Prey versus raw? The prey model IS raw. Or at least, one of several raw feeding theories. Not sure I've seen one yet that advocates 50% bone in the diet though
Those that suggest that RMBs should be about 50% bone do not normally *also* suggest that RMBs make up the entire diet (actually no mainstream raw feeding theory that I'm aware of suggests that RMBs make up the entire diet). More commonly it's about 60-70%. And of that 60-70%, about half is cartillage and bone - resulting in 30-35% of the total diet being bone (probably less, since it's not all consumable bone). Seem a bit more reasonable? And not, actually, all that different to your article.
The major difference between prey model raw feeding and some other prominant raw feeding theories (barf, for example) is not in the amount of bone fed, but in the inclusion or exclusion of fruit and vegetables from the diet. It boils down, in the main, to whether or not people believe that dogs have evolved consuming the stomach contents of their prey. Did they consume the content, or did they let it fall?
Those who believe the former generally include around 10-20% of fruit and vegetable matter in the diet (pulverised, to mimick the semi-digested state it would have been in, and to enable their dogs to digest it as they wouldn't otherwise). And those who believe the latter generally feed a minimal amount of fruit/vegetable matter, if any at all. That is the big difference (and most people on this site, myself included, seem to be far more in the latter non-veggie camp).
There are, of course, variations of opinion on the prey model just as on any other (diet, be it for humans or for dogs, is not something you're ever going to get 100% agreement on). At one extreme end are those who run around scraping up road-kill so that they're able to feed whole carcasses, plus a few who'll scream at the mere mention of veggies. Most people though, end up mimicking the feeding of whole carcasses (i.e. feeding a range of parts and offal that together approximate the whole).
Of course, when it comes to things like chicken, even rabbit, it IS quite possible to buy the entire carcass and feed it to the dog over the course of several meals. But if it's more economical to buy it in parts and feed a range of parts that approximate the whole carcass, I really see no problem with that
That items like chicken necks and wings have little meat is certainly correct. Same goes for chicken frames or backs (which have had the meat removed). But nobody in their sane mind advocates feeding those items in isolation - as the majority of the diet. They are perfectly useful (and cheap) parts intended to be fed along with, or alternated with,
meat. And offal. Billinghurst (founder of the barf diet) is very clear about that - it takes a twisted mind to come up with the idea that he advocates feeding a diet comprised of 50% bone.
It is also worth noting that animals raised for the human food chain have generally been modified over time - bred to produce a far higher-than-natural amount of meat and often softer bones (thinking chickens in particular here, from which it can be a good idea and very economical to remove the breast meat for yourself). In short, whichever way you choose to feed these items, the aim is to approximate what would have been present on a whole carcass. I think a few people overlook that (your article included).
