mommy2kane wrote:Kahlie wrote:Has anyone ever heard of that line of logic? More bone than meat? How's that nutritious?
Could you possibly have misunderstood? Honest question. I'm on a raw group that discusses cats and dogs. I remember reading that cats don't need as MUCH bone as dogs. So maybe they were trying to say that dogs need more bone -- not more bone than meat, just more bone than a cat would require?
Fair question, but no. I don't want to go too deep into who/where this is, in case they come on here, and I don't want to seem as though I'm doing what I am in fact doing (talking behind her back), but that said, this has been bugging me.
It's been outright asserted that dogs require more bone than meat in their diet. Period. I wager that the instruction of more bone than cats, was lost in translation to the person who I was discussing with. And then just ... continued further.
We argued the point of how, "in the wild", no carnivore (or opportunistic omnivore) would eat a frame of an animal on a regular basis. Though she said if a pack took down an animal, they would. (?)
My primary problem is that this isn't a private conversation between people. It's actually at a place that makes, and sells raw food.