[caillou]

http://www.secondchanceranch.com/traini ... index.html
After the positive this is the negative side...up to you to see what you prefer :?

 

[Honeyec]

Gah, it's just all so confusing!  I'm going to have to think long and hard about this.

The one thing I will say is that I have noticed how many pro-BARF sites trot out the old "Your Vet is not a qualified nutritionist" line.  Who is a qualified animal nutritionist, then?  Who qualifies them???

I have also wondered at the usefulness of comparing domestic dogs to wild wolves.  It's like comparing chalk and cheese.

What to do???!

 

[caillou]

Confusing isn't it :? . I know i'm going to stick to the dry stuff with the odd tin of sardines, minced (or ground) beef, piece of fruit, cube of cheese, yogurt, milk etc. etc. thrown in from time to time as extras. I think for me the risk of something going terribly wrong worries me too much. And Voltaire is perfectly fit, healthy & shiny (bright-eyed and bushy-tailed -if he had one :wink: )so why change? If i wasn't so lazy i might try a bit of home cooking (it sounds like a good idea) but my husband will just get jealous - i hardly cook enough for him :lol: so if he sees me getting my apron on for the dog 8O  :lol:
(In my defense my husband has cholestoral & is diabetic so i do actually cook but not the creamy, buttery french stuff he'd prefer :drool: )

 

[jeanathanh2o]

I saw that article too. :?

I found several rebuttals to her article.
http://rawfed.com/myths/rebuttal.html  (dogs are carnivores)

http://rawfed.com/myths/rebuttal.html (dogs are omnivores)

What confuses me the most about this is weather or not dogs are omnivores or carnivores.  There are definately two camps on this one and each has a different set of guidelines for feeding raw based on which camp they are in.

Each of these two rebuttals approaches hte secondchance ranch article from one or the other of those camps.

 

[tootsie]

Feeding is very, very confusing indeed!!
I look back at my dogs when I was a kid, we  fed them "alpo" or "gravy train" something probably very equivalent to "ol roy", and they lived to the ripe old age of 16 and 14, never had a serious health issue. We never even heard of "organic" or "natural" foods for dogs. They even chewed on cooked steak bones!  8O
Now I wouldn't dream of feeding my dog anything like that. It has to be natural, and on the "whole dog journal list"...etc...
I really do think diet plays an important role in a dogs health, just like a humans health, but it is all very confusing.
I'm with caillou on this one. I'm feeding Maddie a  premium dry food, with an occasional raw meaty bone, a raw egg, some sardines, and occasional goodies on the side. Her coat is fabulous, she's healthy, happy, what else could I ask for. It's working for her and me, so why change it?!
If she was originally raised on BARF, I would try and keep her on it, but she wasn't so I won't change a thing!  :winkle:

 

[Honeyec]

I think it's very important when doing the research to try and find as neutral a source as possible. Rawfed.com is obviously a pro-BARF site and as such is obviously going to disagree with anything ANYONE says that is pointing out cons of the BARF way.

 

[Newcastle]

I answered much of this in the other thread, so just a few points here.

I have also wondered at the usefulness of comparing domestic dogs to wild wolves.  It's like comparing chalk and cheese.

It's not, really.  They're the same species.  It's more like comparing American people to German people - some cosmetic differences, but we all have basically the same needs.

The one thing I will say is that I have noticed how many pro-BARF sites trot out the old "Your Vet is not a qualified nutritionist" line.  Who is a qualified animal nutritionist, then?  Who qualifies them???

There are certifications vets can get in nutrition after graduation.  The point is that most vets receive little to no education on companion animal nutrition - some vet schools don't offer any nutrition courses at all, others offer one course (either elective or required) which covers *all* animal nutrition - livestock, poultry, companion animals, exotics - in one semester out of a four-year program.  In the meantime, however, there are numerous seminars, reading materials, and free lunches put on by pet food manufacturers, all telling these vets how their food is the best thing for your pets, and they can start their practice off right with kickbacks from selling their products, and get free food for their own pets for life.  (I am not making this up; I have looked through vet school course requirements, and I have talked with vets and vet students about the issue.)

What confuses me the most about this is weather or not dogs are omnivores or carnivores.  There are definately two camps on this one and each has a different set of guidelines for feeding raw based on which camp they are in.

Dogs are carnivores.  The "omnivore" camp, for the most part, isn't so much saying that dogs are truly omnivores as they are saying that dogs can derive some nutritional benefit from omnivore foods (which, incidentally, is the same thing the 'gurus' in the carnivore camp say).  I'm not sure why this has become such a divisive issue, especially when the experts actually all agree - canines should be fed a diet consisting primarily of raw bones and meat, some organ meat, and a small amount of fruit or vegetable matter.

Rawfed.com is obviously a pro-BARF site and as such is obviously going to disagree with anything ANYONE says that is pointing out cons of the BARF way.

That's not really a fair statement.  Most pro-raw sites will acknowledge the risks of feeding a raw diet; they simply go on to explain the reasoning behind accepting the risk.

 

[caillou]

Hi Newcastle, this could go on a long time !! This bit is about comparing dogs & wolves...
http://www.secondchanceranch.org/traini ... crane.html
I just wanted to add that as well as being vets they are very often caring dog owners themselves who want the best for their companions. They can't all be bought by the kibble companies - some people do choose to be vets because they love animals and have some morals!
I didn't do the "anti-barf diet..." bit to have a go i just thought it would be fair to let people see both sides before making a decision. I totally believe that it works well for your dogs and that they're happy and healthy. And giving Voltaire a raw bone from time to time doesn't bother me even if it whiffs a bit
Oh well, in a few more years or so when enough people have tried and tested the barf method i might be able to be convinced! [/quote]

 

[jeanathanh2o]

I just found great gaping holes in her arguments and she didn't back any of her "research" up with any published results or site any references for her conclusions.

this is dr billinghursts rebuttal of her argument
http://www.bestfrisbeedogs.com/mybluedog.html

and this is Dr Lonsdales rebuttal
http://rawfed.com/myths/rebuttal.html
5 pages of incredibly researched and documented (with source sitings for all of his arguments)

I think there are better sources for the pros and cons of both sides.
I am still looking for well documented arguments on either side
Though I have to say I am pretty much settled in my decision, but I want a thourough understanding of the cons so I can minimize the risks as much as possible.
In any case it is a choice you have to make for yourself.  And it has to be a choice you feel comfortable and safe with.
Best of luck in making your choice, if you have already made that decision then best of health

 

[Honeyec]

I'm sorry, dogs and wolves are patently not the same species and it is disingenuous to claim that they are.  Domestic dogs are of the species Canis Familiaris while wolves are of the genus Canis Lupus.  Yes, they are descended from a common ancestor, but they split into two separate species over 100,000 years ago.  That is why I maintain that it's futile to compare them and claim that what works for one species will automatically work for the other.  It's like saying Humans and Chimps are the same species.  Yes, we are closely related (and in fact are genetically far more similar to eachother than dogs are to wolves) but we are certainly not the same.

Please understand that I am not knocking the BARF diet, but I do think that anyone who is trying to make a decision on whether or not to feed it should be armed with all the facts and not speculation and half-truths, which is why it is pointless to base a decision on any website that is clearly on either side of the argument - they are simply too close to the situation to be objective about it.

For the record, I have still not made up my own mind on whether to try it with my own dogs - I plan on doing a lot more research.

 

[Newcastle]

Hi Newcastle, this could go on a long time

Yes, these discussions typically do!

They can't all be bought by the kibble companies - some people do choose to be vets because they love animals and have some morals!

I don't think in most cases it's a matter of being "bought" or "immoral" - they simply are uneducated about pet nutrition, and put their trust in the people who make pet foods, whom they consider to be "experts" in the topic.

i just thought it would be fair to let people see both sides before making a decision.

It is, but I think it's also fair to let people see the flaws in the arguments (on both sides).

Oh well, in a few more years or so when enough people have tried and tested the barf method i might be able to be convinced!

 How many years, and how many people/dogs, will it take?  This is similar to the "raw food is a fad diet" argument - which completely ignores the fact that before kibble came on the scene 100 years or so ago, dogs were eating table scraps, raw meat and bones ('trash heap food', in other words), and whatever 'critters' they could catch on their own.

I'm sorry, dogs and wolves are patently not the same species and it is disingenuous to claim that they are.  Domestic dogs are of the species Canis Familiaris while wolves are of the genus Canis Lupus.  

Not true.  In September 1993, wolves and dogs were recognized as the same species. Per the American Society of Mammalogists' Mammal Species of the World, adhering to the Code of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, Canis lupus is the official species of both dogs and wolves. If you have a 'dog', your dog's classification is Canis lupus familiaris, where familiaris is the subspecies of wolf.

which is why it is pointless to base a decision on any website that is clearly on either side of the argument - they are simply too close to the situation to be objective about it.

I still disagree, as I feel many of the websites on either side are quite objective.  (Not the Second Chance Ranch one, however.)  I agree that basing any decision on a single website is a bad idea; however basing a decision in part on information obtained from numerous websites on all sides of the issue is perfectly appropriate.

 

[Mastray]

Wow... I mean I love my dog and want what's best for him. I am just so uninterested in the whole BARF diet. When I first saw it come up I was like "What the heck is that?" and was very interested in finding out.  I agree with tootsie to the point that the dog I grew up with starting at 2yrs old lived till I was 18 and my father just fed her ol' roy. Steven and I are mostly interested in making sure the first ingredient isn't a BY-PRODUCT. Since I've been on this forum I've learned much more. But going the whole BARF diet way just seems a little... over the top... at least for me. No offense to anyone who does BARF. I just think that feeding them raw food is dangerous and could... lol of course this is just my opinion.

I love this forum... everyone shares their opinion and can have a debate without it getting out of control. I've learned a lot about what a lot of you like as far as feeding your dog goes. Right now we just feed Odin Purina One Puppy Chow... lamb and rice. it's real lamb and we did some research first. I think we're even going to swap over to Nutro from what we've read on here and with other research... not a 100% on that yet though.

Anyway, that's just my 2 cents.

 

[jeanathanh2o]

Ok I have been at this for 2 whole days now :wink:
I started with the neck, wing tips, back and giblits of a whole chicken I rotisseried for our dinner.    I cut off the back and wing tips and saved them before cooking then I cut the rest into quatrers and skewered them on the rotisiserie.  So rather than cooking the whole bird I cut it apart first.  No prob.  then I had meals prepared for my entire family including the dog.  That works for me, I am in the kitchen three times a day preparing meals for my 4 DC anyway,  how much harder is it to add the dogs meal?

Last night we went grocery shopping and it wasn't any extra "trouble" to pick up some chicken necks, backs and livers for her.  I mean one stop shopping and no need to make an extra trip all the way across town for "special food" at the pet supply store.

i don't have to soak her kibble for 15 min to soften it so she doesn't get bloat.  Now I just pull out her chicken neck and put it in her bowl and Im done.  
I don't have to buy special dog bones to clean her teeth.  I don't have to brush her teeth or take her in for a dental cleaning( big $$$ saving right there)  
The best part for me is I don't have to take a pooper scooper and plastic baggy with me for walks because dogs fed on a raw diet poop less (they actually digest and absorb more so less waste) and the poo disintegrates into powder rapidly ( just a few days)

So I guess it depends on what you consider more trouble and hassel. :lol:

 

[ssimmons99]

i don't have to soak her kibble for 15 min to soften it so she doesn't get bloat.

I thought wetting food actually contributed to bloat with some kibble.

Personally I cannot get over feeding food to the dog that might have E.Coli or Salmonella (sp?) on food bits they have been eating; where the dog could carry the infectious stuff around my house so the kids can get it....  I really haven't heard anything that can convince me that cannot happen.  (I'm hugely neurotic about cross-contamination).

 

[jeanathanh2o]

Funny :lol:   I feel if you have a strong immune system then you are less suseptable to bacterial agents.

On the other hand I am hugely neurotic about chemical additives, artificial favorings, colorings and preservatives that poison our bodies and prevent our natural immune system from functioning normally.
Since I converted our family to a "Garden of Eden" whole food diet.  Nothing fancy just nothing pre- packaged.  We haven't had so much as a sniffle much less any major illnesses.  And any allergies are long since a thing of the past.

I mean I don't even buy bread from the grocery.  I mill my own grains and make my own.  So I am already "over the top" where our food prep is concerned.

I just don't trust commercial manufacturers to have the best interest of my health and my families health in mind over their pocket books.  they are in business to make MONEY not to keep us healthy.

As for the dog food - it's easy enough to clean her eating area when she is done and if it really bothers you to wipe her muzzle clean

I totally see your point though.  Its all a matter of perspective.  How you see things.

 

[Newcastle]

I thought wetting food actually contributed to bloat with some kibble.

With some, those preserved with citric acid.

Personally I cannot get over feeding food to the dog that might have E.Coli or Salmonella (sp?) on food bits they have been eating;

But kibble can and does, at times, have these pathogens, too.  Again, it is a valid concern, but not one from which you are free if you feed kibble.

where the dog could carry the infectious stuff around my house so the kids can get it....  I really haven't heard anything that can convince me that cannot happen.  (I'm hugely neurotic about cross-contamination).

It could conceivably happen - just as it could with kibble.  And just as it could with the foods you feed your family.  If you practice basic common-sense food safety techniques, the risk of infection from feeding your dog raw chicken is about the same as the risk of infection from feeding your family chicken which was raw before you cooked it.  (Remember the most recent widespread E. coli problem?  It was from spinach - and while this is something some people feed their dogs on a raw diet, it's far more often a human food, and frequently eaten raw.)  With kids in the house, I would feed the dogs in their crates, be sure the kids know not to bother the dogs while they're eating (which is a basic dog-kid rule no matter what you feed), and pick up the bowls/wipe down the crate trays as soon as they're done.  (The Clorox wipes are handy for this.)  I typically don't let my dogs lick my face for about 1/2 an hour after they've eaten, though I fully admit this is a random thing based on nothing other than my personal 'ick' factor.

 

[caillou]

In the wild (if you follow the wolf/dog theory) wouldn't a wolf eat the prey then go back and regurgitate this for the young? Thus providing a pre-chewed mush? There is no way i'd ever risk giving a chicken carcass to a puppy. They just don't yet have the jaw strength or teeth to deal with it. Baby teeth are pointy but they're not much good and grinding. Aren't there another set of guidelines for barf feeding a pup? And i'd still advise anyone about to do it to chat it over with their vet whether he's a nutrition expert or not he can still speak from experiences he's had with others doing barf. Kibble might be a health risk long term but i prefer to take that risk rather than lose my dog tomorrow because of a pierced stomach or intestine.

 

[tootsie]

In the wild (if you follow the wolf/dog theory) wouldn't a wolf eat the prey then go back and regurgitate this for the young? Thus providing a pre-chewed mush? There is no way i'd ever risk giving a chicken carcass to a puppy. They just don't yet have the jaw strength or teeth to deal with it. Baby teeth are pointy but they're not much good and grinding. Aren't there another set of guidelines for barf feeding a pup? And i'd still advise anyone about to do it to chat it over with their vet whether he's a nutrition expert or not he can still speak from experiences he's had with others doing barf. Kibble might be a health risk long term but i prefer to take that risk rather than lose my dog tomorrow because of a pierced stomach or intestine.

Now I'm no expert on this at all...and I am not feeding a raw diet, so someone please correct me if I'm wrong about this. I believe that most of the digestion, or break down (?) of the food, in dogs happens in the stomach, where as in humans we tend to chew food really well. A dog doesn't really chew, but the acids in their stomach tend to do all the work as far as breaking down food and bones. Thats why I think raw bones are akay, they are softer and more pliable than cooked bones which can splinter and pierce insides. This is kind of gross, but have you ever seen your dog throw up after eating? Whatever he just ate, will come out pretty much whole, like he didn't even chew. sorry for the visual..
So anywho, puppies would do just fine eating a raw diet, just like an adult dog.  
I actually think if you are going to feed a raw diet it is easier for the pups right from the start.

 

[Newcastle]

In the wild (if you follow the wolf/dog theory) wouldn't a wolf eat the prey then go back and regurgitate this for the young? Thus providing a pre-chewed mush?

Pre-digested, yes, starting when the pups are about three weeks old.  By the time the pups are eight weeks old (or 10-12, as many raw feeding breeders don't let them go until this age), they are fully weaned and happily eating the same thing their parents eat, all on their own.

Aren't there another set of guidelines for barf feeding a pup?

No; puppies in a litter, yes, but not puppies who are ready to go to new homes.

And i'd still advise anyone about to do it to chat it over with their vet whether he's a nutrition expert or not he can still speak from experiences he's had with others doing barf.

Talking with the vet isn't a bad idea, but ask about his personal education in nutrition, his personal experience with feeding a raw diet, and then be ready to take what he says with a grain of salt.  If the vet is anti-raw, chances are his clients who are feeding a raw diet just don't discuss the issue with him - meaning while he may know of some 'bad' experiences, he probably doesn't know of the 'good' ones - the dogs he sees every year who are happy and healthy and fed a raw diet.  

Kibble might be a health risk long term but i prefer to take that risk rather than lose my dog tomorrow because of a pierced stomach or intestine.

And that is your option, but again, kibble is not free from the risk of perforation, nor of aspiration.  

I believe that most of the digestion, or break down (?) of the food, in dogs happens in the stomach, where as in humans we tend to chew food really well. A dog doesn't really chew, but the acids in their stomach tend to do all the work as far as breaking down food and bones. Thats why I think raw bones are akay, they are softer and more pliable than cooked bones which can splinter and pierce insides.

Yes, that's right.  Dogs do not have digestive enzymes in their saliva, they do not (as puppies or adults) have flat teeth for grinding foods.  Dogs don't chew their food; they either swallow it whole (kibble, ground food, and smaller RMBs) or they rip/tear/crunch it into pieces that they can swallow whole (larger RMBs).  Raw bones are soft and pliable - and if I haven't said it before, never, *ever* feed cooked bones!

 

[jeanathanh2o]

I am loving this discussion.  I am so happy that we have been able to have an open discussion of our thoughts and feelings without taking it too much to heart and getting fired up at one another