Raw Food Diets

[lonegirl]

I know many on here are huge into the Raw food diet or the BARF diet. I was at a tech conference last weekend and one of the talks was on the Raw diet. Here are the conference notes if anyone is interested. (They are about the myths involved with it) http://members.oavt.org/documents/An...wFoodDiets.pdf
Her main concern was, aside from the bacteria issues, owner compliance....there is more to it than just the raw meat and she worried that people will become lax on the supplementation that is needed to make a properly balanced diet.
I wanted to add....that I do not post this to completely rule out the BARF diet but to give more information to those contemplating using it.

[outlier]

I appreciate you taking the time to give us the information. I've known since I started that infection with nasty bacteria and parasites is always a risk (however small), but I'm personally going to continue because I know my cat and I have seen with my own eyes how this benefits her.

The notes say several times that there are no controlled feeding trials that have tested raw food. I would love to see the results if they ever do any. Are there any plans for this?

Speaking only for myself and my admittedly limited knowledge of optimal nutrition for domestic animals, I choose to feed a mix of raw and commercial wet food because 1) raw is what these animals' ancestors have been eating for millions of years, and I don't believe that a sudden switch to cooked or processed food that contains things like ash is really in their bodies' best interest, 2) feeding raw foods intended for human consumption makes the risk of bacterial or parasitic contamination pretty low thanks to the USDA and testing (I know better than to feed her meat from a wild animal), and 3) I know I'll probably never be able to figure out, let alone get her to eat, an ideal, balanced diet. Do veterinarians or pet food companies even know what this would look like? I'm doing the best I can by giving her the good raw stuff that her body is meant to digest along with some commercial stuff so she gets the added vitamins, etc. she needs, even though they may not be in a natural form.

[lonegirl]

Originally Posted by outlier

I appreciate you taking the time to give us the information. I've known since I started that infection with nasty bacteria and parasites is always a risk (however small), but I'm personally going to continue because I know my cat and I have seen with my own eyes how this benefits her.

The notes say several times that there are no controlled feeding trials that have tested raw food. I would love to see the results if they ever do any. Are there any plans for this?
So far no...it costs a lot of money and the big companies don't feel they need to disprove the raw diet...so some scientist need some financial backing to do it.

Speaking only for myself and my admittedly limited knowledge of optimal nutrition for domestic animals, I choose to feed a mix of raw and commercial wet food because 1) raw is what these animals' ancestors have been eating for millions of years, and I don't believe that a sudden switch to cooked or processed food that contains things like ash is really in their bodies' best interest,they don't actually add ash to the food....ASH is the incombustible inorganic residue remaining after incineration (what they do to do a food analysis); generally the mineral content of the food.
2) feeding raw foods intended for human consumption makes the risk of bacterial or parasitic contamination pretty low thanks to the USDA and testing (I know better than to feed her meat from a wild animal), and 3) I know I'll probably never be able to figure out, let alone get her to eat, an ideal, balanced diet. Do veterinarians or pet food companies even know what this would look like? I'm doing the best I can by giving her the good raw stuff that her body is meant to digest along with some commercial stuff so she gets the added vitamins, etc. she needs, even though they may not be in a natural form.

Have you checked out http://www.barfworld.com/index.shtml they have a good supplement list.

[greenmagick]

hmmm, well I personally feel that if you are feeding a variety of meats, bone, and some organ, then no supplements are needed. I know MANY people who have been feeding this way for a long time...canine nutritionist, breeders, vets, etc.

[greenmagick]

ok...wait just read it. Basically all it is saying as there is no scientific proof (because none has been paid for) that it must not be as good? Im sorry, this article says nothing new that hasnt been disproven by thousands of people feeding raw.

[ouesi]

I'm wondering what comercial foods are AAFCO certified. There's plenty of "premium" foods out there that are nothing but processed corn and random animal parts.

[lonegirl]

No it isn't saying it isnt as good because there is no scientific evidence....it is showing concerns....the bacteria (for the whole family), the lack of a well balanced diet that is needed.
Controlled food trials would help show how well it does....not just shoot it down. The problem is that some people just give random raw meat, others give raw meat and a couple veggies, others give a variety of meat and bones and good supplementation....people need to be educated on what a well balanced diet for dogs is.
I am not telling people do not do it....but be well educated on it....do it properly

I know people will disagree with the article but it is good to have information on both sides.

[greenmagick]

I guess I just dont see any actual proof on their side either....its all conjecture really.

As far as risk to the whole family...I still dont get that one. I never hear that as a reason to not eat meat and that is raw when it gets prepared so whats the difference?

I guess it really lost credit with me when it said hardly anything disease wise is related to diet.....almost EVERYTHING is related to diet..in humans, dogs, cats, etc. It is pretty much the root of everything. Whether or not raw is the answer, that statement just made me doubt everything else in it.

And I totally get you are just passing on info you received...its just for someone who has been feeding raw for 8 years now, it was nothing new.

[Arduinna]

It reads like an subliminal ad for processed commerical food to me.

[rayo de sol]

My pets have been much healthier on a raw meat, organs, and bonemeal diet (my cats refuse to eat bones, so bonemeal is the best I can get into them).

I don't think it's fair for the mainstream to criticize the raw diet because of a lack of studies done. The studies will never be done because it's not in the pet food corporations' interest to show that their foods are inferior to raw, fresh foods. The funding is corporate, so the studies will never happen.

[Mama2Kayla]

I really doubt that dog foods such as Trailblazer, Pedigree, Alpo or any other mainstream food is balanced in any way for dogs. Eating fresh meat and bones will always be better an than any processed kibble with questionable meat and fillers. I don't need a study to tell me that, it honestly seems like common sense.

[Geigerin]

I read the article with an open mind, despite the previous comments. I always appreciate any research about the diets we choose for our pets.

However, there were a number of very strong statements in the article with absolutely no references. Then, I looked at the references provided. For example, the first three:
*A New York Times article
*A Natural History Museum reference
*A study by an institution under the same umbrella as Science Diet

I know from my own research and work with friends who are DVMs that there are almost no studies done on Raw food diets, and almost all animal nutrition info available out there is based on research done by the big food companies with an obvious bias.

With that in mind, I did not feel the article had anything new to offer from legitimate, independent studies. I would love to see those when they do come out, though.

[Magelet]

I appreciate your trying to provide us with good information. While it is true that there have not been a lot of studies on what a balenced raw food diet is and how it compares to comercial food, I would argue that there never will be. there is no/next to no money to be made from a raw food diet (a prey model diet, not a supplementation diet and even that has a lot less money to be made). Who would pay for it?

In terms of advising people to at least cook their meat, please, please, please read about francis pottenger's cat studies. They are shocking. He fed populations of cats cooked and raw meat. The third generation of cooked cats died out. None lived long enough or were able to reproduce. the other effects on the cats were also drastic.

I do not rely on the companies which produce food and make millions off of it's sale to tell me what I should eat, nor do I need a nutritionist to tell me what I need. The same is true for my cat.

He doesn't need processed foods full of grain and animal by-products, or even processed foods if they were full of only good meat. He doesn't need a host of supplements to make up for nutrients he isn't getting. He needs meat, organs, bone, real animals. What cat's eat. As the article said, cat's haven't been domesticated very long. They are still completely designed to eat small animals. Perhaps persians have been bred to make it difficult to kill a mouse, but that doesn't mean that their digestive track or nutritional needs have changed.

If there were real (not paid for by anyone in any way related to pet food) studies done showing that commercial food is best for cats, by all means, I would feed them to him. Unless that happens, I will feed him the diet that G-d intended for cats, big and small. Meat, all parts of the animal, as they desire.

[mistymama]

How do wolves in the wild get their supplements? Dogs do very well on a raw diet and do not need supplements as long as they are being fed a variety of raw meats, fish, bones and organs.

The proof is in the results. Our lean, shiny, happy and healthy animals. My little dashchund's coat is so shiny that people always stop and ask me what I feed him. My Mom started feeding her 7 year old lab with arthritis raw about 1 year ago - and he's pain free without meds.

I appreciate the article, and sure, some people feel the need to feed veggies and supplements to their raw fed dogs. But it's not necessary - ask anyone who has seen the results and health benefits first hand in their raw fed dog.

I'm sorry, but with all the "premium" dog foods out there sponsoring research and feeding our dogs corn and extruded kibble - there is no way on earth I'm going to believe my dog would be better off on any other diet than meat, bones and organs.

[lonegirl]

It's alright....Clearly this is an argument I am not about to get into here
No matter what I say I will lose on this topic on this board....but that is ok I am comfortable with that.
(an aside....wild wolves don't have the lifespan of captive wolves either )

[Ola_]

I would suggest that the difference in lifespan of wild and captive wolves has a lot more to do with their environment, the dangers they are/aren't exposed to, and availability of medical care. I don't really think food plays that much into it. Even your article says that in the wild "Most deaths are attributed to predation, disease and starvation."

Also one other thing that caught my attention is on page 3 where it says that "If adequate dietary carbohydrates are not available, amino acids will be directed away from muscle growth". Really? But when human athletes are training we don't tell them to be sure to eat lots of pasta - instead they stick to lots of lean proteins. And this is just anecdotal of course but my dogs have certainly not lost muscle mass on raw. They are still (at ages 7 and 11 years old) lean and muscular.

Before switching to raw my dogs were eating "premium" and "super premium" foods (don't ask me who defines those terms, I don't think anyone really does). They weren't terrible and for people who cannot or don't want to feed raw I think they're a good second option. But it wasn't until we switched to raw that my sensitive tummy dog's issues finally resolved. Honestly, it was like flicking a switch and he has been doing great since then (5 years ago). Somehow despite all the bacteria and contamination that's supposed to be in raw meat they are digesting it so much better than they did commercial food. Don't ask me why but the proof is in the pudding (literally ) and I can't argue with that.

Anyway I can totally understand your skepticism - I probably wouldn't believe it myself if I hadn't seen the results in my own dogs. I expect it's even harder when you're in the veterinary field and bombarded with this information constantly.

[mistymama]

Originally Posted by lonegirl

It's alright....Clearly this is an argument I am not about to get into here
No matter what I say I will lose on this topic on this board....but that is ok I am comfortable with that.
(an aside....wild wolves don't have the lifespan of captive wolves either )

Most things in the wild do not have the same lifespan as captive animals .. think preditors & untreated disease.

Ola - I agree. I would have never considered raw in a zillion years if I didn't have a dog with digestive issues. We tried every kind of super premium and even prescription kibble from the vet. I did lots of research before deciding to try raw, and I was terrified of how it might effect his sensitive system. It immediately cleared up his problems, like within 2 days.

I'm not here to convince anyone to feed raw - I honestly worry about my dog and that's it. But biased and inaccurate articles need to be called out for what they are, that's all.