That's the name of the article I've attached below. For people like me who feed raw meat to their dogs, it's a scary article. What do you folks think of the article? Thanks. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> http://www.secondchanceranch.org/rawmeat.html#top

You certainly like to keep things stirred up.

Dave, that statement is broad and uncalled for. What specifically did I say that is out of line? Why are you attacking me?

I found this article and it most certainly has me concerned. I'm just looking for some input. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Well, honestly I feel that it does raise some valid questions. However, I don't feed my dogs raw food because I think they are just like wolves. I've never bought into that theory of dog behavior or dog health. I get really irritated when I feel like I'm being talked down to on that issue.

I prefer fresh foods simply because it's just like the difference between eating processed foods all your life and eating a fresh, balanced diet. You see the health effects of such diets in humans, why would you not see them in dogs as well? You ARE what you eat. What did domestic dogs eat before dog food was invented? Table scraps. Also, we know that cooking destroys some of the nutritional value of many foods, while others are better digested cooked than raw.

While I'm concerned about the idea of raw meats posing a danger to my pets, the article did not give one single example of any dog having any health problems whatsoever from a barf diet. It's all a bunch of "maybes". Even the source that gave a nutritional breakdown of each of the most popular recipes (Bilinghurst, Schultze, et al) only said that bacteria were present or that the meals were unbalanced, but had no actual incidents of dogs who had health problems as a result of these diets. Even the idea of raw carrots causing diabetes, while scary, didn't give any real life examples of that occurring.

Basically, it's a "scare" article. It lists concerns, but gives no hard evidence one way or another. But, I will probably be researching more breed specific nutritional requirements as a result of reading the info from Cusick.

I have fed raw myself. The link with specific cases is at: http://www.secondchanceranch.org/rawmeat_testimony.html

Well, this is just the end of the perfect day so to speak. I just switched over to the raw diet today. Today is the very first day. Now this article. This is what really annoys me. You try to do the very best you can. You purchase the books, try to do the research, then somebody comes along & says this is the wrong thing to do. Well, guess what. I am going to continue with the diet. I think from what I am reading it is still the best.

Patricia

Having had my dogs on this diet for 8 yrs, I can only bost of the postive things that I have expereinced. The older dogs are way healthier than they were, and live a much more 'quality' of life compared to what they were experiencing.

And the earth is flat <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> .

Well, I am not quite sure what you are trying to say Laren, but experience does speak loudly and honestly.

THere is the 'for' camp of vets that think the Raw diet is the ONLY choice and there are those vets that are against it. Most, if not all the 'for' camp of vets come from the allopath practice of doing things for years to a realization that something is drasticlally wrong in what we are feeding and putting into our dogs and have had the guts to go against their traditional training and against the opinion of their peers, sometimes to the detrement of their own practice and income. (this all sounds like deje vu to me <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Those who speak loudest against this diet have never tried it for any length of time with their dogs/animals.

Can things go wrong feeding this way...yes, but the odds are in your favor if it is a choice between feeding raw natural and a poor quality kibble!

I don't know anyone who recommeds feeding natural that does not advocate and strongly suggest that you read up on it, study it , read books and do it 'intelligently'.

Hm.

I did read the testimonials, and they were interesting. However, the problem with testimonials via internet with no way to contact these individuals is that there is no way to verify the information. It's not credible information because of that.

The website has one veterinarian, one wolf rescue person, and one author who don't agree with BARF, but who don't back up their viewpoints with real instances of health problems associated with BARF, only their theories. Again, it's not hard, fast, verifiable information. It's the opinion of a few individuals.

I have heard way more good things about BARF than I have bad, from people who have been feeding this way for some time; however, what I have been reading is enough to plant some doubt in my mind, certainly.

I work in the media, so I'm very skeptical that just because someone says so on a website doesn't make it so. That goes for both BARF proponents and opponents. I'm thinking that it's better to be safe than sorry, and err on the side of caution.