First off, I'd like to thank everyone who's participated in this thread. I'm SURE this topic has been covered, uncovered, smothered, buried, dug up, and set on fire. I suppose I was looking for a point by point on the URL I provided, which is hardly fair since it's a rather large narrative (when following all of the links). Therefore, I'll provide the points that interested me most here, for easier digestion (couldn't resist) & discussion.
So we begin:
Advocates of a BARF diet make a giant leap from a low-quality kibble to raw meat and bones, skipping over a more common-sense solution: a homemade diet with cooked meat.
Now, I understand the argument here is that once you cook the meat, most of the nutritional value is destroyed. Has this been verified? I can't, for the life of me, see an ulterior motive for claiming cooking the meat would be bad, so I'm on the fence on this point.
I'm often told "my dog has a beautiful coat". Raw meat is high in fat - this could also be accomplished with olive oil added to their diet, without the risk of illnesses associated with raw meat.
This IS indeed a frequent argument (one made on this thread a couple of times). I can definitely see where simply increasing the fat intake for a dog would benefit the appearance of the coat. For that matter, fat in general, is going to provide some fairly well-proven health benefits.
I have a wolf sanctuary, and the truth is that wild-born wolves taken into captivity are typically malnourished. Most people *assume* that because wild dogs don't have the opportunity to cook their food, that nature has set up the perfect diet for them. This is simply not true. We know from their carcasses that they die of splintered fowl bones and have very bad dentalia (dental problems).
This argument makes a great deal of sense to me as well. Especially when you consider the author indicates that wolf scat is usually found to be encased in the fur of whatever animal it has ingested. This suggests that there is a designed defense against bowel perforation that domestic dogs being fed the BARF diet are not afforded, by (unintentional) design.
Most wild dogs hunt small prey, like rabbit, birds or rodents, providing a relatively small amount of actual meat. Even bones are sometimes left behind. The first thing they do with prey is tear open the belly and eat the pre-digested greens, then the organs, then a combination of muscle meat, bones and fur. It is also important to remember that only large pack dogs like the gray or red wolves hunt large ungulates (i.e., deer, antelope). One dog could not possibly take down a 250 pound animal with their mouth while it's running at 20-30 miles per hour. They share the feast with the whole pack. The females then return to their pups and regurgitate pre-digested meat for them (contradicting Dr. Pitcarin and Billinghurst's theory that predigested meat is not healthy or normal for dogs to eat).
There appears to be quite a large gap in the supposed dietary habits of the wild dogs upon which this domesticated diet is based. Yet, there is nearly zero CLAIMS, let alone evidence, that refutes this. This bothers me. Mostly because in a debate with two sides, a GOOD debate (that is, one with two very valid perspectives) will involve so much point / counterpoint, that a layman will be hard pressed to easily take a side. That doesn't seem to be the case here. It seems, that the BARF advocates have one point to every opponent's four counterpoints. I DO realize that there is a very, very large industry one side of this argument. One that can leverage great resources to decimimate the other side.
If you want to feed your dog like a wolf, then start shopping for worms, roots, swamp grass, rodents and fowl. Or garbage of neighboring humans. Sure, they eat vegetation including fruit and graze on grasses, but you're not likely to see them sitting down to a bowl of oatmeal and yogurt in the morning or a serving of fresh broccoli with their just killed mole. Some retail frozen raw meat products are really nothing but byproducts, and others include a menu of dairy products or are heavily supplemented with items that are believed to be healthful for humans, but not researched to determine the benefit to a dog.
Again, creating HUGE gaping holes in the "it's what nature intended" argument that seems to be the mainstay of the BARF proponents.
One consistent ingredient in the many varied BARF or raw meat diets is the supplementation of dairy products. Dogs are lactose intolerant and do not produce lactase after 6-8 weeks of age. Furthermore, bovine and goat milk is nothing like canine milk.
What is the stated purpose of adding dairy to the BARF diet? To be quite honest, the point doesn't surface for me (I'll probably look it up myself anyway. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> ).
Furthermore, many authors of raw meat diets or makers of such a diet present ludicrous unsupportable claims as fact, such as these:
(1) raw chicken and turkey bones will not splinter (in fact, they are the most common bone to kill a dog).
(2) pasteurized products contribute to arthritis.
(3) mixing proteins causes gas in carnivores (dogs are omnivores, as are humans) as well as an acid condition that may lead to disease.
(4) grapefruit seed extract and/or fruit sugars will kill any dangerous bacteria in raw meat.
(5) beta carotene and vitamin A prevent cancer. None of these claims has been demonstrated to be true, nor are they widely accepted as even possibly true.
I was appalled when approached by a few of the raw meat manufacturers/distributors with the enticement that "you can become a millionaire selling this stuff". This is not to say that each and every person advocating this fad has money as their prime motivation, but it certainly seems rule, not the exception.
So again . . . more points not satisfactorily addressed for me. Furthermore, it does appear that there is plenty of profiteering on this side of the fence as well (not that I would be so naive as to think there wouldn't be).
Finally, and I remember reading this one myself:
There is a ridiculous rumor spread throughout the Internet that when your dog gets sick from raw meat, it's because they are "purging" the toxins of commercial food. This is completely illogical and unfounded. What toxins? And, if there were toxins present they wouldn't manifest in projectile, bloody diarrhea, pancreatitis, kidney failure, intestinal parasitic infection or any of the other illnesses eating raw meat causes dogs.
I'm afraid I'll have to forego the BARF diet for now. I will, however, continue to keep a very close eye on this diet. I HAVE to assume, that if the theory behind the diet is CORRECT, that some, very enterprising company will take advantage of it. Since none have, as of yet, I may assume that their initial research may have yielded some unsavory results. I can't believe for a SECOND that Purina, etc. would pass up an oppurtunity to absorb a niche market. It doesn't make ANY business sense.
I will instead, begin research on a homemade, cooked diet. Trust me, it's not the time, or money that scare me about the BARF diet, it's becoming yet another testimonial about how I wish I could have my pup back.
Again, thank you all for your help and assistance. BTW, the link above about the composition of commercial kibble is EXCELLENT.
Regards,
Aaron Seydlitz
Page 2 of 2 <<12
Re: BARF reservations
[Re: Emily Achenbach ]
#81465 - 08/08/2005 11:02 PM 
Top
Previous Topic
Index
Next Topic
.jpg)
.jpg)
