Thank you, I read your article and found it very interesting although forgive me if I remain skeptical. I did ask for the other viewpoint so appreciate you providing it even though the article is published on a raw food supplier website so may not be totally without bias 😉
The article is very compelling in that it highlights a dog is more capable than humans at digesting raw food and dealing with harmful organisms but just because they are naturally better at processing baceteria does it mean we should be exposing them to it? I also found the question asking if I had ever seen a dog turn on a cooker humorous.
I agree that mass manufactured dry dog food is not likely to be the best for our dogs in terms of nutritional value or preventing the spread of disease but I still can’t bring myself to accepting raw food as the solution.
I am attracted to the claimed benefits of shinier coats, fresher smelling breath and more energy etc. but other articles I have read suggest that these benefits might come from the typically higher fat content with raw food diets and perhaps the best solution is not necessarily *raw* but a more nutritionally balanced home-cooked diet.
I think the problem is my lack of trust of commercial manufacturers in both the dry and raw food markets. It seems currently in the commercial space we have a choice between cheap mass manufactured dry food that claims to be “nutritionally balanced” with a one size fits all policy (or at least divided into a broad range of categories like puppy, active, senior), or raw food that has a higher risk of disease transmission through poor preparation practices and also the difficulty in avoiding nutritional deficiencies.
I’m currently leaning towards a home cooked diet that is more nutritionally balanced after finding out what that balance should be. It’s not likely to be the cheapest or fastest to prepare but I will feel more comfortable I’m doing the best for my dog. The research continues...