Go Back   Pet forum for dogs cats and humans - Pets.ca > Discussion Groups - mainly cats and dogs > Dog food forum > Feeding raw food to dogs & cats - B.A.R.F - RMB - Homecooked diet

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 21st, 2010, 07:56 AM
Pink-ET's Avatar
Pink-ET Pink-ET is offline
Britadian
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Belle River
Posts: 61
Article AGAINST RAW

As you know I have been looking into RAW and Kibble and whether they can be mixed etc, and I came across this (see link)

http://www.rgj.com/article/20060409/...-diet-for-dogs

This professor gives all the reasons why the BARF is really bad for dogs.

Opinions anyone
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old March 21st, 2010, 08:23 AM
14+kitties's Avatar
14+kitties 14+kitties is offline
150% PRO S/N
Starcastle Champion, V:force Champion, UFO Shoot Out Champion, Parachute Panic Champion, Mission To Mars Champion, Disc Dash Champion, Crazy Closet Champion, Railway Line Champion, Penguin Pass Champion
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: MYOB
Posts: 15,407
The only thing is with further investigation it may be found many of those "experts" who are against feeding raw may be employed by the company they say you should buy the dry kibble from. At some point during the article there is probably a certain brand mentioned.
I find it hard to believe that a dry, hard kibble that shatters on contact with the tooth, if bitten into at all before being swallowed, can help dental issues. The article says to avoid by products but again, without paying a huge amount of $$ for a food, the average consumer can not afford to buy the dry kibble that does not contain by products.
The sanctuary that was mentioned at the first of the article - take in abused and neglected animals. Therefore many may already have health issues before arrival. I would be more apt to think many issues were present on arrival.
You can form your own opinions. Most of us do. But I would like to think personal knowledge and experience of people who's pets are on balanced, correctly made raw diets speak for themselves.
__________________
Assumptions do nothing but make an ass out of u and me.

We can stick our heads in the sand for only so long before it starts choking us. Face it folks. The pet population is bad ALL OVER THE WORLD!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old March 21st, 2010, 08:41 AM
LavenderRott's Avatar
LavenderRott LavenderRott is offline
Senior Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,671
Just like everything else in life - some experts think that BARF is good and some think it is bad. You can always find "facts" to support both sides of the arguement. I find it interesting that the "expert" interviewed for this article mentions chicken-by-products as something you don't want to find in your dog food then goes on to say that Iam's and Science Diet are good foods because they don't contain soy. No, Iam's doesn't contain soy but Science Diet does, and both contain chicken-by-products. Science Diet lists 3 corn products between their number 1 ingredient - chicken and their number 4 ingredient - chicken by product. After your chicken-by-product you have soy and yet another corn.

I talk to a lot of raw feeders on a daily basis and have fed raw. Not one of them have had any of the issues that this expert says are dangerous. I don't know of anyone who got salmanella from their dog after it ate chicken.
__________________
Sandi
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old March 21st, 2010, 08:49 AM
Love4himies's Avatar
Love4himies Love4himies is offline
Rescue is my fav. breed
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boating in the 1000 Islands
Posts: 17,754
Thanks for posting that.

*Sigh*, if you have to add nutrients to the food to make it nutritionally complete, then it is not a proper diet for that species. Why is that such a difficult concept for "scientists" to understand .

Highly processed, sterile food is not good for humans, they need some bacteria in their digestive tract to stay healthy. It is not only the stomach acid level that makes it difficult for bacteria to flourish, it is the time the food stays in the digestive tract. Cats and dogs have a much shorter one than humans so the food doesn't stay in it so long.
__________________
Cat maid to:

Jasper, male Ragdoll ?? (approx 10 yrs)
Rose semi feral, a cpietra rescue, female tabby (approx 7 yrs)

Sweet Pea RIP (2004?-2014)
Puddles RIP (1996-2014)
Snowball RIP (1991-2005)

In a cat's eye, all things belong to cats.-English Proverb

“While we are free to choose our actions, we are not free to choose the consequences of our actions.” Stephen R. Covey
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old March 21st, 2010, 08:51 AM
Pink-ET's Avatar
Pink-ET Pink-ET is offline
Britadian
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Belle River
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by 14+kitties View Post
You can form your own opinions. Most of us do. But I would like to think personal knowledge and experience of people who's pets are on balanced, correctly made raw diets speak for themselves.
ABSOLUTELY....and I have taken a lot from everyones opinions on this board and am now feeding Lola RAW plus Acana. That is why these boards are so valuable. There is so much info out there that it becomes mind-boggling....

...as a specialist nurse we deliver 'best practice' which is evidence based research, and expert opinion" I am a firm believer in experience being utilized within the boundaries of evidence based research....and many on these boards ARE the experts
__________________
Mum to Autumn 5, Evie 3, both of the human variety
Taiji age 10, of the feline variety
Ziggy age 3, of the reptile variety
and Lola age 3 months, of the fluffy bichon poo variety
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old March 21st, 2010, 09:07 PM
Masha's Avatar
Masha Masha is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 745
There is almost no research or 'controlled studies' about raw, because there is no 'company' that can benefit from demonstrating the benefits of raw feeding. The big pet food companies spend millions on biased research to help support their brands, but it is biased and when you look into the methods used in the study its quite obvious the it is skewed. Unfortunately funding comes from the big companies and any findings that dispute their brands will quietly go by unmentioned. *I am a big raw food proponent through what i have seen in dogs who have switched to raw*
__________________
Mommy to two amazing boys and one awesome girl:

Monkey and Amy (cats)
Jermy (GSD)


“Dogs believe they are human. Cats believe they are God.”

"The average dog is a nicer person than the average person."
Reply With Quote
  #7  
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.

Quote:
"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.

Quote:
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.)

Quote:
"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.

Quote:
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
  #8  
Old March 21st, 2010, 10:20 PM
cassiek's Avatar
cassiek cassiek is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: High River, AB, Canada
Posts: 622
RAW is the ONLY diet I have ever been able to successfully feed to my three dogs. Part of the beauty for me in raw is being able to easily accommodate each of my dogs special needs.

Its unfortunate there is not alot of physical data to support raw, but for myself I don't need any data because I have seen the live results in my dogs... almost immediately they had a refreshed energy about them, coats were shiny, eyes bright etc. and that was within a few weeks of starting. I have a 9 year old dog who was starting to show her age, we switched to raw and she is like a pup again - its incredible, I have never seen results like this with any other dog food.

Alot of the arguments against raw can be said about kibble (i.e. the process of making kibble does not eliminate all bacteria, dogs can choke on kibble etc etc.)

I have a friend who is a vet in Ontario and she herself is about to start trying raw. Yes, I think you do need to use common sense and make sure you wash down your counters etc. just like you would handling any other raw meat, but I think alot of the arguments against raw just simply don't hold up.
__________________
My babies: Sassy - Maltese X (9), Furby - Shihtzu X (7), Brynn - Boxer (3), Diesel - Boxer (1)

"Many of the Earth's habitats, animals, plants, insects, and even micro-organisms that we know as rare may not be known at all by future generations. We have the capability, and the responsibility. We must act before it is too late." - Dalai Lama
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old March 21st, 2010, 10:59 PM
MyBirdIsEvil's Avatar
MyBirdIsEvil MyBirdIsEvil is offline
Senior Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 1,720
Quote:
Its unfortunate there is not alot of physical data to support raw,
It's unfortunate that there's not a lot of physical data on dog nutrition in general for that matter. Up until recently dogs weren't necessarily considered part of the family, but more like livestock, or just working animals. So people fed what they could feed, meat scraps and whatnot (and oddly enough dog's lifespans - assuming they didn't die of injury or illness - were not much different than now). When people started keeping dogs more as family members the big corporations jumped right into the market (Nestle, P&G, etc.) to make cheap foods that they marketed as highly nutritious with lots of advertising so people would buy. This was a good way for the companies to use their leftovers (non human grade meat byproducts, grain leftovers and stuff like that). It became generally cheaper and more convenient for people to buy pet food in a bag or a can than to prepare their own foods.
It's only very recently that more than a few companies have jumped into the market with better food formulas and people have started to question the ingredients in big name pet foods. Hopefully now that there are more and more people wondering about pet nutrition there will be more unbias studies done into canine and feline nutrition.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old March 22nd, 2010, 06:40 AM
Love4himies's Avatar
Love4himies Love4himies is offline
Rescue is my fav. breed
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boating in the 1000 Islands
Posts: 17,754
Quote:
Originally Posted by cassiek View Post
Its unfortunate there is not alot of physical data to support raw, but for myself I don't need any data because I have seen the live results in my dogs... almost immediately they had a refreshed energy about them, coats were shiny, eyes bright etc. and that was within a few weeks of starting. I have a 9 year old dog who was starting to show her age, we switched to raw and she is like a pup again - its incredible, I have never seen results like this with any other dog food.
Me too when I switched my Puddles to raw the change in her fur and activity level was astounding.
__________________
Cat maid to:

Jasper, male Ragdoll ?? (approx 10 yrs)
Rose semi feral, a cpietra rescue, female tabby (approx 7 yrs)

Sweet Pea RIP (2004?-2014)
Puddles RIP (1996-2014)
Snowball RIP (1991-2005)

In a cat's eye, all things belong to cats.-English Proverb

“While we are free to choose our actions, we are not free to choose the consequences of our actions.” Stephen R. Covey
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old April 12th, 2010, 11:44 AM
3iggys 3iggys is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 26
I am on several other forums and there is this one poster that sounds exactly like the article that has tried to push is RAW opinion down the throats of everyone. He (she) had only theory - nothing proven - and had a few vets on the forum questioning everything he (she) said.
I love to read each one's opinion. Some diets work for certain people, some don't. The only problem I have reading these posts is sometimes it is hard to understand exactly what the poster is meaning - placement of words - and a few readers seem to take the post personally.
What would this forum be like if it were Skyped? We could see who was posting and be able to talk that way. Some times just seeing the face makes the meaning of the post come out differently.

JUST MY OPINION!!!!
Linda
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Terms of Use

  • All Bulletin Board Posts are for personal/non-commercial use only.
  • Self-promotion and/or promotion in general is prohibited.
  • Debate is healthy but profane and deliberately rude posts will be deleted.
  • Posters not following the rules will be banned at the Admins' discretion.
  • Read the Full Forum Rules

Forum Details

  • Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
    Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
    vBulletin Optimisation by vB Optimise (Reduced on this page: MySQL 9.09%).
  • All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:47 PM.