The arguements may made those advocating RAW diets are flawed and are always tinged with some conspiracy theory for good measure.

If commercial dog food companies conducted research to examine raw diets and found them to be better for dogs, they would use that data and start marketing "Ultra Super Premium RAW" Dog Food for even greater profits.

RAW diets do pose a higher risk of pathogenic bacteria and parasites than cooked diets, whether or not people deem this risk to not be of concern to them, does not eliminate the risk.

While it would be very difficult to demonstrate a need for carbohydrates for the dogs metabolism, carbohydrates should be a part of their diet in order to maintain the appropriate microflora of the gut, and therefore maintain appropriate gut health.

While the biological value of certain vitamins is higher in raw vs. cooked food, the value of many other nutrients is improved. The thought that there are heat destroyable enzymes in meat that are important for the animal is bunk. All enzymes are proteins, if it is not degraded just like all other dietary proteins in the GI tract of a dog it will look remarkably like an allergen. One of the tests conducted to determine the oral allergenicity of a protein is to see whether or not it is rapidly cleaved by pepsin. If it isn't cleaved it is considered a potential allergen.

And the "we don't eat a premade diet and we're doing fine" is the biggest lie of them all. Dietary deficiencies or excesses in humans have been shown to be causes in iron deficient anemia, osteoporosis, heart disease, several cancers, diabetes, retinal atrophy, and the list goes on.

 Quote:

Originally posted by Lauren Woods:
If you drag home a carcass and let it rot on the lawn for a few weeks or feed a lot of wild game I might be concerned, but not with regular meat. feeding roadkill and fresh human grade meat aren't the same.

Sorry, I didn't see this post til just now. While the two may not be the same . . . these bacteria and parasites DO exist in human grade meat, which is the primary reason we cook it. Granted, the bacteria may be less of an issue for our dogs than it is for us . . . but the parasites still exist. Here is an excerpt from a vet with 37 yrs exp, as well as a meat inspector for the USDA (odd mix):

"The larval form (Hydatid cyst)of a tapeworm Echinococcus granulosus is often found in most parts of the body especially liver and lungs on post mortem inspection of beef carcasses. This larvae has as its intermediate hosts, man, sheep, cattle, and swine. Since the adult tapeworm is found in the dog, cat, fox and wild carnivores, it is reasonable to postulate that consuming the larvae of this tapeworm can and will infect the dog and cat, developing into the adult stage. "

Now, I LOVE beef liver . . . but I'm damn sure gonna cook it first. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> I'll assume that most feeding the BARF diet ARE feeding their dogs liver, and NOT cooking it.

Originally posted by Laura Sanborn:
What percentage of dogs fed kibble have salmonella in their stool?
What is the source of your information? That's what you are supposed to tell me! The amount of bacteria present varies according to external factors (stress) so the study is useless unless they have a control group of dogs under the exact same group of conditions that are being fed kibble. With the info you provided for all we know the kibble fed dogs could have more bacteria in their stools. That's why providing only part of the truth makes the information useless.

It would also need to be tested to see if the bacteria in BARF fed dog stool was as likely to be infectious. It is possible that the bacteria are about to die as they come out due to the more acidic stomachs of raw fed dogs. I would rather have more weakened bacteria than fewer healthy ones coming out of a kibble fed dog.

That's why I think the bacteria info is completely useless.

Originally posted by Aaron Seydlitz:
Again, we're talking concentration. Yea, but I don't think your wife will be eating the dog poop. She will be eating the veggies. That makes a big difference, especially if she uses soap and water to wash her hands before eating.

Originally posted by Aaron Seydlitz:
The larval form (Hydatid cyst)of a tapeworm Echinococcus granulosus is often found in most parts of the body especially liver and lungs on post mortem inspection of beef carcasses. So don't feed raw liver and lungs and you are fine. Big deal.

I wonder if you drive a car?

dogs fed commercial diets get internal parasites too - you have to worm your dog anyway. Also hard freezing gives protection from some parasites. If you are worried about bones - feed ground meat. If raw feeding wigs you out - cook it or feed commercial diet.

 Quote:

Originally posted by Lauren Woods:

 Quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Seydlitz:
The larval form (Hydatid cyst)of a tapeworm Echinococcus granulosus is often found in most parts of the body especially liver and lungs on post mortem inspection of beef carcasses.

So don't feed raw liver and lungs and you are fine. Big deal.

The quotation, which you provided, said that larval tapeworm are found in "most parts of the body" of beef carcasses. Not JUST the liver and lungs, but ESPECIALLY the liver and lungs.

Laura

Originally posted by Lauren Woods:
So don't feed raw liver and lungs and you are fine. Big deal.

I wonder if you drive a car? Ah, so KNOW, you're going to start ommitting parts of the diet, impromptu, as info is divulged? Uh uh . . . doesn't work that way. I'm SURE Dr. B recommends raw liver, as I'm sure quite a few BARF proponents do. This simply demonstrates that the research and forethought put into this diet is horridly lacking. Which of course, lends one to wonder, what other issues have never been addressed, or even known about?

As far as whether I drive a car . . . well, if we're going to start using irrelevant junk logic as an argument . . . do YOU like to play russian roulette? After all, there's danger everywhere right? So why not play Russian Roulette?