessive flea treatments and worm treatments (every three months, yeah right, twice a year IF that!)..... where would they make their money?

>A dog constipated on a raw diet has an owner who is not paying attention to what they are feeding though, so its not the diet thats the problem there either, its the application of it.

That applies equally well to any diet.

This is one of the things that puts me off a raw diet - the emotional zeal and indeed anger that is displayed if anyone dare question it!  This lady works in a veterinary clinic so she speaks from experience of what can go wrong.  Surely this should be taken on board sensibly.  There's almost a sense of mini fascism coming from many raw feeders today. 

I quite agree, Maisiesmum.

Hi maisiemum

>the emotional zeal and indeed anger that is displayed if anyone dare question it!

I don't think the majority of folks who are diet conscious fall into that category thankfully   Like any subject some members will be more passionate than others, often because they have personal experience of a health condition (whether on the feeding, behaviour, general health, exercise front etc) that has caused them to sit up and take notice of how best to treat and overcome a problem

>This lady works in a veterinary clinic so she speaks from experience of what can go wrong.  Surely this should be taken on board sensibly

I'm sure it is, but likewise you can surely see that it is a valid point that in her work she's unlikely to have healthy animals referred to her   Just as with breeding, vets are not necessarily the best judge of how well things are going - simply because, unless also a breeder themself, the professional may well never have observed a natural birth - only emergency cases requiring his/her surgical intervention

>There's almost a sense of mini fascism coming from many raw feeders today. 

Perhaps a tad extreme there LOL but I do despair of those who feel the need to ram their beliefs - on ANY subject - down everyone else's throat ad nauseum!

regards, Teri

I feed raw as  part of a varied diet,raw is not their sole diet,and i could not agree more with Theemx.Her post should be 'stickied',it's been a long time since I've read such a well rounded and thought out post that just makes plain sense in regards to vets and nutrition.

Utterly well said Theemx!!

I would never ever say to someone that raw feeding will absolutely be fine for all dogs, or is 100% risk free. It's not, nothing is!

The fact remains though that vets do not get healthy dogs coming into them, they dont see the thousands of dogs who eat a raw diet and have no problems whatsoever, the ones they do see will stick in their minds.

I have 5 dogs and ive been registered with my current vets for three years. In that time they have seen 2 of my dogs - once for puppy vacs for Deerhound babby, once for MOT for oldie  saluki girl. They only know my dogs are raw fed because I was offered Hills science diet puppy pack, and say no thankyou i feed raw, and because they specifically asked why the oldies teeth were so clean, otherwise they would not even know that my dogs eat a raw diet. (The previous two sets of vets NEVER asked, and again i saw them very rarely and for things like accidents and puppy vaccines only).

Did you know many of the dogs that advertise some of the big name brands of complete dog food (and I can think of at least two where those are dogs i personally know), are RAW fed??

By all means, question the benefits and potential risks of ANY diet - I would think anyone foolish to leap into anything without researching as much as they can, asking questions, finding out the downsides as well as teh benefits. But perhaps people who feed raw are enthusiastic about it because it has been so good for their pets?

I'm not entirely sure why you replied to me Em - as it happens I fully support your views and the common sense shown in your earlier post

Teri how can you tell who replied to whom?

Because I got the email - you can select or deselect email notifications of replies from "options" menu

I do not feed big brands of pet foods, preferring to use Naturediet and Burns.  If I really believed 100% that raw feeding was best for my dogs, believe me, I would do it without hestitation - similarly for my cats and I would do it properly.  I have spoken to my own vet who is not particularly against either method and says that there are "fors or againsts" and that "if you are unlucky", there can be some damage inflicted by bones but that some dogs can go through their whole lives without any ill effects.  However, others have different experiences. 

I would never forgive myself if one of my dogs choked on a raw bone or one got caught inside him or her just because of some whim - I would have to be 100% sure.  If someone can convince me that raw feeding is the absolutely right thing for my animals, then I'll go for it. 

> I would never forgive myself if one of my dogs choked on a raw bone or one got caught inside him or her

This is why I don't give my dogs bones. My pup is a very aggressive chewer, I know he would chew big chunks of bone off & swallow them or break a tooth off I've even stopped giving him rawhide chews, because he just bites huge chunks off now, before he could only get chunks off after they were wet & soggy, but now he is bigger he'll go strait through a fresh dry 1 (and these are the big 2ft long chews with a knot in the end).

I don't feed BARF, but I have nothing against it, infact I am considering feeding him more raw meat (he has tripe & complete) after seeing the improvements he's had with tripe.
I am not having a go at anybody who does feed bones, I'm just too much af a scaredy-pants to give them to my pup!!

Can never understand why the hackles go up when anyone mentions feeding and it does seem that it is because BARF feeders seem to almost treat the way they have chosen to feed as if it were a religion.

Sure everyone does the best they can for their dogs taking into account their domestic circumstances, their pocket and the likes and dislikes of their dogs. One of my dogs runs away if offered a chicken wing and the others suck for a short while and walk off leaving me to clear up the mess and cook it, they know it is my job to present them with food they find palatable so that is what I do.

The difference from a vet's perspective is that they can prove impacted bones in the body by imaging or x-ray, test for salmonella, etc, etc, etc. 

They can't prove and indeed no one can that compete food causes horrific skin conditions, etc, etc, etc. 

From a vet's view, those dogs that he/she does see due to raw diets gone wrong would be a few dogs less if they weren't fed raw diets so I can see why some vets form the opinion they do.

But it's each to their own when it comes to feeding; we all have different experiences and different beliefs. 

>BARF feeders seem to almost treat the way they have chosen to feed as if it were a religion.

I have to say I've had the same view myself on one to two occasions; obsessions about food in any event cannot be healthy.

My dogs are on a part BARF and part Arden Grange diet. My vets are constantly praising their condition and in particular how clean and white their teeth are which I believe is down to the raw bones they get, that's the main reason why I feed them. They have AG for their breakfast every day and then raw in the evenings, a mixture of lamb ribs, pork ribs, lamb breast, chicken wings and half rabbit carcasses and then they get green tripe and a raw egg once a week as a treat. They're greedy dogs but they've never had a problem with any bones at all and the vets certainly have never tried to put me off feeding raw, in fact they're quite encouraging about it as they've seen the condition of the dogs. I'm definitely not evangelical about it though, I wouldn't feed half and half if I was, I just think it's best for my own dogs.

i agree that diet can have a big impact on dogs overall health, which is why i spend time and effort researching my own pets diets (all healthy, ideal weight, lovely shiny coats and white teeth etc)
often the problems we see in dogs now, skin probs hypothyroidism, tumours etc are all genetic, and are often down to the breeding of dogs rather than diet. genetics have a huge impact on a dogs health. maybe we see more of these problems now because we are breeding more intensively than before? a lot of the popular breeds, westies and goldies for example often have terrible skin, and it is often the breeding rather than diet with these dogs. also, vets see more of these conditions now due to pet insurance in my opinion, things that people would often have left and not consulted a vet about can now be checked out as money is not an issue. dogs are living longer and longer these days, and is this advances in medicine or foods?
with regards to wild animals, please remember they are often not in the lovely healthy condition we like to think they are. wild dogs often have fractured teeth when found, are underweight and malnourished and generally have a much shorter lifespan than domestic animals. im not criticising anyone who feeds raw, it is a personal choice, but i am defending vets, at least the ones i work with. they all have pets of their own, who they love just as dearly as any of the people on this forum do, and they all feed a complete diet, im sure of they suspected if caused all of the problems some people think it does, they wouldnt feed it would they?

>with regards to wild animals, please remember they are often not in the lovely healthy condition we like to think they are. wild dogs often have fractured teeth when found, are underweight and malnourished and generally have a much shorter lifespan than domestic animals.

Interesting read here (I did try to type the point across myself but couldn't word it as well as the article )

interesting maybe, but from a biased source perhaps??

I don't think being biased has anything to do with it. It's obvious that animals in the wild are often in poorer condition and live shorter lives because of other factors in their environment and a lack of food rather than something "wrong" with the food perse.

I've seen plenty of underweight and malnourished dogs who are at deaths door and fed a complete food - I'd hardly say that they're that way because of the food they're fed though!

i agree, they do have many more factors to contend with and this may lead to a shorter life span, but the article states that surely nature wouldnt feed a dog a diet that wasnt good for it or would shorten its lifespan? well nature is a weird thing, all she really cares about is an animal surviving long enough to create offspring, look at all the insects and arachnids that die after mating or giving birth. nature doesnt care about an a wolf living into its teens.
people also forget that dogs have domesticated for thousands of years, their digestive systems have evolved since the days of wolves, they arent the same, both in terms of anatomy and physiology, this is the same in all aspects, their jaws arent as strong, their coats are different etc

Teri - i just hit reply on the last post on the thread which at the time was yours, t'is cos most forums i use the software only lets you reply to the last post, not to a specific post.

I don't particularly subscribe to the 'prey model' raw feeding idea - I can see why people might, but I am interested in giving my dogs the best possible nutrition available to me. Wild animals in general survive rather than thrive, and i moved away from complete dog foods because in my opinion a great many dogs on them (by NO means all), are doing just that as well...

Our dogs are omnivores, leaning heavily towards carnivorous (the opposite to us, omnivores leaning heavily towards vegetarian), and they are also opportunistic scavengers - the point of that is, they are very very well adapted to surviving on far less than optimum nutrition.

I do feel that pet food manufacturers cash in on this, and why wouldnt they - they can resell that which previous to the complete pet food era was waste, by adding the bare minimum of nutritional content. Money for old rope!

Honestly - if there was an easily packaged complete food that gave my dogs what raw food does in terms of nutrition, taste, and variety, I would feed it.

So far though, there isnt. Pet food manufacturers are cottoning on to the trend towards more natural and more biologically appropriate food though, and that really does make it obvious that their earlier menus were not as good as they could be (if something is as good as it can be... you cant then sell a 'new and improved' version can you!).

As I said before though, raw feeding isnt for everyone. If you havent the time to do it properly its not right for you, if you have not access to a variety of meats/veg or cannot store a variety then its probably not right, if your dog has unusual dietary requirements then its not right. And there are risks, but again at the risk of sounding like an evangelical food loony (so evangelical about raw ive just fed my oldie half a bacon sandwhich and a lump of cake! *laughs*), there are risks with everything. Dogs can choke on dry foods, get salmonella or e. coli from them, suffer impactions from the thousands of roasted bones pet shops sell, or choke on a rawhide chew..

The point is, you work out which risk is the one YOU feel happy taking, based on the information you have, experience you have.

My experience is different from someone elses - so i make different choices.

>well nature is a weird thing, all she really cares about is an animal surviving long enough to create offspring, look at all the insects and arachnids that die after mating or giving birth. nature doesnt care about an a wolf living into its teens.

Absolutely right. 'Mother Nature' is no kindly old lady, she's a vicious vindictive old @*%?! Wild animals are invariably riddled with parasites, both internal and external, reservoirs of disease and tend to live short, stressful lives. The natural diet she provides animals is merely sufficient to see tham past reproduction then they've fulfilled their purpose and are disposable. I want to 'spoil' my pets and provide better than that.

Thankyou for the replies so far.

I have to admit, I have so far always fed my girl complete, and always go for the best I can afford, but I can't help thinking 20-30% meat really isn't adequate. I have ordered yet some more books on the subject, including one which apparently points out the potential dangers as well as the benefits, am going to do YET more reading, and then put what I have learned into practice. In my own case, for me, the proof will be in the pudding, and I can only feed my dogs what appears best for them. Also, my friend's dog in prone to dry skin, and she is interested in raw feeding, so if she changes, it'll be interesting to see if the skin clears up.

As for the whole dogs in the wild/raw feeding in captivity debate. I personally feel that dogs in the wild have no where near the variety or selection of food s that we can provide them, nor the quality. So I guess, in effect, o0ur domesticated dogs might be getting the 'new improved version' of what mother nature provides.

From reading the various posts on feeding, I feel that there are quite a few people passionate about what they feed their dogs and it's not always the raw feeders! My pup was raw fed when she came here so we continued with raw but she wasn't gaining weight very well so we changed to a dried complete food. She still gets raw food a few meals per week. When I was looking at complete foods I read pages and pages of differing opinions on here which makes choosing the right food very confusing. I would find good opinions on a certain food, then someone else knocking it for this that and the next thing.

When ever anyone mentions feeding Pedigree various posts appear basically saying it is rubbish yet my mum has fed it to her dogs for the last 20 odd years and recently lost one at the grand old age of 15. All her dogs are fit, healthy, in good condition, do well in the show ring so it obviously suits some dogs. I wonder how many of you who rubbish Pedigree use the freebies that they gave out at shows? Why give them free advertising if that's how you feel about their food?

At the moment I am having problems getting my dog to eat, some days she will the next day she turns her nose up at it and right now I would try any food to get her to eat.

RJS

>I can only feed my dogs what appears best for them.

That's the best any of us can do.

>Honestly - if there was an easily packaged complete food that gave my dogs what raw food does in terms of nutrition, taste, and variety, I would feed it.

>So far though, there isnt. Pet food manufacturers are cottoning on to the trend towards more natural and more biologically appropriate food though, and that really does make it obvious that their earlier menus were not as good as they could be (if something is as good as it can be... you cant then sell a 'new and improved' version can you!).

I'm not convinced that is the case at all.  There is a shift in public opinion towards natural and healthy eating and some people have moved towards raw and cooked food feeding for dogs creating a niche in the market. The manus are simply moving towards catering for that niche.  

With the recent criticism about complete foods and those that have written books about it, they'd have to do something to keep sales up and one way is to produce a 'new and improved' version.  Doesn't mean there was anything wrong with the original version or indeed anything improved about it either.

theemx
I agree with everything you have said, brilliant post!

And I'd also like to add to it that vets (when training) are indoctrinated into feeding 'pet food' as it is usually the large pet food manufacturers vaccine manufacturers that sponsor these vets, they don't understand raw feeding as they have never studied it or read up on it.

It's important to get raw feeding right though.  One of the things surprised me when I started feeding BARF was that you DO NOT add calcium as by doing this the dog would be highly likely to get joint and bone problems, as they get enough calcium with the rmb's.  So for anyone out there who wants to start feeding raw then gather as much info as possible and keep the books for reference.  And just do it, your dog will love you for it, will be healthier, have great teeth, will be easy to control their weight, and will have so much energy!  When we are out with our dogs we very often get asked what we feed as they look so healthy and are so fast, we have comments like 'brilliant add for pet food etc'!  Once we tell them they are fed BARF most want to know more, some think (as vets) that we are mad!

>I would find good opinions on a certain food, then someone else knocking it for this that and the next thing.

This is it though isn't it, no one appears to agree, which makes me think there is not an accepted legitimate truth.  It's all subjective opinion which is why I feed my dogs what suits them best even if that is a food which gets slated to bits amongst doggy folk.  I have fed 2 completes that did not agree with them in the past (one on the advice of a food enthusiastic who was very into natural feeding) so I moved on to another one.  That's not to say that they are dogs out there who don't thrive on those foods, they just didn't suit my dogs.  There are dogs that do best on raw, dogs that cannot tolerate raw at all, and dogs that do better on complete and different types of kibble, dogs that don't, etc, etc, etc.  Each is an individual...

>One of the things surprised me when I started feeding BARF was that you DO NOT add calcium as by doing this the dog would be highly likely to get joint and bone problems, as they get enough calcium with the rmb's.

That's not surprising; it's as old as the hills.  It is also been said to be unwise to fortify a manu's diet with RMB's as there is sufficient calcium already in the diet.  Calcium excess can cause deposits in the joints and is believed to be a contributing factor to bloat and gastric torsion.  Too much mins, vits etc can be just as bad, maybe even worse that too little.

It is a fact that the vast majority of dogs are fed commercial diets, and if owners would feed recommended amounts rather than guestimates then there probably wouldn't be so many overweight dogs around - but then how many humans actually eat a sensible diet quantity-wise?
Most folk (and me included) don't have time to prepare a raw diet that would be adequate nutritionally, and therefore we make the choice to feed complete. Beyond that we have the choice to feed a more expensive food that lists ingredients that sound like food (!) or a cheaper alternative that provides a complete diet but using cheaper ingredients.
But for those who feel that raw is the way to go then that's fine - if it suits your dogs then great!
What annoys me is companies like Pedigree coming out with products such as 'Better by Nature' which gives the impression of being wonderful and natural but in reality is just the same old, same old product with derivatives and artificial preservatives and antioxidants.

I asked my vet about feeding raw bones a while ago.  He said they have had a number of cases where RAW bones caused an intestinal obstruction or damage and obviously required surgery to save the dog.  He is also a dog breeder.  One of his friends wanted to buy a puppy from him and assumed he would say no because she fed BARF.   He sold her the puppy under the condition that if she ever saw *any* sign that could indicate an obstruction that she contact him immediately.

That was enough for me - although if I could find a source of raw marrow "recreational" bones for my dogs to gnaw I would give them to my dogs.

I do not see how any vet can tell where something like salmonella comes from - (although the second vet in the practice I go to mentioned that as a factor against BARF.)  I suppose there are some dogs that never lick their paws after going outside or eat bits of who-knows-what when they are outside - but apart from those, where a dog picks up something like salmonella is pure speculation.

BTW - feeding whole raw bones is not necessary to feed raw or feed BARF.   You can buy raw meat with ground bone - you don't have to feed whole bones. And you can buy it frozen so that you are assured you are feeding a complete, balanced diet as well.

Personally, I agree that vets should not recommend BARF UNLESS they themselves are knowledgeable AND the dogs owner is prepared to follow guidelines - rather than make them up themselves, which unfortunately is what happens too often and results in problems.

> It's all subjective opinion which is why I feed my dogs what suits them best even if that is a food which gets slated to bits amongst doggy folk.
> There are dogs that do best on raw, dogs that cannot tolerate raw at all, and dogs that do better on complete and different types of kibble, dogs that don't, etc, etc, etc. Each is an individual...

Totally agree with you

>I do not see how any vet can tell where something like salmonella comes from.

If a vet sees an increasing number of dogs coming through with salmonella which incidentally are fed a raw food diet compared with dogs that are not, then he/she is going to form a correlation that raw fed dogs and salmonella are linked.

To Tansdad,

>if owners would feed recommended amounts rather than guestimates then there probably wouldn't be so many overweight dogs around

on the contrary I've yet to own or meet a dog that needs anything like the recommended amount   I have an exeptionally energetic breed which if anything is difficult to body up and yet none of their systems could cope with the manufacturers recommendations on any of the many ones I've tried - they'd just have huge sloppy motions umpteen times a day which I guess you can work out wouldn''t suit me any more than them!

Slightly OT but in response to some remarks about OTT attitudes on the feeding front!

I think the problem in general with the feeding board is that regardless of personal preference on complete -v- raw -v- home made, anyone who answers a post always seems to have to justify why they feed that way.   Admittedly it's not quite as bad as it once was because TBF it's a while since I've seen the "anti-capitalism" argument used   Oh happy days

However, radical suggestion I know, but how about:-

If someone asks a specific question relating to dry completes then let those who feed the stuff offer their suggestions without being made to look like the devil incarnate and the OP can go on from there to gather info and make a partially informed choice.  "Partial" because the success or not will not be immediately evident regardless of diet type chosen.  Loads of dogs eat it, even thrive on it, just offer advice and - if so inclined through experience! - suggest possibly a better quality product along the same lines

Likewise on the subject of switching to raw or home prepared, what point is it having the "complete police" obsessed with constantly rubbishing it jumping in with a friend of a friend's brother's best mates uncle's girlfriend's geography teacher's neighbours dog (five down all but one) once choked on a bone ......   Dogs can choke on so many more things - so far in the last couple of weeks the things I've rescued from my pups jaws beggar belief (major refurb at home - ongoing >sigh<) and goodness knows how many weird and wonderful things have eluded my grasp LOL.  He's still here to wag his tail and enjoy puppy moist, puppy dry, assorted raw food, chinese takeaway and the occasional pizza 

Dogs should be fed a diet that suits that particular dog, BARF suits mine so I will stick to it. It does take a little time to prepare but only about 1 hour a week then the food can be frozen.

I think the impacted bones problem usually stems from the roasted bones that are sold in pet shops, rather than raw bones. 

> It is a fact that the vast majority of dogs are fed commercial diets, and if owners would feed recommended amounts rather than guestimates then there probably wouldn't be so many overweight dogs around - but then how many humans actually eat a sensible diet quantity-wise?
>

That is so not true.  I have never guesstimated my dogs food but weighted it and if I changed the brand I re-evaluated my measure for the correct amount.

In common with most people who have fit and not over weight dogs I find that the manufacturers vastly over estimated the amounts needed for nearly all dogs.  I don't think I know any dogs that are fed the amount on the packets and are a correct weight.

On average the overestimates seem to be between 30 and 50%

My guess jackson is because most people are rubbish at balanced nutrition; and that's for ourselves, our own species. I think if they made a complete food for humans that followed all the recommended guidelines our GP's would be recommending that. There are many people feeding home made diets (be it raw or cooked) who do research, have mentors, really try to get things right - and even some of them get it wrong. In the hands of general pet dog owning public (not enthusiasts or the small percentage that would take the time to learn) a quality complete food is probably safer/better for most dogs.

I'm not evangelical either way. I feed some kibble, mostly raw and a small bit of pizza myself. (they haven't managed to get a piece of cake away from me yet though! it's all mine)

I feed my dog's a complete food, but vary it with tripe/ veg/ bones etc, i don't think i would feed my dogs raw, they look tip top condition and don't feel the need to change, definitely an interesting post though

im like you dexter, i also feed my dogs a complete food, dry with some naturesmenu added in. also have large thigh bones occ as a treat, fully supervised of course! my pup loves raw carrots and apples, and i add tripe, mince, egg and fish to meal occ instead of wet food. never had a dog needing dental work, and they are all fit, healthy with beautiful shiny coats which get complimented on frequently. and most importantly, they love the food they get given.

>I have never guesstimated my dogs food but weighted it and if I changed the brand I re-evaluated my measure for the correct amount.

I do the same; I start off by weighing it when changing brands and then adjust, add or decrease to suit the dog's activity levels and weight.  In warm weather, i.e. summer, I decrease the food and in the winter, I add a bit more and the dogs maintain a steady weight all year round.  I've never had an overweight dog; it's a real bug bearer of mine.  Out of the different completes I've fed, they required less than the recommended amount apart from 2, Burns and Euk.  Burns just didn't agree, increasing the amount just gave them cow plat voluminous poo and Euk I think got caught out putting too little down as the recommended amount in their guidelines.