|
Post by amyjo on Jul 1, 2004 8:32:23 GMT -5
Ohio State is looking for volunteers for a study of rawfed dogs. They want a sample of food, a sample of poop, and a sample from your vaccuum....
From what I have read the study is at least partially funded by pet food companies and seems to be hyper focused on bacteria and whether it is present, in what quantities blah blah blah...I KNOW it's present but if I'm not sick and my dogs not sick then what is the big f'ing deal? I am focused on the positive health benifits that I SEE everyday.
Another problem I see with the study as a "rawfed dog" in thier definition can still eat kibble 4 days a week...so this to me is very problematic if you are going to go pointing fingers that one method is more "germy" than the other...
People on the rawfeeding list are debating this - some are participating beacause it's about time we had a study and they know their way is better and wanna prove it -
Others are so distrustful of allopathic vets and the vet school (because of the funding source) that they say NO WAY - the results will be skewed and rawfeeding will get another kick in the face....
I am torn....I want to participate because I believe raw is right and I want to help prove it - but I am also distrustful and see flaws in the study. What do you guys think?
|
|
|
Post by Willow on Jul 1, 2004 10:15:07 GMT -5
Yes, I have seen this too, Amyjo.
What concerns me is that since it is funded, either in part of completely by the Iams Co., it will be biased from the beginning and as one poster said, if Raw feeder's respond, they can twist the facts to suit their study.
It is a dilema, especially since we already know that there are "germs" and "bacteria" everywhere, not just in raw food, and one of the biggest culprits is commercial dog food! More dogs get ill from eating kibble that has bacteria in it than raw fed dogs do from eating raw, not to mention the long term ill affects from eating kibble.
|
|
|
Post by amyjo on Jul 7, 2004 19:00:35 GMT -5
Just because I know you are all lying awake at night wondering.... I have decided not to participate. Somebody at rawfeeding spoke to the research assistant and got a hold of the proposal for the study and posted it.... It is ALL about bacteria and not at all relevant, valid or reliable in terms of the actual health of our domestic carnivores.
|
|
|
Post by Laura on Jul 12, 2004 0:38:55 GMT -5
I know, I know, little late on the response , but as a matter of fact, I was wondering! Knowing that it's all about bacteria levels, I wouldn't bother either. Besides, bacteria is everywhere, or as we call it, the good, the bad, and the ugly ;D. Hell, dip into my own food supply for the hounds, I'll bet there's just as much bacterium on the kibble as there is on the raw. Because where do most people keep their dog food? In the kitchen, which is second to the bathroom for ickies and nasties.
|
|
|
Post by sibemom on Jul 12, 2004 3:15:25 GMT -5
Well considering that the study is sponserd by IAMS, I am sure it would be tainted in someway I remember when they were being considered for a major backer for my washed out project You could talk no sense into these people. When I told them that my dog would not touch their food with a ten foot pole they told me that is must be something I was doing wrong. I wasnt doing anything wrong Not only could he not stand the smell of the crap, but everytime he went near it it looked like he was going to PUKE Why can't they just do a study on overall health benefits between raw fed dogs and kibble fed dogs I can say that when I put Blade back on kibble, even though he still looked healthy, you could tell the difference without looking to hard. Now that he is back on primarily raw, he looks MUCH better. Willow also is looking better with being on raw, her coat is much sleeker, her teeth are much whiter, and she poops a heck of alot less If they would just compare kibble fed dogs and raw fed dogs in no time at all the study would show that raw fed have the apperance of extreme health, and if they proceeded to do bloodwork etc... they would find that the raw fed dog would have much better test results.
|
|