Putting my Lurcher on BARF

[sandymere 8,261]

No one can come up with anything then lol. I'm of next week so was hoping for a little BARF baiting in between surfing sessions, oh well I can always decorate the kitchen.

 

Mr Skelly my younge wipper snapper this is what I advocate (as previously posted).

 

 

 

To BARF or not to BARF?

 

BARF or RAW, we’ll call it RAW for ease, is a fashionable way to feed dogs but is there any reason why it may be better than any other type of feeding? I often post in the negative, not because I intrinsically disagree with feeding dog’s raw food, it is part of my own dog’s diet, but rather that I disagree to the idea that it should be fed exclusively. It seems to me that many of the claims made to promote this exclusivity are based on little above hearsay, pseudo science and a Disneyfied idea of “natureâ€. Google RAW diet and you’ll find a plethora of sites promoting holistic this and homeopathic that but little in the way of science or professional backing. Then there is the evangelical belief of the followers that breach no dissent and attack the non-believer at every opportunity with avowed belief in the RAW cure for all of the supposed man made canine ills.

 

So let’s start with “natureâ€, the idea is that what’s natural is best. Well what is natural: disease, injury, starvation etc, and un-natural: medicine, physiotherapy, science etc. So it’s natural for a dog to die of parvo and un-natural to inoculate against it, or it’s natural for a working sight hound to have dewclaws and unnatural for them to be removed to reduce injury. I’ve used these two examples, though I’m sure you can think of many more, as they demonstrate the two areas I wish to discuss. The first is a disease that is natural in the sense that it is not altered by man and the second is a problem that is caused by our altering the dog from the wolf due to breeding for certain traits, in this case speed. Both examples can be described as “natural†but it would be hard to argue that “nature is best†in these circumstances. So rather than natural shall we call it inherited abilities and forget the idea that what is natural is intrinsically preferable.

 

Dogs have a plethora of inherited abilities varying from recent adaptations such as an increased herding instinct in a collie or the physical attributes that produce the speed of a greyhound to the far older basic biochemistry that comes from a shared ancestry with all life on the planet. These abilities have allowed man and the dog to coexist when at times it would seem that we have trouble coexisting with our own species. So to the crux RAW feeding is best because it is natural, why? Both dogs and humans can and do digest cooked food extremely well and often more easily than raw. Neither species has had time too evolve to eating a cooked diet in the few thousand years that we have been eating it beyond some very minor adaptations. What we have inherited is a “natural†ability to utilize a great variety of food sources that includes this “un-natural†cooked food. So if by cooking we reduce bacterial contamination, increase palatability and, to a degree, ease of digestion then to refuse its use on not “natural†grounds is a little like refusing the Parvo inoculation as it’s not “naturalâ€. So if we put to one side the Disneyfied idea of “it’s not natural†is there other reasons why cooked is bad? Some oft used reason for RAW is that cooking destroys nutrients, causes cancers and tooth decay. But what does it really do to the food and its nutrients.

Nutrients, in simple terms, can be described as macro (big) protein, fats and sugars and micro (small) vitamins and minerals. Meat supplies micro and macro nutrients, the macro are protein and fat. Even lean meat from farm animals contains a fair amount of fat; in beef around 40% of its calories will come from fat. This fat will be used as energy either direct as fat or converted to sugar. The protein will be broken down and used for repair/growth or it can be converted for use as energy. Proteins are built from amino acids and these come in different types, some are classed as essential and the rest non essential. The difference is in there ability to be rebuilt into new proteins i.e. essentials can be built into any protein whereas non essential cannot. If you only eat none essentials you will lack some of the building blocks needed so a diet must include all the 10 essential amino acids to be adequate. One way of ensuring this is to eat animal protein as this contains all of them, against some vegetable proteins being short. There are many vegans that get all their and their dogs’ essential amino acids from beans and pulses etc but it takes more effort than I would want to use when all I need is a bit of meat. Both Raw and cooked meats are well digested by dogs and will supply a good amount of the nutrients they contain, there are draw backs such as contamination, this can be from bacteria, such as salmonella, or chemicals such as antibiotics/hormones, used to treat the animal source prior to death. The risks of chemical contamination, I hope, don’t need to be highlighted but the bacterial risk is a less well known area so I will add an appendix at the end to discuss this further.

Carbohydrates are complex sugers and it is often claimed that dogs are not able to digest this food source but in truth that is nonsense and as I have posted on this before I will keep it short. Wolfs digest carbs very well if they are presented in a viable form, an example I’ve used in the past is an Artic wolf eating and lemmings throughout the summer. The stomach contents of the prey animals are part digested seeds etc and make up a fair proportion of a lemmings weight, these would be wasted calories if not utilised by the wolf. So our dogs have an inherited ability to deal with carbs and when presented in a viable form give good digestion rates. Through these sources the dog can gain not only the sugars but also valuable fats, protein and micro nutrients. These three food sources are common to both raw and cooked foods but as has been mentioned need to be presented to the digestive system in a usable form i.e. a lump of wood is made of carbohydrate but there are very few animals with the digestive system capable of breaking down and utilising these calories. Cooking in part has been offered as an aid to this problem and is a little easier to arrange than lemming digestion.

The last of the three food types are fats these are found in varying degrees in meat from small amounts in a wild rabbit to large amounts in a farm reared pig. Fats are used for a number of processes but for this essay we will stick with their use as an energy source. Fat has 9 calories per gram against 4 for carbs or protein so it is a dense form of fuel that forms a major part of supplying low speed, stamina type energy needs. The fats found in meat are not the only source of this nutrient there is another available source that is relatively cheap and available in the form of vegetable oils. Vegetable oils are not often met by wolves but they are well digested by dogs and, in the main, they have a bonus of being high in linolic acid which is very important to growth and general health, when lacking in puppies it leads to retarded growth, failure to thrive and skin problems (Hilda). So vegetable oils are both a cheap and also good quality form of fat that dogs can very easily assimilate in exactly the same way as they would an animal fat, again perhaps not natural but defiantly useful.

So how does how does cooked versus raw stand up? It has already been mentioned that a common accusation is that cooking destroys nutrients and the equally common answer is that cooking helps with digestion. Well as with most augments they are both right. It all depends on how and what things are cooked, there is evidence that cooking increases absorption of many micro nutrient, especially in vegetable matter, but also that it might slightly slow digestion of meat if excessive heat is used (Oste 1991). What needs to be considered is if this will affect the diet to any real degree or are the percentages just academic rather than real. If an animal is short of nutrients then there may be an argument for choosing to cook some things and not others but for the average dog in the UK or Ireland there is no reason why they should have any shortfall. So if you have a portion of meat then either cooked or raw it will supply a good quantity of its macro and micro nutrients to the dog’s digestive system. Personally I feed meat raw, as mentioned above butchers waste and rabbits etc, not because raw is intrinsically better but just the cooking is unnecessary in most situations. If a supply of cooked meat became available I would have no hesitation in feeding it as an alternative or alongside the raw and as I use a percentage of complete food it could be said I already do.

I use a variety of commercial complete foods and I have gotten good results; I must say that they have never been used as the only food but in truth for the average pet dog I find no reason why they shouldn’t be. They are more than adequate in the three food groups and necessary micro nutrients. There is an ongoing discussion about price and quality but Krogdahl et al suggests that there is more likely a variance in brand rather than price and a study they undertook showed all the brands tested exceeded minimum requirements. Carpenter looked are the digestibility of low grade meat like mechanically recovered such as might be used in pet feeds, or sausages for human consumption, and found that other than the expected variance through increased cartilage type material there was little relevant difference in digestibility from other meat sources. Dogs getting home prepared meals should also have adequate and balanced macro and micro nutrients if the owner has a realistic knowledge of feeding and if not then I would have no hesitation in recommending using such a preparatory dog food. The claims of them poising dogs and causing long term health problems seem hard to believe when over the period of there use dogs lifespans and general health has improved. This is likely in part due to better health care but if dog food was as dangerous as some would claim they would surely have a noticeable negative impact on general health and well being. There is growing evidence that burning food may have some negative health benefits but the rendering process of most pet food does not reach those sorts of temperatures. Some other negatives that are sited are dental problems but these are down to eating a soft diet rather than the ingredients so a dog fed on raw pet mince is as likely to get plaque build up as will an animal on any wet soft diet, feeding dried food will limit this to an extent. To further avoid this problem there needs to be opportunity to chew a harder object to reduce the amount of soft feed sticking to teeth and to break off plaque. Bones are very good for the latter and I feed raw bones once or twice a week but it must be born in mind that there are risks in feeding bones, even raw, and the owner needs to decide for themselves if it is worth it. There are alternatives in the form of chews etc available in most pet shops that in theory should do a similar job but not having tried them I would not like to judge.

Lastly there is the dietary effects on performance, feeding a raw only diet will give little in the way of adjustability, it may well suit the lifestyle of a wolf but not so the modern dog. Modern domestic dogs perform a great variety of jobs from the extreme of a long distance sled dog racing over hundreds of kilometres to that of a greyhound sprinting over 500mertres and their dietary needs will vary accordingly (Wakshlag et al). One problem is in the amount of protein, and this goes with high protein completes as well as RAW. Various authors including Kronk and Hill et al state that greyhounds run fastest on medium protein diets and Hill suggests, 25% protein, 30% fat and 45% carbs, whereas long distance huskies will need high fat, higher protein and only minimal carbohydrate, such as 35% protein, 45% fat and only 20% carbs. These authors suggest that increasing dietary protein to the greyhounds slowed racing. Hill suggest that carbs are useful as a recovery aid to restock glucose stores more efficiently and faster than is possible through protein and fat alone in sprint type dogs and Wakshlag goes further in suggesting that sprint type sledge dogs would also benefit from the addition of carb replenishment to aid faster recovery. The carbs that are being advocated are not available in a raw only diet, although as stated are probably part of a wolfs diet, and to exclude them would be rather like excluding an energy/electrolyte drink to Paula Radcliff because it’s not “ natural†although it will decrease race times and aid in her recovery process.

So in conclusion the RAW type diets sell books and in the world of those keen on all things “natural†in a “Disney†type way may well suit their sensibilities but in the real world then it is hard to see any real purpose or reason to such a restrictive regime. It is supported with an almost evangelical following that seems to breach no dissent but has no real science to back it beyond the all things natural brigade. I specialise in sight hound types and have for the past 40 years and these type of dogs especially have moved beyond their wolf ancestors in both physical structure and use so why oh why should they eat a wolfs diet, it doesn’t apply to their current energy requirements?

References on request posted/pm’d on request.

 

Appendix A

Recent studies have highlighted the high incidence of gastric ulceration and gastritis in working dogs “studies of this group of dogs suggest that most working dogs may have at least some risk of developing exercise-associated gastro-intestinal disease†(Davis). This will lead to increased permeability of the lower gastroenterial tract, this born in the light of recent gastroenterological thought, relating increase permeability with increased incidence of acute gastritis, you can imagine that a high bacterial load can only increase likelihood and extent of this problem. Some dogs may carry a high bacterial load naturally but there is an increased incidence with animals that are suffering with diarrhoea (Stanley). These bacteria are likely from the diet and include serious pathogens such as salmonella, likely from uncooked chicken. Clostridial spp and Campylobacter spp are also commonly found. Stanley states “Campylobacter can survive for days in surface water and as long as 4 weeks in feces. The duration of excretion in infected dogs and cats can be as long as 4 months and infected animals should be quarantined away from children during this periodâ€. So careful storing and prep is a must for anyone with children if feeding raw pet quality meats to their dogs. An alternative would be human quality such as wild rabbits that have been properly frozen straight away and then defrosted in the fridge, basically as you would for your own consumption. The other obvious choice is cooking which will of course reduce the incidence of bacterial contamination and for the majority of owners this has already been done for them in the preparation of dried or tinned feeds. Personally I feed a percentage of raw butchers waste which has not been stored in ideal conditions and reading into this subject has made me think, I will defiantly watch a little more closely for any gastric symptoms when children will be visiting.

[skellyb 8]

No one can come up with anything then lol. I'm of next week so was hoping for a little BARF baiting in between surfing sessions, oh well I can always decorate the kitchen.

 

Mr Skelly my younge wipper snapper this is what I advocate (as previously posted).

 

 

 

To BARF or not to BARF?

 

BARF or RAW, we’ll call it RAW for ease, is a fashionable way to feed dogs but is there any reason why it may be better than any other type of feeding? I often post in the negative, not because I intrinsically disagree with feeding dog’s raw food, it is part of my own dog’s diet, but rather that I disagree to the idea that it should be fed exclusively. It seems to me that many of the claims made to promote this exclusivity are based on little above hearsay, pseudo science and a Disneyfied idea of “natureâ€. Google RAW diet and you’ll find a plethora of sites promoting holistic this and homeopathic that but little in the way of science or professional backing. Then there is the evangelical belief of the followers that breach no dissent and attack the non-believer at every opportunity with avowed belief in the RAW cure for all of the supposed man made canine ills.

 

So let’s start with “natureâ€, the idea is that what’s natural is best. Well what is natural: disease, injury, starvation etc, and un-natural: medicine, physiotherapy, science etc. So it’s natural for a dog to die of parvo and un-natural to inoculate against it, or it’s natural for a working sight hound to have dewclaws and unnatural for them to be removed to reduce injury. I’ve used these two examples, though I’m sure you can think of many more, as they demonstrate the two areas I wish to discuss. The first is a disease that is natural in the sense that it is not altered by man and the second is a problem that is caused by our altering the dog from the wolf due to breeding for certain traits, in this case speed. Both examples can be described as “natural†but it would be hard to argue that “nature is best†in these circumstances. So rather than natural shall we call it inherited abilities and forget the idea that what is natural is intrinsically preferable.

 

Dogs have a plethora of inherited abilities varying from recent adaptations such as an increased herding instinct in a collie or the physical attributes that produce the speed of a greyhound to the far older basic biochemistry that comes from a shared ancestry with all life on the planet. These abilities have allowed man and the dog to coexist when at times it would seem that we have trouble coexisting with our own species. So to the crux RAW feeding is best because it is natural, why? Both dogs and humans can and do digest cooked food extremely well and often more easily than raw. Neither species has had time too evolve to eating a cooked diet in the few thousand years that we have been eating it beyond some very minor adaptations. What we have inherited is a “natural†ability to utilize a great variety of food sources that includes this “un-natural†cooked food. So if by cooking we reduce bacterial contamination, increase palatability and, to a degree, ease of digestion then to refuse its use on not “natural†grounds is a little like refusing the Parvo inoculation as it’s not “naturalâ€. So if we put to one side the Disneyfied idea of “it’s not natural†is there other reasons why cooked is bad? Some oft used reason for RAW is that cooking destroys nutrients, causes cancers and tooth decay. But what does it really do to the food and its nutrients.

Nutrients, in simple terms, can be described as macro (big) protein, fats and sugars and micro (small) vitamins and minerals. Meat supplies micro and macro nutrients, the macro are protein and fat. Even lean meat from farm animals contains a fair amount of fat; in beef around 40% of its calories will come from fat. This fat will be used as energy either direct as fat or converted to sugar. The protein will be broken down and used for repair/growth or it can be converted for use as energy. Proteins are built from amino acids and these come in different types, some are classed as essential and the rest non essential. The difference is in there ability to be rebuilt into new proteins i.e. essentials can be built into any protein whereas non essential cannot. If you only eat none essentials you will lack some of the building blocks needed so a diet must include all the 10 essential amino acids to be adequate. One way of ensuring this is to eat animal protein as this contains all of them, against some vegetable proteins being short. There are many vegans that get all their and their dogs’ essential amino acids from beans and pulses etc but it takes more effort than I would want to use when all I need is a bit of meat. Both Raw and cooked meats are well digested by dogs and will supply a good amount of the nutrients they contain, there are draw backs such as contamination, this can be from bacteria, such as salmonella, or chemicals such as antibiotics/hormones, used to treat the animal source prior to death. The risks of chemical contamination, I hope, don’t need to be highlighted but the bacterial risk is a less well known area so I will add an appendix at the end to discuss this further.

Carbohydrates are complex sugers and it is often claimed that dogs are not able to digest this food source but in truth that is nonsense and as I have posted on this before I will keep it short. Wolfs digest carbs very well if they are presented in a viable form, an example I’ve used in the past is an Artic wolf eating and lemmings throughout the summer. The stomach contents of the prey animals are part digested seeds etc and make up a fair proportion of a lemmings weight, these would be wasted calories if not utilised by the wolf. So our dogs have an inherited ability to deal with carbs and when presented in a viable form give good digestion rates. Through these sources the dog can gain not only the sugars but also valuable fats, protein and micro nutrients. These three food sources are common to both raw and cooked foods but as has been mentioned need to be presented to the digestive system in a usable form i.e. a lump of wood is made of carbohydrate but there are very few animals with the digestive system capable of breaking down and utilising these calories. Cooking in part has been offered as an aid to this problem and is a little easier to arrange than lemming digestion.

The last of the three food types are fats these are found in varying degrees in meat from small amounts in a wild rabbit to large amounts in a farm reared pig. Fats are used for a number of processes but for this essay we will stick with their use as an energy source. Fat has 9 calories per gram against 4 for carbs or protein so it is a dense form of fuel that forms a major part of supplying low speed, stamina type energy needs. The fats found in meat are not the only source of this nutrient there is another available source that is relatively cheap and available in the form of vegetable oils. Vegetable oils are not often met by wolves but they are well digested by dogs and, in the main, they have a bonus of being high in linolic acid which is very important to growth and general health, when lacking in puppies it leads to retarded growth, failure to thrive and skin problems (Hilda). So vegetable oils are both a cheap and also good quality form of fat that dogs can very easily assimilate in exactly the same way as they would an animal fat, again perhaps not natural but defiantly useful.

So how does how does cooked versus raw stand up? It has already been mentioned that a common accusation is that cooking destroys nutrients and the equally common answer is that cooking helps with digestion. Well as with most augments they are both right. It all depends on how and what things are cooked, there is evidence that cooking increases absorption of many micro nutrient, especially in vegetable matter, but also that it might slightly slow digestion of meat if excessive heat is used (Oste 1991). What needs to be considered is if this will affect the diet to any real degree or are the percentages just academic rather than real. If an animal is short of nutrients then there may be an argument for choosing to cook some things and not others but for the average dog in the UK or Ireland there is no reason why they should have any shortfall. So if you have a portion of meat then either cooked or raw it will supply a good quantity of its macro and micro nutrients to the dog’s digestive system. Personally I feed meat raw, as mentioned above butchers waste and rabbits etc, not because raw is intrinsically better but just the cooking is unnecessary in most situations. If a supply of cooked meat became available I would have no hesitation in feeding it as an alternative or alongside the raw and as I use a percentage of complete food it could be said I already do.

I use a variety of commercial complete foods and I have gotten good results; I must say that they have never been used as the only food but in truth for the average pet dog I find no reason why they shouldn’t be. They are more than adequate in the three food groups and necessary micro nutrients. There is an ongoing discussion about price and quality but Krogdahl et al suggests that there is more likely a variance in brand rather than price and a study they undertook showed all the brands tested exceeded minimum requirements. Carpenter looked are the digestibility of low grade meat like mechanically recovered such as might be used in pet feeds, or sausages for human consumption, and found that other than the expected variance through increased cartilage type material there was little relevant difference in digestibility from other meat sources. Dogs getting home prepared meals should also have adequate and balanced macro and micro nutrients if the owner has a realistic knowledge of feeding and if not then I would have no hesitation in recommending using such a preparatory dog food. The claims of them poising dogs and causing long term health problems seem hard to believe when over the period of there use dogs lifespans and general health has improved. This is likely in part due to better health care but if dog food was as dangerous as some would claim they would surely have a noticeable negative impact on general health and well being. There is growing evidence that burning food may have some negative health benefits but the rendering process of most pet food does not reach those sorts of temperatures. Some other negatives that are sited are dental problems but these are down to eating a soft diet rather than the ingredients so a dog fed on raw pet mince is as likely to get plaque build up as will an animal on any wet soft diet, feeding dried food will limit this to an extent. To further avoid this problem there needs to be opportunity to chew a harder object to reduce the amount of soft feed sticking to teeth and to break off plaque. Bones are very good for the latter and I feed raw bones once or twice a week but it must be born in mind that there are risks in feeding bones, even raw, and the owner needs to decide for themselves if it is worth it. There are alternatives in the form of chews etc available in most pet shops that in theory should do a similar job but not having tried them I would not like to judge.

Lastly there is the dietary effects on performance, feeding a raw only diet will give little in the way of adjustability, it may well suit the lifestyle of a wolf but not so the modern dog. Modern domestic dogs perform a great variety of jobs from the extreme of a long distance sled dog racing over hundreds of kilometres to that of a greyhound sprinting over 500mertres and their dietary needs will vary accordingly (Wakshlag et al). One problem is in the amount of protein, and this goes with high protein completes as well as RAW. Various authors including Kronk and Hill et al state that greyhounds run fastest on medium protein diets and Hill suggests, 25% protein, 30% fat and 45% carbs, whereas long distance huskies will need high fat, higher protein and only minimal carbohydrate, such as 35% protein, 45% fat and only 20% carbs. These authors suggest that increasing dietary protein to the greyhounds slowed racing. Hill suggest that carbs are useful as a recovery aid to restock glucose stores more efficiently and faster than is possible through protein and fat alone in sprint type dogs and Wakshlag goes further in suggesting that sprint type sledge dogs would also benefit from the addition of carb replenishment to aid faster recovery. The carbs that are being advocated are not available in a raw only diet, although as stated are probably part of a wolfs diet, and to exclude them would be rather like excluding an energy/electrolyte drink to Paula Radcliff because it’s not “ natural†although it will decrease race times and aid in her recovery process.

So in conclusion the RAW type diets sell books and in the world of those keen on all things “natural†in a “Disney†type way may well suit their sensibilities but in the real world then it is hard to see any real purpose or reason to such a restrictive regime. It is supported with an almost evangelical following that seems to breach no dissent but has no real science to back it beyond the all things natural brigade. I specialise in sight hound types and have for the past 40 years and these type of dogs especially have moved beyond their wolf ancestors in both physical structure and use so why oh why should they eat a wolfs diet, it doesn’t apply to their current energy requirements?

References on request posted/pm’d on request.

 

Appendix A

Recent studies have highlighted the high incidence of gastric ulceration and gastritis in working dogs “studies of this group of dogs suggest that most working dogs may have at least some risk of developing exercise-associated gastro-intestinal disease†(Davis). This will lead to increased permeability of the lower gastroenterial tract, this born in the light of recent gastroenterological thought, relating increase permeability with increased incidence of acute gastritis, you can imagine that a high bacterial load can only increase likelihood and extent of this problem. Some dogs may carry a high bacterial load naturally but there is an increased incidence with animals that are suffering with diarrhoea (Stanley). These bacteria are likely from the diet and include serious pathogens such as salmonella, likely from uncooked chicken. Clostridial spp and Campylobacter spp are also commonly found. Stanley states “Campylobacter can survive for days in surface water and as long as 4 weeks in feces. The duration of excretion in infected dogs and cats can be as long as 4 months and infected animals should be quarantined away from children during this periodâ€. So careful storing and prep is a must for anyone with children if feeding raw pet quality meats to their dogs. An alternative would be human quality such as wild rabbits that have been properly frozen straight away and then defrosted in the fridge, basically as you would for your own consumption. The other obvious choice is cooking which will of course reduce the incidence of bacterial contamination and for the majority of owners this has already been done for them in the preparation of dried or tinned feeds. Personally I feed a percentage of raw butchers waste which has not been stored in ideal conditions and reading into this subject has made me think, I will defiantly watch a little more closely for any gastric symptoms when children will be visiting.

Once again you manage to cut and paste something entirely inappropiate.

You confuse raw with barf, yet again.

Rather than simply answer you prefer to hide behind the smokescreen of pseudo science which in reality is more Disneyland than any raw diet, as it does not and never does test a raw diet.

[Born Hunter 17,637]

Good post sandymere, i didnt read it all because, well i just got bored and to be honest although i agree with alot of it i disagree with alot to and theres just too much there to comment on.

 

You may like antagonising pro raw diet folks like myself, but the simple fact is people like myself simply disagree with people like yourself. The science will always have questionable conclusions and it simply comes down to what the individual decides to be right based on their 'common sense', logic and experience.

 

I will simply never beleive a produced complete buscuit is better than a good raw diet untill the science both theoretical and experimental shows me otherwise.

 

As ive said before, all that really matter is that we the dogs owners care enough to do a bit of research and feed our dogs the best we can. I think everyone whos commented on this thread has shown that.

[sandymere 8,261]

Thanks born hunter, I'd not agree with all the post myself as it's an old one but I feel the basic is reasonable and it saves spending time re writing, I wouldn't say a complete diet etc is necessarily better than a raw diet but do sujest inclusion is better than exclusion and I can back that up with science but usually common sense does it fine. In truth the winding up is as much about expanding on a subject my baiting promts retorts that alow me to explain a little more. It's a shame you found it boring beleive me compared to many of the article/papers I ploughed throw to find any half decent science its pretty easy going and, in the main, based on some good science.

 

Now skelly what are you on about cut and paste? that all mine and backed up my some good stuff. The ability to show my statements aren't just gobboldy gook but backed up by research etc is what you should be looking for rather than the comic book stuff you have been reading and no I don't confuse raw with barf but rather consider them to be based on the same psuedo science, hippy trippy mumbo jumbo. Now stop your incessent wriggling and show me some good science to refute my statements. It would be nice if you could add something to the discussion for a change. It's easy I'll give you a start;

 

I feed my dogs ............................................. because I wish my children to get a nasty bacterial infection and cause I read a book and believed it cause he was a vet and all the other vets are wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!! cause he's qwritten a book.

[Born Hunter 17,637]

Thanks born hunter, I'd not agree with all the post myself as it's an old one but I feel the basic is reasonable and it saves spending time re writing, I wouldn't say a complete diet etc is necessarily better than a raw diet but do sujest inclusion is better than exclusion and I can back that up with science but usually common sense does it fine. In truth the winding up is as much about expanding on a subject my baiting promts retorts that alow me to explain a little more. It's a shame you found it boring beleive me compared to many of the article/papers I ploughed throw to find any half decent science its pretty easy going and, in the main, based on some good science.

 

 

When i said boring, i was refering more to this whole argument. Reading all the evidence from BOTH points of view just for everyone to have the same opinion as before. Seems like its getting no where. I read the first half but realised its not changing anything in my head because of the stuff i just cant agree with, like the comparison of non natural things like medicine being bad if we beleive a non natural diet isnt as good as a natural one. However i will say that your numerous posts on the subject of man made dry foods have slightly enlightened me on them, but im affraid nothing ive read has even made me doubt my attitude towards working dog nutrition, lol

 

edited to explain, In your post you insinuated that non natural things like medicine are good therefore natural diets are not neccessarily good. I would argue that EVERY time man tries to beat nature we f**k things up long term in one way or another due to our short sightedness. Using the medicine example you gave, man made medicines ensure people who nature intended to be taken out of the gene pool live to pass on their weaker genes. I understand this is a contraversial view, but non the less if you beleive in evolution/survival of the fittest/darwinisn then this is what the science clearly says. Simply look how unhealthy the human race is by the un natural lives we have compared to wild animals doing it the way nature intended. Ya just cant beat mother nature and when we try we fail, wheather at first we realise it or not.

Edited March 19, 2010 by Born Hunter

[skellyb 8]

Thanks born hunter, I'd not agree with all the post myself as it's an old one but I feel the basic is reasonable and it saves spending time re writing, I wouldn't say a complete diet etc is necessarily better than a raw diet but do sujest inclusion is better than exclusion and I can back that up with science but usually common sense does it fine. In truth the winding up is as much about expanding on a subject my baiting promts retorts that alow me to explain a little more. It's a shame you found it boring beleive me compared to many of the article/papers I ploughed throw to find any half decent science its pretty easy going and, in the main, based on some good science.

 

Now skelly what are you on about cut and paste? that all mine and backed up my some good stuff. The ability to show my statements aren't just gobboldy gook but backed up by research etc is what you should be looking for rather than the comic book stuff you have been reading and no I don't confuse raw with barf but rather consider them to be based on the same psuedo science, hippy trippy mumbo jumbo. Now stop your incessent wriggling and show me some good science to refute my statements. It would be nice if you could add something to the discussion for a change. It's easy I'll give you a start;

 

I feed my dogs ............................................. because I wish my children to get a nasty bacterial infection and cause I read a book and believed it cause he was a vet and all the other vets are wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!! cause he's qwritten a book.

The only person who has mentioned nasty bacterial disease is you.

Not something I, my family or anyone I know that feeds a raw diet has suffered, athough I do know of dogs killed by mycotoxins from commercial food.

Rather a childish point you put forward re vets and books. One, I have never read a book by any vet regarding diet but If I had so what, you keep copying and pasting extracts from what vets have written, so what is the difference.

Yes, I have read various things online but I also have the benefit of my own experiences of feeding both commercial and raw foods and the one basic that you always tend to miss out is that any studies are only done short term (and quite often not even on dogs)and never include any other food than commercial.

I don't keep my dogs for the short term and MY belief is that they lead a happier, healthier and longer life by eating raw.

As I have pointed out before with your "vast" experience of working with dogs I would expect

you to at least put forward your own experiences rather than cut and paste but as a greyhound trainer I suppose that you did not keep any dogs long term.

[budgie123 163]

this topic arises on numerous accasions on this site with a wide variety of opinions and theories.A lot of these theories seem to be just personal opinions and are not educated information.Before changing to barf feeding i researched the subject and as previously stated purchased the books by dr ian billinghurst.These books are in no way promoting any product they are just full of accurate and researched information on who to feed dogs to get the best from them.If some of the people took the time to purchase and read these books they would realise who wrong they are in the information they post on this subject.Having read a number of greyhound and lurcher books the books by mr billinghurst are the most comprehensive guide to feeding a dog i have read.Like other people i have gone down this road to have a healthier working dog.

Without the knowledge gained from these books the chance of feeding a balanced diet which we are all trying to achieve would have been impossible.

People posting on this subject want to think long and hard weather they have the knowledge to be advicing people.

[skellyb 8]

this topic arises on numerous accasions on this site with a wide variety of opinions and theories.A lot of these theories seem to be just personal opinions and are not educated information.Before changing to barf feeding i researched the subject and as previously stated purchased the books by dr ian billinghurst.These books are in no way promoting any product they are just full of accurate and researched information on who to feed dogs to get the best from them.If some of the people took the time to purchase and read these books they would realise who wrong they are in the information they post on this subject.Having read a number of greyhound and lurcher books the books by mr billinghurst are the most comprehensive guide to feeding a dog i have read.Like other people i have gone down this road to have a healthier working dog.

Without the knowledge gained from these books the chance of feeding a balanced diet which we are all trying to achieve would have been impossible.

People posting on this subject want to think long and hard weather they have the knowledge to be advicing people.

Perhaps you ought to realise what camp Billlinghurst used to be in before cashing in on barf.

[kas 0]

Cracking thread on the subject for someone who isnt aware of the diet !!! Untill that is you feckers started throwing stones at each other ffs

 

..

[sandymere 8,261]

So not one of you well read bunch can come up with a single jot of evidence and after you have all researched so deeply. Tell you what I'll give you another starter for ten

 

A dog has evolved to eat an omnivores diet...........(please continue or refute)

 

 

Answer a couple of points above.

 

The only person who has mentioned nasty bacterial disease is you. (skelly)

Yes that seems strange that all you barfist types, who are so well read on the subject ,don't seem aware of this or feel it worth mentioning when recommending RAW feeding![/b]

 

you keep copying and pasting extracts from what vets have written, so what is the difference.

that any studies are only done short term" (skellyb)

I do back up what I say with evidence I see you are still unable to do the same! Have you any long term studies? Oh no pseudo science doesn't do research

 

"as a greyhound trainer I suppose that you did not keep any dogs long term." (skellyb)

I'm sorry i don't come from the ' pony club set’ but write from a background of racing/working dogs that might upset your delicate sensibilities lol

 

"A lot of these theories seem to be just personal opinions and are not educated information ........i researched the subject' (budgie12) By research I take it you mean you read the Barfist literature or if you read other info i.e. science what? I would like to read it myself so could you post it[/.

.

"People posting on this subject want to think long and hard weather they have the knowledge to be advising people." ('budgie12). I agree but a forum is all about discussion even hippy Its all natural and best types should be allowed there say but don't worry I'll keep adding a little reality to their fairy land lol

 

 

"Cracking thread on the subject for someone who isn’t aware of the diet !!! Until that is you feckers started throwing stones at each other ffs (Kas) It's a forum, a place of discussion and I see no stone throwing just a little light hearted niggling.

[TOPPER 1,809]

well for what its worth ive always fed barf, my dogs are on ox hearts , lean trim , pig or sheep hearts, tripe with some raw or cooked veg thrown in and any left over kitchen scraps, i do use csj as a mixer about 3-4 times a week and its worked fine for the last 50 years and my dogs are in good health and fit for work and i have never had any stomach relateded problems , it works for me so i see no reason to change it

 

 

 

sandy , like the posts ive always found them to be a good read keep it up old chap

[skellyb 8]

The only person who has mentioned nasty bacterial disease is you. (skelly)

Yes that seems strange that all you barfist types, who are so well read on the subject ,don't seem aware of this or feel it worth mentioning when recommending RAW feeding![/b]

 

Maybe because I don''t see it as a problem. Hands and surfaces are washed in the same way that we do with our own food and the food I give is all human quality.

Regarding dogs and bacteria, if you look at the same studies you "quote" you will see a large proportion of HEALTHY animals tested showed that they carried bacteria. None of the "studies" quote what food is fed to either the sick or healthy animals (but a pound to a penny it would be commercial food) and the "studies" also do not say how the bacteria is being passed to animals but does say that it suspects it is passed to them by humans.

I have yet to see you mention any problems regarding mycotoxins in commercial food, perhaps something YOU do not feel like mentioning.

 

you keep copying and pasting extracts from what vets have written, so what is the difference.

that any studies are only done short term" (skellyb)

I do back up what I say with evidence I see you are still unable to do the same! Have you any long term studies? Oh no pseudo science doesn't do research

 

Once again you fail to see the difference between a proper evidence, as in different diets and also one which takes in the effect of diet long term. If the research done is limited then it CANNOT be seen as proper.

 

"as a greyhound trainer I suppose that you did not keep any dogs long term." (skellyb)

I'm sorry i don't come from the ' pony club set’ but write from a background of racing/working dogs that might upset your delicate sensibilities lol

 

Nothing to do with pony club delicate sensibilities.

My own experience is from feeding dogs tinned, tinned and mixer, dry and raw. Dogs that I have kept for ALL of their lives. From that experience I can say what I feel is the best diet.

You on the other hand seem only interested in the short term and of course because of this do not know whether the dogs lead a long, healthy and happy life or not.

Edited March 22, 2010 by skellyb

[pointer 543]

ive fed raw food to dogs for years,sometimes i couldnt get it and fed dry complete food.at other times ive fed a mix of both.

i cant say ive noticed any difference to how my dogs worked or if they are healthier on raw.i certainly dont need to clean my kennel block out as much on raw thats for sure.

i read the billinghurst books and they are ok but i no longer mess about shredding veg,my dogs eat chicken carcases and wings as their main food with hearts,livers and tripe when i can get it,but i dont worry about it if i cant.i do feed rabbits whole when i get them though this season ive hardly been out rabbiting.they do get some veg but not as much as what the books and barf websites recommend.

im not too keen on calling it barf,i think its just a term to commercialize raw feeding which was the norm up untill complete diets come about.

 

the main reason i feed raw food is because i can get it all for free,if it was more expensive than complete mix i wouldnt feed it and id expect my dogs to be just the same on say a greyhound complete.dogs certainly like to eat raw meaty bones and that gives me some satisfaction i suppose.

 

i think its important not to get the placebo effect.it would be easy to change to raw food and your dog work well and become convinced its down to diet when it could be other factors.perhaps feeding raw is better long term but my dogs are worked and at seven years old both my terrier and lurcher are past their best,the lurchers fairly serious injuries have taken their toll so that i cant say if a raw food diet has helped.its certainly cheaper so it saves me about 60 quid a month so thats a help

Edited March 22, 2010 by pointer

[sandymere 8,261]

It sounds like both Topper and Pointer use a common sense attitude to feeding and that seems to come with experience. I feed a lot of raw basically I’ve a freezer full of rabbits and regular access to butchers waste, I use a cheap complete and scraps to vary the diet. It’s a system that is based on the dog’s natural abilities to utilise a varied diet and it’s done my dogs, both lurchers and greys, well for many years. It’s not rocket science just good old common sense; I use science to back this up in answer to the hippy brigade’s pseudo science claims (plus I like a little barf baiting lol). I took on the Billinghusts followers with their born again attitude as I was fed up with continuous unfounded attacks on anyone posting about using propriety feeds. At the end of the day there are many millions of dogs eating commercially prepared feeds and I don’t see them all keeling over and rarely hear of problems in comparison to the numbers involved. If I had a pet it would probably be how I’d feed it.

[Shuttleworth 0]

Here's my twopenny worth, I have two borders (3 years and 2 years) who have been fed on raw since September last year, their weekly menu is.

Sunday, Chicken frame each,

Monday raw mince or rabbit and veg,

Tuesday, the same as Monday,

Wednesday Sardines in oil and a couple of eggs, (sardines in oil, 40p per tin from Netto)

Thursday Mince or rabbit,

Friday Offal (liver or lambs heart)(DON'T let the dogs get into your living room and eat the hearts on the floor as the blood goes everywhere )

Saturday Chicken frames.

 

I also put a teaspoon of Rapeseed oil on the mince before feeding.

I get the veg from Asda boil it up and but 4 tablespoons in each freezer bag, I then split this between the two dogs at feeding time.

I get Lambs liver from Netto approx £1.00 for a pack.

They also get a beef rib for recreational chewing in the week.

 

Treats consist of Carrots, Apples and Cucumber.

Also I boil the liver, then dice it into cubes freeze it and take out a bag when required and use this for the recall when out.

 

Here is a link to a guide to feed the dog depending on the weight.

http://www.raw4dogs.com/calculate.htm

 

Before I started feeding this diet my 3yr old bitch was really fussy with food but now she will eat anything put down for her.

The first day I started feeding raw I kept a diary each day of what they were being fed as I was rather worried about the effects of this diet, after a few months the diary was stopped but it was a good guide and helped establish the dogs weekly menu.

 

I have seen an improvement in both dogs, in their coats and they are not as hyper as they were.

But just to finish I did have a Stafford for 11 years he ate tinned butchers tripe and mixer.

 

Peter

Edited March 26, 2010 by Shuttleworth