barf

[day worker 296]

any experts on here with the barf diet?

[toby63 1,236]

try skycat off here mate

[skycat 6,173]

Send me your email by pm and I'll send you a raft of info on it

[sandymere 8,263]

Mainly boll$cks with a smattering of common sense.

[sandymere 8,263]

I wrote this 2009 so it's a little dated but ok. If I were to re write today I would mention fibre, short chain fatty acids gut flora etc.

 

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 with 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 'nature'. 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 lets start with 'nature', 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 its natural for a dog to die of parvo and un-natural to inoculate against it, or its 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 situation 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 the 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 its not natural. 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,fat and a small amount of sugars. 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.

 

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 definatly 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 quality through 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, mechanically recovered meat 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 extremes 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?

 

Edited August 24, 2012 by sandymere

[Sirius 1,391]

If you need any advice, I can help I have fed dogs this way all my life, same as my father and grandfather before me

In my opinion it really is the best way to feed dogs, especially if you want to keep them in top condition, there are many many benefits.

 

 

Good Luck Sirius

Edited August 24, 2012 by Sirius

[skycat 6,173]

Sandy: we are all entitled to our opinions, but to label BARF as 'mainly bollocks with a smattering of common sense' is to ignore the obvious health benefits of feeding as nature intended, without all the added colourings, preservatives, heavily processed ingredients which are found in commercially prepared dog food. Why be so sarcastic and derogatory towards those who prefer to feed their dogs in a way that doesn't rely on lining the pockets of some manufacturer?

 

For myself, I prefer to know exactly what I am eating, and to this end I never eat ready processed food, or food that I cannot identify by eye. My own diet consists of the least processed cereals: porridge oats, nuts, seeds (home made muesli, if you like), meat, fish, eggs, fresh vegetables and fruit. My only concession to our modern existence is that I buy my bread rather than making my own. Ditto yoghurt.

 

By feeding my dogs in a similar way I have noticed, over many years, that the old dogs stay in better health for much longer than some I see which have been fed entirely on a complete food. Old dogs don't put on so much weight, or lose weight. Young dogs do better all round, and you never get a picky eater if the dog is getting what both its body and mind need from food.

 

As far as bones are concerned: yes, some people new to feeding raw, do tend to feed too many bones. I feed chicken carcases and wings and lamb ribs as PART OF A STAPLE DIET, not as the only food. The softer bones in commercially bred chickens are 99% safe for dogs of all ages. (Even dry food has been known to choke a greedy dog). I don't feed weight bearing (leg bones) from large animals, except to very young puppies which can only strip the meat from them without risking breaking of sharp shards of bone.

 

You say: 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.

 

But aren't you 'attacking' those that feed raw in exactly the same way? If I came to you and told you that I don't eat pot noodles because I don't like the additives they contain, would you say I was a fanatic? I sincerely hope not. Food additives (colourings, preservatives, flavour enhancers etc etc) are totally unnecessary to either man or dog. It is common practice for dog food manufacturers to add sugar to dog food to enhance its flavour. You may say that this in itself is not harmful, but it is also unnecessary. I could go on and on: salt, for example. Sufficient salt is found naturally in meat, and it is known to be harmful when taken to excess.

 

I'm not arguing that many dogs live their entire lives on complete food with no apparent harm, but I have noticed, in both myself, my partner, and our dogs, a definite benefit in feeding as naturally as possible. Doggy breath (in the dogs!) is a thing of the past, loose stools a thing of the past, tooth decay: none, even in the old dogs. The most they get is a thin line of tartar, easily removed with a finger nail, on the canines: the molars are pristine due to a daily munch on chicken carcases or lamb ribs.

Regarding the dangers of bacterial infection from raw meat: meat processed for human consumption is strictly regulated, besides which, dogs are far more tolerant and better able to combat the risks of bacterial infection than us humans: just look at the revolting rotting carcases they devour with glee when they find them in the countryside.

 

Read this: Overall, pets are less susceptible to food poisoning than humans. The major reason for this is a higher tolerance for bacterial toxins from staphylococcal and Clostridium botulinum species of bacteria, though. The lower sensitivity to these toxins reduces the incidence of food poisoning compared to people, since the staph food poisonings are the most common form to affect people. It is clear that dogs are susceptible to infection with both Salmonella and E. coli bacteria that can cause food poisoning but it is not clear whether they are more resistant, less resistant, or of equal susceptibility to these infections than humans are. Dogs are more susceptible to the mycotoxin (fungal toxin) vomitoxin than any other species. The usual signs of vomitoxin exposure are vomiting, diarrhea and refusing to eat. This toxin can contaminate commercial foods in which Fusarum mold species grow and is one of the reasons that dogs sometimes refuse to eat when a new bag of dog food is opened.

The best approach to controlling food poisoning is to be cautious when making foods for your pets and in the handling of commercially prepared diets to minimize the risk of food poisoning. If you intend to feed raw meat it is best to avoid ground meats. Contamination of meat with E. coli and Salmonella species bacteria is more common in ground meats since the grinder itself can become contaminated. When evaluating possibly spoiled foods remember to follow the basic rule: "when in doubt, throw it out!"

 

Taken from here: http://www.vetinfo.com/subscriber/0503digest.html

 

And lastly, BARF doesn't necessarily mean a diet of just bone and meat: the initials BARF stand for Biologically Appropriate Raw Food, which, if the owner is conscientious, and is able to apply a little thought to how they feed their dogs, gives an animal the complete spectrum of all its dietary needs.

 

As to cooking? Why cook if the dog can eat it raw? Less time spent preparing the meat. Bones don't need to be dissected out of a carcase for fear that they'll splinter in the dog's gut. And whilst dogs love cooked meat as much as raw, I shan't be wasting time, electricity or energy cooking it for them.

 

As far as the vegetable oil versus animal fat debate goes: http://www.moabhappe...ves/pet0907.htm

Personally, I have no need to add vegetable oil to my dogs' food as they get plenty of chicken and lamb fat in their diet, and when I used to try and add extra 'fat' in the form of vegetable oil, most got the shits. Nowadays the most I'll supplement with is cod liver oil in the winter time.

 

If someone wants to feed their dog on an expensive bag of dog food, I shan't try and stop them, but I know what works for me and my dogs. It's not often I come on here and 'defend' what I believe in, but I think it is important to try and show both 'sides' of the story.

[lapin2008 1,587]

Mainly boll$cks with a smattering of common sense.

Not like you to be trolling a topic about BARF Sandymere!

 

For me, even in discounting all the science behind it that can be used to prove/disprove what ever you want to prove/disprove with it, the effect that giving a balanced BARF diet has on the dogs/coats/teeth is plainly visible within a matter a days.

[Born Hunter 17,778]

You're gonna get something about bacterial build up and placebo effects Pennys.

 

I'm not really sure a raw diet significantly improves a working dogs performance as I haven't the time to satisfactorily test this, comparing my bitch to my mates (complete fed) is hardly a fair comparison as breeding and fitness are two relatively huge variables. Not to mention that just a few dogs in any experiment is no where near enough for a qualitative result.

 

I'm also willing to accept that dog's over the 10'000 years or so they have been at our sides have 'adapted' to diggest processed human foods somewhat better than their wild ancestors and so such things as pasta, bread and rice should possibly play a larger part in our dogs diets than they would naturally.

 

However, I do see the generally better health a raw fed dog is in compared to a complete fed dog from the animals teeth and mouth through to it's arse and shite. That's enough to convince me to feed a predominantly raw diet and I'm yet to see a draw back to be honest.

 

There's also something quite pleasing for the mind of a hunter to see his hounds eating raw meat....

(Not that I would let that effect my objectivity Sandy , so feck off with ya placebo effects!)

Edited August 24, 2012 by Born Hunter

[Sirius 1,391]

We all have our opinions, but our in-house, self appointed, sceptic, link posting troll never disapoints.

We would of hoped he would of got bored by now. But No...

Edited August 24, 2012 by Sirius

[sandymere 8,263]

In general there is some good info about recent study here

http://skeptvet.com/Blog/2012/07/new-study-on-raw-diets-for-dogs-adds-little-to-ongoing-debate/

 

 

Penny I give Barfists a little stick as they attack as their only defence ie see Sirius post.

 

Sirius when people make personal attacks ( ad hominen ) rather than discuss the subject its a good sign that the one attacking does so as a result of there lack of ability to make a more decent contribution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

 

Now the post asked for someone with info on this subject and I offered it, some may not like it but we are not all acolytes of the naturalistic fallacy but go for feeding based on whats best for the dog. The naturalistic fallacy or appeal to nature is pretty poor see link. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adnature.html

 

Back to Penny, firstly you do not feed a BARF diet, by your own admission you feed cereals. Giving a dog raw meat and bones does not mean a BARF diet, I feed lots of meat and bones along with lots of other stuff and completes it not BARF as BARF'ist exclude all cooked food, cereals etc.

Secondly I call it mainly Bull as it is, take your link as an example they state

"Dogs cannot digest corn and utilize the protein it contains, so it basically just passes right through the digestive system and you get the privilege of cleaning it up when it comes out the other end."

What is that based on? Dogs digest corn almost as well as we do, its certainly not a complete dog food but there is no reason why it cant be a part of it.

Little background here http://ajpregu.physiology.org/content/300/1/R67.full#content-block#content-block

Sites like Raw myths etc are pretty rubbish in general sosorry but most of the info put forward is boll$cks with a little common sense thrown in

To conclude I feed raw as part of a diet but find the evidence put forward for the true BARF diet to be based on made up stuff.

Edited August 24, 2012 by sandymere

[Born Hunter 17,778]

Christ, Chalkys post didn't last long. That must be a record even for him with the old 'auto delete'.

 

Personally i thought it was a good bit of common sense say it as ya see it input.

[Phil Lloyd 10,738]

I forgot that Friday night on the Internet forums,..is 'fight night',...and to be perfectly honest,.I cannot be fecking arsed . Folks can feed their jukels whatever way they choose....

[Born Hunter 17,778]

No worries fella.

 

I know exactly what ya mean.

[sandymere 8,263]

Simple really the whole idea that cooked food is bad and dogs can't eat cereals is silly and they are the founding principles of BARF.