Quote:

Originally posted by Richard Cannon:
The BARF diet is a man made diet also. It is an attempt to duplicate a more natural diet, but as has been pointed out wild animals are not always the healthiest animals on the planet. In most cases wild animals live longer in captivity than in the wild. Diet isn't the only difference in the populations, but it would be a consideration.

I have to go with you on this one as well, killing a wild animal and eating the fresh meat, is a far cry from buying meat processed in unsanitary conditions and then purchased from a grocery store or butcher with antibiotics and hormones and chemicals to make the flesh look red, and fresh etc. How long is the trip, under what conditions, between the abbatoir and your grocery cart? Those that raise their own is a different story, but my experience from various lists and friends who feed raw, is that they are in the very small minority, as are those who feed organic.

It is in the same line with the antibiotic resistance we see, much of which is undoubtedly caused by animals and humans regularly eating foods pumped full of antibiotics. Much like the stupid people that demand antibiotics for every flu or cold, and then refuse to follow the proper dosage and stop after a couple days.

I have fed raw and feed home cooked and premium foods to my pets, but the animals I had growing up ate crappy grocery store food my parents bought, which I also bought when I did not know any better, and they received rabies vaccinations every year, and 2 of them lived to 18 years of age. And no, they did not come from breeders. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Hi,
Couple quick things:
Important thing to remember with Ca supplementation is that too much or too little are both bad things. Incorporation of Ca into tissue, and as a result its absorption from the gut is modulated by P levels. If a correct Ca:P ration is not maintained, problems can insue. Feeding bones/ bone meal can help prevent huge discrepancies, but not all bones contain the same ratios of minerals (another reason for varying the diet if you are going to feed home prepared food). I don't off the top of my head have the relative values for different animals, but they should be available in the Journal of Animal Science and Poultry Science.

Dave,
Let me know how those tests come out. Don't worry about not getting them done before the switch. In order for the data to be meaning full, you would have had to check every day for a few days before and a few days after, since as a dog ages these values can change.

Well, it seems as if we are going in circles on this one. I am tiring of this debate! Have fun, folks!

BTW, I'm glad we can edit now! Thanks, Ed!

http://siriusdog.com/nutrition.htm

For any gluttons for punishment out there, here is a link to some more in-depth articles on the subject. It's not the most cheerful stuff to read. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

Chad--

I read here and there that the proper Ca:P ratio in dog food is 1:1. Is that correct? That's purportedly one of the advantages of green tripe, along with the veggie matter and the omega-3 and 6 fatty acids in it.

BTW, I read the tract behind the URL that started this topic. Interesting, but some misstatements, esp. the one about how different genetically dogs are from their wild forebears. They're not. If man disappeared from the scene tomorrow, within a very few generations dogs would breed back to the "village" or "pariah" dog that is so common in the third world.

There's remarkably little genetic difference even between the most wildly different breeds--most of the genetic differences seem to involve neoteny (retention of juvenile characteristics) and modifications of genes that govern the timing of development (e.g. the gene complex for muzzle length is left switched on longer in collies than in boxers).

Also, almost without exception, most modern breeds of dog are no more than a century, or at the most two centuries, old--certainly as "closed book" breeds. Outbreeding was very common in the "old days," esp. since dogs were bred to function (e.g. sight hound) rather than appearance.

So I don't find that part of the anti-BARF argument convincing.

Hey, does anyone have an actual nutrition chart for dogs, that lists exactly how much of each nutrient a dog needs per day?

There is some info here on the AAFCO requirements: http://www.users.kih.net/~jmallen/food.html

After spending the last month pondering and debating this issue I've settled on Innova. I will say that I think that a barfer's best argument is that it's what isn't in the natural diet(as opposed to the crap in cheap kibble) that is benificial rather than what is in it. I agree very much with what Richard has to say on the matter. I think that to feed a Barf diet because it is what wild dogs eat is a bit mis-leading. Wild dogs are very often mal-nurished and they have a lower life expectancy then domestic dogs. They do often suffer from bacterial or parasitic infestation. I can't however argue with those who have fed raw for years and have had no problems or argue with people like Ed who has more knowlege about dogs in his pinky than I have in my whole self! I'll just say that for me, it's Innova, not that crappy food store junk that people give their dogs! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

For me, it has nothing to do with what the dog would eat in the wild. It's just the very basic notion that fresh, whole foods are more nutritious than processed food. Dogs in the wild eat feces, but I wouldn't feed it to my dog!

JParker,

I hear what you are saying. I have heard BARF advocates say "dogs in the wild don't have their food choped up" or "dogs in the wild don't have their food cooked" or "wild dogs eat raw bones and they can handle bacteria or parasites." I say that if I were to argue in favor of a raw diet, your reasons would be my reasons as well, not the "wild dog" theory. That's really all I was trying to say.