 |
Raw vs Commercial
Feeding Survey
|
 |
It seems that the bigger concerns when people hear about raw diets vs commercial foods are whether it's going to take a lot of time and/or work to prepare the meals and if they won't cause their dogs or cats a nutritional imbalance, maybe due to them not opening their eyes to the truth about commercial food. Obviously, all this depends a lot on how each person assures variety in the diet and how elaborated the meals they want to prepare are (i.e., the type of diet each follows - Billinghurst, Lonsdale, Pitcairn, Schultze,...), etc., but I thought it would be a good idea to compile some statistics of several people's opinion and their observed results after having fed commercial food for shorter or longer periods of time and now feeding a raw diet to their dogs and cats.
In April 2001 I did a survey among dog and cat guardians aiming to obtain some general responses to these questions. The results were as follows:
186 people answered the survey. The amount of animals fed by these people were:
The time these people had been feeding a raw diet was: 33% more than 2 years, 23% somewhere in between 1 and 2 years, 20% in between 6 months and a year, 20% between 1 and 6 months and only 4% less than a month.
67% of these people do not find that feeding a natural raw diet takes them more time and/or work than feeding commercial food (vs. 33% that do find so).
91% of these people has clearly observed health benefits on their dogs and/or cats with a natural raw diet perros vs. feeding a commercial food.
99% of these people declare that their animals have never been diagnosed any nutritional imbalance, neither by excess nor by deficit of any nutrient, ever since they started feeding a raw diet.
And, finally, 98% declare that they will NOT go back to feeding commercial foods.
© Dolores Sánchez-Peñalver 2001. Todos los derechos reservados.