So, I've been looking into this new diet for a few days now. I started out all excited about it. Now, I'm not so sure.

I've happened upon <a href="http://secondchanceranch.org/rawmeat.html">this article</a>. I gotta tell ya, there are some very compelling arguments against here. I shot this off to Ed Frawley, and all he sent back was something along the lines "just another stupid idiot". I understand he's probably pretty busy, but I need a more in depth discussion than that. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Comments?

this article is old news. If you notice they are promoting books....by Ann Martin.

She wrote one book about feeding raw and then another about how dangerous raw feeding is...

hmmmmm.....seems like she is trying to sell books to everyone..

I think it's a bunch of crap but everyone has to do what works for them. If you are going to base your decision to feed raw or NOT to feed raw on one person's opinion then you probably should not do it! Do your homework and listen to both sides of the story and look at the results of what you do with your own dog.

the proof is in the pudding!

I guess my biggest problem, is that BARF proponents have yet to put forward any real scientific evidence. I know that not all "scientific" evidence is sound. But at least offer SOME.

Furthermore, canines in the wild do NOT live nearly as long as their domesticated counterparts. Whether this is via environment, diet, or a combination of both . . . I'm not sure.

I'm not trying to bash BARF. Quite to the contrary, I'm hoping someone will be able step forward and adequately counter the points raised in the article.

Aaron, check your PMs.

Aaron - your post lacks forethought - it is in the best interest of the commercial dog food companies to do everything they can to put down an all-natural diet. They have the money to spend studies. They have it in their best interest to show the crap is healthy. Do you think they would publish their study when it comes back that the raw meat is better for a dog.

Did you ever notice how much money they spend on TV adds?

Who would you expect to spend money on proving that all-natural diets are better than ncommercial crap? Me ? You? Cindy? the Chicken farmers?

Common sense tell you that 2 pounds of hamburger is better than 4 cups of Iams dogs food.

I too would appreciate it if one of the BARF experts would step forward and address the _specific_points_ in the article. Like the claims that a lot of dogs on BARF diets end up suffering problems due to bone fragments or parasites. Or the claim that most vets are opposed to BARF because they SEE the health problems caused by BARF in their veterinary practices.

Dismissing the article as "crap" or the author as an "idiot" does nothing to educate, and instead just plays into the author's claims that BARFers are religious fanatics.

I have no opinion on BARF one way or another, but I do want to learn more. And I expect to see scientific/medical facts put forward, not just "it's natural" or "my dog did great on BARF" claims.

Laura

Ed, I completely understand the clout of a larger company versus a grass roots effort. However, we're not talking about just ONE entity. While I would agree that the majority of institutions and large bodies are more than likely on the take . . . I can't believe that they ALL are.

Furthermore, I am not basing my doubts on ONE persons opinion. There's also studies done by the American College of Veterinary Nutrition. I could see where they might be on the take as well. But the list continues.

Then there's the reams of people who have had to put dogs down due to GI perforations, Pancreatitis (SP?), bones being lodged in throats, etc.

One of the most telling things I've seen from some of these people is that, while arguing against BARF, they are NOT advocating that you keep your dog on kibble. Many of them say, simply, cook the food. So, unless these people are getting kick backs from local natural gas companies across the country, I'm not sure where their motivations lie.

I recently (last 6 months) converted my 10 year old dog to BARF.
It was through joining this board that I was more seriously exposed to the BARF diet. Also, after reading Ann Martin's first book "Food pets die for" it made me seriously think about the processing dog food goes through before it reaches your home. (even though my dog ate Wellness and homemade cooked food and still eats a little once in a while)
I did not need a "High Falutin'" scientific study to formulate my opinion of a fresh raw "species appropriate" diet. It just made sense.
So, I bought several books including Billinghurst & Schultze, read them did some more research and ultimately formed my plan of attack.
The switch was easy and we did not have any setbacks.
I have made some concessions though. I do not feed whole large RMBs but cut them in pieces. Recreational bones are OK though.
Also, I kind of analyzed my dogs eating style (Okay maybe I'm a bit anal about it). He is a very thorough and methodical chewer. If he was a gulper perhaps I'd have everything ground. Also, he had a thorough vet check before I started.
This diet however, might not be for everyone, nor for every dog. It requires research, and a little more time than kibble.
To be quite honest, yes something could happen while on the diet, but my dog could just as easily bloat on kibble, tear a ligament, break a leg, etc.
To sum it all up: I am an avid cook. I buy the freshest ingredients possible and very rarely have any sort of pre-made or frozen or dry packaged food in my house. Why would I then subject my dog to this? I am also trying to limit my own carbohydrate intake. Why would I feed my dog a food rich in carbohydrates?
That's how I approached the BARF diet. It's that simple.

Originally posted by Ed Frawley:

Who would you expect to spend money on proving that all-natural diets are better than ncommercial crap? Me ? You? Cindy? the Chicken farmers?
I would expect the people making a fortune selling BARF books and other BARF products to fund the studies.

Laura

Good point Laura. Here is something I found from the North American Wolf Association (to help on the "wild animal" arguments):

My own independent study shows that nearly all of the animals we rescue from breeders or "owners" who buy into the raw meat theory - and wolves we take from other facilities that believe the same - have all needed treatment for parasites upon arrival. The pups we rescue at birth and raise here - who have never been exposed to a raw meat diet - have never needed treatment for anything, not even what is considered "normal" puppy worming. They've never needed it. Our wolves are on a special wolf feed that meets their nutritional requirements. The feed was originally created by two wolf biologists specifically for the Mexican wolf recovery program because Mexican wolves were not doing well in captivity. The feed is so rich in protein and high in fat that Mexican wolves started to thrive on it. Purina Mills (not Purina Dog Food) bought the formula and now produces the feed (Exotic Canine Diet) for zoos and other facilities like ours. It's a dry feed and so does not draw flies - which as you know, bring all manner of parasites.

Many people labor under the false notion that wolves are carnivores when in fact, they are omnivores. The only true carnivores on the planet are cats - they don't produce an essential amino acid called "taurine" which is found in raw meat. Without it, they go blind as it first affects the retina, then they die. Wolves however, do produce this amino acid and can live quite nicely without all the blood and guts.