Hon, you really need to do a little more research before you start telling us about “what stands to reason”.
You are so wrong about all of your “ASSumptions” that I do not know where to begin.
I seriously doubt that it is even worth my time, since we aren’t even on the same page, scientifically.
You haven’t done any serious homework, and therefore have nothing to offer but your uneducated, misinformed opinion, and that is worth about what Harry Truman thought of being the vice-president.
If you want to insult me back, please know I won’t read it until tomorrow, if I get around to it.
Don’t you think it a bit silly to get into a snark squabble about what we feed our dogs? Aren’t there bigger problems to fight?
Where have I insulted YOU? Meanwhile, you started with me.
I don’t like the “raw” opinion, indeed; I think it’s foolhardy. But I didn’t insult you personally.
I’ve seen alot of stuff about quackery. If you are neither a nutritionist nor veterinarian nor doctor, I doubt you are much more informed than I. “Raw” falls under the whole hippie “organic” (which in science, means “living”, and that’s all), “whole”, “natural” (hemlock is natural) foolishness for me.
I don’t argue with “human food” - I argue with raw. Why can’t the dogs have cooked food?
“Don’t you think it a bit silly to get into a snark squabble about what we feed our dogs? Aren’t there bigger problems to fight?”
BTW, YOU are the 1 who had to interject your view of raw in a thread about a food recall.
Don’t worry, I still have plenty time to fight on more important issues. You had time to come in and tell people “I told you so” about prepared kibble, why not debate it?