JParker,

Your comments are interesting, however I have yet to see a single scientific study on the benefits of a BARF diet. The only information ever presented in support of the BARF diet are anecdotal and conjecture ("this is a better diet because it should be"). The only significant evidence aganist prepare/cooked diet is a 30 year old study on cats and if it was accurate there would be no domestic cats or dogs since the 3rd generation animals didn't reproduce. I am not sure one way or the other on the BARF diet, but I am finaly glad to see some information on the other side. Frankly this information seems as credible as any information presented for the BARF diet. Coupled with the problems I had in trying to convert my dogs and the problems my friend has had with the diet I am begining to think it may not be the panecea that it is presented as.

I like to see both sides too JParker - there are more than just a couple people that disagree with this way of feeding (both on that site and in other areas)- just as there are many that support it. I have several books on raw feeding that were very good and I have tried it myself. Even the various authors disagree on what is, and is not safe, I can give examples if anyone would like them. Ann Martin's latest book is also very good and cautions against raw, she home cooks. I think people need to just do what is best for them and their dogs and be comfortable with whatever they choose, and not insult or attack those who disagree. (The names are removed from that website in particular as I know there is at least one person who threatened to sue if there name was left up there.) There is a pack like mentality that exists and can get quite nasty if anyone disagrees, and there is no need for that. I personally had no problems when I fed it, aside from splintering of raw bones, and that is my main concern, aside from the garbage in meat, everyone will tell you raw bones do not splinter and that is a myth.

What problems did you and your friend have Richard?

Paul M wrote:
...Why are you attacking me?...I found this article and it most certainly has me concerned.

Paul... Maybe I'm reading you wrong but you are very new to the board and so far... all of your questions seem to be baited and highly controversial... then after starting a firestorm... you stoke the flames by adding a comment to the effect that "no one has answered my question yet..." If I am reading you wrong... I appologize.

Other than the fact that a dog might choke on a bone (which should not really be a surprise) What specifically did the article say that has you concerned?

The article clearly states that the BARF diet is different from that of wolves (even though it may have originated with the wolf concept)... So all of its comments about wolves and malnutrition would seem to be irrelevent.

Shandar, even though my dog is on kibble right now I am hoping to change her over to raw once I can convince my family. I started by begging a chicken leg off of my mother saying that raw meat was good for dogs (she'd given Auster hamburger before and she lived to tell) and I gave the whole thing to Auster in the yard <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> . My mother had a fit when she found out, but now she is starting to come around when Auster is still alive a year later <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> . Sure there are risks, but the risks of kibble are never mentioned. Seeing the crazy things dogs ate and lived to tell about at the vet hospital didn't hurt either (screws, saddle pads, etc.).

Laureen,

With my dogs we had several days of extreame diarrhea in all 3 dogs. My friend had 3 seperate instances of bacterial infection in her dog. I don't think she has had a problem shince she started grinding her own meat, but one fact always cited is that bacterial infection is not a problem. Apparently it is a problem.

Which is correct? The natural diet seems to make sense to me. And then comes along this article and supposed testimonies that put a lot of doubt in my mind. By the way, I actually feed my dogs a kibble (Pro-Plan) every day and every other day add some boneless/skinless chicken thighs or some chopped beef. I freeze it for at least three days prior to feeding. I thought raw meat would be a good supplement and a nice treat for my dogs. I just want to do the right thing for my dogs. I'm thinking maybe I should hold off on the raw meat and give them cooked meat until such time that I am convinced the natural is safe and better.
Dave, you are right, this is a controversial subject. I didn't realize it would be. The result of my sharing the article is a lot of thoughtful, well written posts from caring dog owners who themselves have given this subject much thought. Yet in spite of all of the experience and knowledge here on this board, there does not appear to be a consensus. No, I am not trying to stir up anything. On the contrary, it was my hope that follow up posts were going to show me that raw is safe and is best. And then I could have felt ok about what I have been feeding my dogs. Regretably I am as confused and concerned as when I first posted.

Dave, you said that I ask controversial questions and then follow up with a statement to the effect that my question had not been answered. Well, in a couple of cases that was correct. I had asked what I believed to be a pretty basic question. The posters were well intended and spoke well to the subject, but not to the question itself. At least that's the way I read it. So I reiterated the question. Was that out of line or was the way I asked it out of line? I've tried to be polite and respectful of everyone here. Truly, if I've been out of line with someone I would want to be able to realize it and to make ammends. But to generalize me as being this or that without specifying the thing(s) I said did not give me that opportunity. So I appreciate your follow up post and the opportunity to forge a better understanding.

It's easy for people to exchange unpleasantries and insults on this message board and, for that matter, in life in general, especially when it's them receiving the first salvo. It takes a bigger person to keep their cool and to make an attempt to communicate, understand and reconcile. So in that spirit I'm more than ready to examine my own statements and apologize to any person with whom I was out of line.

Controversial? Could you change that to "thought provoking"? If all of us got together with the intent of having a peaceful dinner party the subject of dog training would probably be better left alone. Everyone here has their own opinion and some are set on it. You've probably already heard this one; I just did recently. Someone told me that the only thing two dog trainers could agree on was that the third trainer was doing it wrong. I think it's true many more times than not. Ideally posters could share and discuss views with mutual respect and consideration and amiably agree to disagree when appropriate. More often that happens but sometimes not.

I'm here to learn and to share through give and take. I'm not here to change anyone's beliefs. There have been statements made that I disagree with, but that doesn't mean I have to be disagreeable. If I do choose to share an alternative view I will do so in a constructive manner, as I believe I've done thus far, at least for the most part. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Someone once said that if you don't know your opponet's argument you don't fully understand your own. I've applied that philosophy to, among other things, dog training. Invariably that involves asking questions. If the nature of my question or response to another post is offensive to someone, I'm more than willing to explore the possible error in my way. And while I intend to be civil, I am not against letting someone know when I feel they have acted out of line. After all, I too owe them the opportunity to redress their remarks.

I didn't mean to pontificate like this. Dave, in regard to whether or not you mis-read me, all I can say is I've never meant any wrong to anyone. If your apology still stands I appreciate and accept it.

Now for my next question to everybody, do you favor or oppose the death penatly and why? Just kidding. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Hey, Paul, I thought you might find this one interesting.
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Flats/7244/bluedog.html

Richard, the study you mentioned was a study by a Dr. Richard Pottenger, on about 600 cats. He fed some of them a biologicaly appropriate diet, and some of them processed commercial cat food. From what I understand, the difference between the health of these two groups illustrated what BARF proponents assert. I can't seem to find the actual study, though, just mentions of it here and there.

About the bacterial infections that your friend's dog had, a couple of things to consider. One is that the dog's immune system could have been weak, like if this was a young or old dog or if the dog had some other health problems. Healthy adult dogs can usually handle most bacteria, but when the immune system is weak, then they can get infections, just like we can when we're stressed or not eating right. The other consideration is of course, the source of the meat and the hygiene practiced in the preparation of the meat. Meat should be rinsed thoroughly to remove surface contamination, and processing equipment should be sterilized to get rid of bacteria. Since it hasn't happened since she started grinding her own, I would think perhaps the meat was being contaminated where the processing was taking place. I would probably not feed my human family meat from that source, even cooked. That's a sure sign that they're not being careful, like the proverbial chef who doesn't wash his hands.

As for your dogs and the diahrreah (I am an excellent speller, but that is one word that I really have a hard time with!), I'm curious how you introduced the diet? What did you feed exactly, and in what amounts? I'd be cautious, too, if mine had the squirts, so I don't blame you a bit! But it does seem like you want to feed a natural diet, so maybe there is a way you can do it that your dogs can handle. There is a website about breed specific nutrition, if you want to check it out:
http://home.att.net/~wdcusick/home.html

Talk about controversial, I am going to go out on a limb here and say that Mr Cusick may be a LOON! I posted a link to The National Academy Press' study called the Nutrient Requirements of Dogs in this segment, but a different topic. It did not get any action, so I dropped it. Mr. Cusick is refering to this very publication to support his evidence that Vitamin C is harmful to dogs as a supplement (they produce their own). He says the NRD states that there is scientific proof that vit C should not be in dog food. The NRD actually states that it is not necessary. The only harmful reference I could find was one that stated that, "600mg Ascorbic Acid twice a day aggravated the skeletal disease induced by overfeeding protien, energy, and calcium to Labrador Retreiver puppies." Mr Cusick's whole article on vitamin C in dog food (added as an anti oxidant preservative) is based on it being harmful to the dogs liver and kidneys with info he got from the above reference. Weird! Made me not trust anything else he wrote. I AM real tired, but I spent a few hours on this, just to make sure. Just thought some of you might like to know. By the way, the Vit C info is on pp. 37-38.
Nutrient Requirements of Dogs p.37

JParker,

My friends dog is a puppy, but had been raised on the BARF diet exclusively. We were introducing the diet slowly and the dogs have always had many of the ingredients and cooked meat.

BTW did you know that the web site you referred me to recomends AGAINST the feeding of a raw Diet?

I have also read the Dr. Billinghearst response you posted. I found it interesting that that his response contained many of the same problems he complains about. Taking things out of context, lack of scientific support. He also states there was no scientific evedence to back up some of the claims, I guess he didn't read the bibliography. He compares a good diet of raw to a poor quality prepared food on an anecdotal level, but no refrence to a high quality food.

I know of many long term studies performed on prepared dog foods by both the companies and Universities reguarding dog foods, I have still not seen any study by any of the raw food advocates that demonstrate any benifit to the raw food diet over a HIGH quality prepared food. There are some real poor foods out there with no evedince to support any benefit and poor ingredients. Poor diet and obesity can lead to problems in people and animals. Dr Billinghearst makes claims that most of the diseases in dogs are caused by poor diet, OK based on what evidence? People take poor care of their animals and they have problems, is this due to a poor diet or lack of general care? My dogs go to the Vet 2-3 times a year. Mostly because my wife gets overly worried about small things. They very rarely need any treatment. The exceptions have been, the Giant playing with and swallowing Rocks (x2), hypothyroidism (now common in the breed), and the obesity in the Mini (my wife badly over feeds her and treats her excessively giving her the same treats and amouts as the Giant). Other than that no problems. My dogs usually live 30-50% longer than printed life expectancies for the breeds (GSD 17 yrs, Belgian Sheep Dog 15 years, Papillion 34 years, Giant Schnauzer 15 years, the Boxer died at 12 in surgery from an undetected prostate abcess).

Like most on this list I am interested in doing the best for my dogs. Having looked at a ton of information over the last 6 years on this subject here is an extreamly condensed version of what I can find.

The comercial dog foods I feed have an average of 5 years of studies for nutrional completeness, longevity of the dogs, and over all health.

The BARF diet has no scientific evidence that it is a better or more complete diet. The claims made reguarding a prepared diet, blaming it for all the ills of the world, have no basis in science. There is some anectdotal claims made, but there could be other contributing factors and there is no controled data. The best reason presented for this method of feeding is "I think this should be better based on a guess and some stories I hear." The books on the subject I have read tend to be a quarter guesses as to how the author thinks wild animals eat, based on little or no hard evidence. A quarter description of the recomended diet, and half anecdotes from people with little or no training describing the wonderful results they got on one or two dogs.

I must admit to being sucked in by the anecdotes, but I think I will be more cautious at this point. I think I will be waiting for some credable evidence.

I would love to have some real information on the BARF diet to look at. As of yet no one has been able to provide a reference to any such study.

Richard,
I too, have similar feelings about the natural "balanced" diet. I look at it this way, dogs get quite a kick out of relatively simple things. Eating is very simple, but can be the source of much pleasure. I would not like someone to take my Thanksgiving dinner and turn it all into nice crunchy nuggets and serve it up to me again, just like the day before. Dogs must like the variety and texture available in natural foods. I do not feed items I know are unhealthy. I also combine the natural foods with kibble, which everyone says is a no-no. If I find any BARF truly analyzed, I will let you know, and hope you will do the same for me.