View Single Post
Old March 21st, 2010, 09:37 PM
MyBirdIsEvil's Avatar
MyBirdIsEvil MyBirdIsEvil is offline
Senior Contributor
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 1,720
People are able to feed themselves without eating a highly processed prepared diet each day, and the fact that vets and other people think the average person isn't smart enough to feed their dog the same way is ridiculous. These people make it sound as if it's rocket science to figure out how to feed your animal without buying a prepared formula from some company.

"As more people experiment with raw meat diets, veterinarians are seeing frequent cases of pancreatitis, ulcers, malnutrition, injuries due to the raw bones, systemic bacterial poisoning and other conditions."
I don't even get this quote. Enough people don't even feed RAW to make the assumption, the vast majority still feed kibble or canned.

As far as pancreatitis that's an issue with ANY animal no matter what it has been fed. My vet told me it's one of the main dangerous illnesses he sees, and I really doubt most of his patients eat raw food.

Malnutrition I could believe, if someone does not do the correct research. I really doubt they're seeing that in the vast majority of people feeding raw food though, and that would be an error caused by an idiot owner rather than an issue with the diet itself.

Bacterial infections generally only happen when the animal is fed food that's not fresh, raw or not. These infections happen even with animals that eat kibble. If kibble is old and out of date, or has been stored improperly you will see this.

Injuries due to raw bones can happen, especially if your dog tends to be a gulper and does not chew. I don't think these injuries are all that common though. Either way, you do not HAVE to feed your dog whole bones if he tends to gulp, so that's not a very good argument against raw feeding.

further, he said, "Nutritionally, feeding these raw ingredients decreases their bioavailability while the cooking process increases the bioavailablity of nutrients."
I don't know where he's getting this one. I haven't seen research that shows cooking increases bioavailability of nutrients for dogs. I've seen research that shows bioavailability of specific nutrients are increased with cooking some vegetables, meats, and grains for humans. I have not seen a complete research study on this for canines, so I'm not sure what he's citing. And besides that, NO good study would state that bioavailability of nutrients in general is lowered, it would show bioavailability of SPECIFIC nutrients (because some nutrients are more easily absorbed when cooked, some nutrients are not even present in something uncooked, and some nutrients are present or more easily digestible in raw food.)

"The beauty of beet pulp is that half is soluble and half is unsoluble. It provides the best of both worlds."
Ok. Now I'm convinced these guy is just a shill for some pet food company. I've never heard ANYONE besides a pet food company or an ingredient supplier for a pet food company extol the value of beet pulp in dog food for the nutrition of the dog. It's in kibble because it's a high calorie source of fiber that holds the kibble together well. No other reason. You notice you rarely see it in canned foods. I don't think it's evil like some people do, but it's an unnecessary filler. It's a good ingredient for the pet food company because it's a cheap filler that holds together well. They don't add it for the health of your pet, it's for their own benefit.

BARFers often claim those who disagree with them are toadies for the pet food industry. So I asked Hussein if he were one.

He laughed and said no, that most dog food companies do research in-house and don't fund university studies.
Well that convinces ME then!

I couldn't find any information on this guy. He wasn't listed on the colleges website as a member of the faculty so maybe he doesn't work there anymore. Couldn't find anything on him on google. No info whatsoever, so I can't say what he is . I just know the information he gave isn't very scientific or detailed and is generally the same shoddy info a pet food company will throw at you. Some of his info was accurate, such as looking for chicken meal in kibble (though, then the 2 companies he named generally DON'T use chicken meal as the main ingredient) and stating that soy isn't that great (then he names a brand that DOES use soy (Science Diet, as already stated)). I'm not sure why he named any brands anyway, because if he was an independent unbias scientist he wouldn't be recommending any specific brands.
Maybe he's NOT a shill for the pet food companies, but I wouldn't trust this guy as a scientist at all.
Reply With Quote