[PeanutAndOmar]

please do research, especially if you are considering a BARF or RAW diet. Read all the literature and science you can get your hands on. Don't be swayed by people on message boards telling you what is best for your dog, educate yourself with lots of research.

I considered going BARF with Omar and my cats at one point, but after reading extensively on the subject, decided the best thing would be to feed high quality kibble, and occasional raw treats.

Cosmo, my cat, is 17, going on 18 and no one believes me when I tell them how old she is. She is as spry as a kitten still.

Omar is doing much, much better on avoderm and canidae. I've read too many reports of even raw bones harming dogs and uncooked meat containing bacteria that can harm a pup to risk it, as he has a very sensitive tummy. For the "wolf" argument, wolves are to domestic dogs as chimps are to children....would you think it would be better for your child to eat exactly like a chimp since they are so closely genetically related? Domestic dogs evolved away from wolves 140K years ago. They are quite ok with kibble. Just go with a good brand.


I am not too lazy or squeamish to feed raw to my pets. I am just aware of the dangers, which to me personally, outweigh the risks. Please, do research, don't just take anyone's word for it.


EDIT: I am very aware how unpopular this is going to make me but:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC339295/
http://www.workingdogs.com/vcbarf.htm
http://www.worldwidehealth.com/healt...-Critique.html
http://www.dogpeople.org/BARF%20Myth.htm

i read also a ton about the pros of the BARF/RAW diet, and came to the conclusion that my dog is not a wolf, not even close, and that his evolutionary track is one of scavenger rather than killer. I also am highly concerned with bone splinters as well as pathogens.

I'll stick to kibble. You do not have to agree with me.

[DogsforMe]

The many myths of feeding dogs a raw diet.
http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/rawdog/

Dangerous bones & bacteria.
http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/rawdog/bacteria.html
http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/rawdog/bones.html

[dieterherzog]

Originally Posted by PeanutAndOmar

please do research, especially if you are considering a BARF or RAW diet. Read all the literature and science you can get your hands on. Don't be swayed by people on message boards telling you what is best for your dog, educate yourself with lots of research.

I considered going BARF with Omar and my cats at one point, but after reading extensively on the subject, decided the best thing would be to feed high quality kibble, and occasional raw treats.

Cosmo, my cat, is 17, going on 18 and no one believes me when I tell them how old she is. She is as spry as a kitten still.

Omar is doing much, much better on avoderm and canidae. I've read too many reports of even raw bones harming dogs and uncooked meat containing bacteria that can harm a pup to risk it, as he has a very sensitive tummy. For the "wolf" argument, wolves are to domestic dogs as chimps are to children....would you think it would be better for your child to eat exactly like a chimp since they are so closely genetically related? Domestic dogs evolved away from wolves 140K years ago. They are quite ok with kibble. Just go with a good brand.


I am not too lazy or squeamish to feed raw to my pets. I am just aware of the dangers, which to me personally, outweigh the risks. Please, do research, don't just take anyone's word for it.


EDIT: I am very aware how unpopular this is going to make me but:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC339295/
http://www.workingdogs.com/vcbarf.htm
http://www.worldwidehealth.com/healt...-Critique.html
http://www.dogpeople.org/BARF%20Myth.htm

i read also a ton about the pros of the BARF/RAW diet, and came to the conclusion that my dog is not a wolf, not even close, and that his evolutionary track is one of scavenger rather than killer. I also am highly concerned with bone splinters as well as pathogens.

I'll stick to kibble. You do not have to agree with me.

The first 2 links are eye openers, but the last two - especially the one by dogpeople.org does not quote its Science correctly. If you read through the Wayne and Vila papers, they found that although dogs MAY HAVE BEEN DOMESTICATED about 150000 years ago, the DNA sequence between Grey Wolves and many dog breeds differ by only 0.2%. Nobody is talking about dogs being similar to jackals, coyotes or foxes, so I think it was wrong of the author to bring that in just to confuse people.

The Canadian Vet Journal link is very informative and if there's anything that should stop a person from feeding raw, it should be worrying about bacteria and contaminating the environment through dog poop.

[Labsnothers]

All very interesting and a contrast to the usual one sided, pro raw discussions on the net. I am afraid both sides are too quick to believe what they want to believe. I must admit I was hoping to find a stronger anti raw case than I did. Still there was some good material there. However, most of the sources are ones I am not familiar with, just like the pro raw ones.

The CDC site used to have a warning for people feeding raw, but I couldn't find it. Doing a search there actually turned up contamination from commercial dog foods. Of course considering how many small companies there are out there manufacturing dog food and how often contamination shows up in the human foods, I didn't see it as a concern.

Who is behind the angelfire site? Raw is now big business with frozen barf in a box delivered to your door or in a freezer at many pet stores. Many sites have banner ads for prepared raw, recipes, videos, ingredients, etc. Somebody is making money on raw.

Do any of the prepared raw sellers do AAFCO testing? Not that it is that stringent, but it is better than ''trust us''.

One thing that does bother me is the lack of reports of problems from feeding raw. Is it a matter of the raw feeders accepting it as their fault for not getting it right, and trying to do better? Perhaps anybody daring to post such a failure is so vilified they never make that mistake again?

[PeanutAndOmar]

Thanks for the support....and the kindness even if you disagree. I was terrified after posting that last night. I am new to these boards, and do not want to make enemies for disagreeing with the very popular BARF/RaW plan diets.

[bully]

Originally Posted by Labsnothers

Do any of the prepared raw sellers do AAFCO testing? Not that it is that stringent, but it is better than ''trust us''.

AAFCO's "Required testing" of pet foods

The ad reads: "Our pet foods are made following AAFCO guidelines and must pass stringent testing." This sounds good, until we take a close look at the AAFCO test guidelines. "The Testing Protocols For Providing An Unqualified Representation of Nutritional Adequacy For A Dog Or Cat Food" are spelled out in the book, Official Publication, 1994, Association of American Feed Control Officials Incorporated.

For adult maintenance dog food to pass the AAFCO test:

* 8 dogs older than 1 yr. must start the test.
* At start all dogs must be normal weight & health.
* A blood test is to be taken from each dog at the start and finish of the test.
* For 6 months, the dogs used must only eat the food being tested.
* The dogs finishing the test must not lose more than 15% of their body weight.
* During the test, none of the dogs used are to die or be removed becasue of nutritional causes.
* 6 of the 8 dogs starting must finish the test.

That's all there is to it.

The AAFCO protocols for adult maintenance dog food listed in the book, Official Publication, 1994, Association of American Feed Control Officials Incorporated, do not require different breeds to be tested, nor do they exclude any of the larger breeds which are still puppies (nutritionally) when they are 1 to 2 years old. Their protocols require blood tests which screen only four different blood values: RBC number, hemoglobin, packed cell volume and serum albumin. The average veterinary "basic blood profile" screens over twenty-five blood values.

There are many pet food ads making the claim that a food has passed "stringent testing as required by AAFCO." But AAFCO's "stringent" test protocols wouldn't even meet the criteria to have their results published in most accredited scientific journals. Compare the above number of animals used to the numbers used in some of the tests cited in the U. S. Government's National Research Council book, Nutrient Requirements of Dogs. There are tests cited in the NRC's book which used 500 to 600 test animals which were tested for years before their results were published.

The AAFCO book lists the same type of "stringent" testing protocols for maintenance cat foods, puppy foods, kitten foods, and the gestation/lactation pet foods.

Buyer beware . . . you may be buying a pet food advertised as being a nutritionally adequate diet for all dogs because it passed "stringent" AAFCO testing ... when only six to eight dogs ate that food for 6 months and survived with no more than an "acceptable" 15% loss of body weight.

[Labsnothers]

Originally Posted by Labsnothers

Do any of the prepared raw sellers do AAFCO testing? Not that it is that stringent, but it is better than ''trust us''.

Rather than answer my question, you bash the test I called not stringent. However, it is better than nothing.

[Michiyo-Fir]

Originally Posted by Labsnothers

Do any of the prepared raw sellers do AAFCO testing? Not that it is that stringent, but it is better than ''trust us''.

One thing that does bother me is the lack of reports of problems from feeding raw. Is it a matter of the raw feeders accepting it as their fault for not getting it right, and trying to do better? Perhaps anybody daring to post such a failure is so vilified they never make that mistake again?

Originally Posted by Nature's Variety Raw

Animal feeding tests using AAFCO procedures substantiate that Nature’s Variety Chicken Formula Raw Frozen Diet provides complete and balanced nutrition for all canine life stages. Nature’s Variety Chicken Formula Raw Frozen Diet is formulated to meet the nutritional levels established by the AAFCO Cat Food Nutrient Profiles for All Life Stages.

Most of them do. At least the big companies do..

[Ayanla]

Originally Posted by PeanutAndOmar

Thanks for the support....and the kindness even if you disagree. I was terrified after posting that last night. I am new to these boards, and do not want to make enemies for disagreeing with the very popular BARF/RaW plan diets.

You'll find that many of us disagree on certain things, and agree on others. I don't think there are too many enemies, even among those who vehemently disagree in a particular area. I debate back and forth with Labsnothers non stop in this forum, but I don't think we're enemies, or at least I'd hope not.

[DobManiac]

Originally Posted by Labsnothers

Do any of the prepared raw sellers do AAFCO testing? Not that it is that stringent, but it is better than ''trust us''.

Very few do, but I know that Nature's Variety has. Honestly, I would never feed a premade raw diet that hadn't passed the AAFCO testing. Too many of these diets are over supplementing and/or adding in too many vegetables in order to make the food cheaper to produce. Half the reason for feeding a raw diet is so the owner can have complete control over what the dog is eating. Premade RAW is just another guessing game, IMO.

Originally Posted by Labsnothers

One thing that does bother me is the lack of reports of problems from feeding raw. Is it a matter of the raw feeders accepting it as their fault for not getting it right, and trying to do better? Perhaps anybody daring to post such a failure is so vilified they never make that mistake again?

I'm not sure what you mean by reports of problems? As far as I know, there aren't any long-term side effects to feeding RAW, such as increase in cancer, liver damage, or kidney damage. But dogs that are prone to kidney disease can have difficulties with RAW do to the higher level of phosphorous in the meat. I believe Kathy has a dog with this problem and has chosen to feed a cooked diet because of it.

For short term risks, there is choking, bone perforation, bacterial contamination to people and dogs. There are no records right now of cross contamination between a person and a RAW feed dog. The owner just needs to practice the same sanitary measures with the dog's meat as they would with their own.

As far as choking, that is always a risk. That’s why it is so important to never allow a dog to eat Raw unsupervised, and to always feed bones and potions of meat that are the proper size for that specific animal. But dogs have died due to choking on raw bones or raw meat. And this is a fact, as I personally know the owners. Most of these instances have been turkey necks with large dogs. Those are just the right size to get lodged in their throat when the dog is swallowing.

I also know an owner that had a dog that suffered from a bone perforating its intestines not once but twice. I can't say why that is, could be the type of bones given, could be the dog didn't chew properly and was latter unable to regurgitate like most RAW feed dogs do very well.

I also know of a litter in the area, where all but one of the puppies died of E. coli poisoning due to a bad batch of ground meat. I'm pretty sure the owner was weaning them on to a kibble diet with raw ground beef supplemented in, but I'm not positive. But I know the raw ground meat was the culprit, and this is why many raw feeders don't recommend feeding any ground meat. The increased surface area allows for greater reproduction of bacteria. But it seems to be VERY rare for a dog to get sick from E. coli or Salmonella poisoning. The highly acidic environments in their stomachs just don’t allow it. It generally only occurs in dogs with an immune system that is somehow compromised.

There are risks with all diets, kibble RAW, and cooked. It all depends on how the owner weighs these risks against the benefits of feeding that particular diet. What I love about RAW is that with a little common sense and a whole lot of research I can greatly decrease the risks that come with the diet. But with kibble, you have no control. All you can do is hope these companies truly have your dogs health both long and short term as their top priority. And I just haven’t seen that lately

[dieterherzog]

I guess the discussion about kibble has mostly been about lower quality kibble. I am wondering if higher end kibbles like Orijen or EVO might offer almost the same benefits of raw without the risk of contamination. I know obviously that RAW proponents talk about amino acids and how they have more control over the feeding process.

But how about feeding high-end kibble that has been researched, wouldn't dogs benefit from that as well?

[bully]

Originally Posted by dieterherzog

I guess the discussion about kibble has mostly been about lower quality kibble. I am wondering if higher end kibbles like Orijen or EVO might offer almost the same benefits of raw without the risk of contamination. I know obviously that RAW proponents talk about amino acids and how they have more control over the feeding process.

But how about feeding high-end kibble that has been researched, wouldn't dogs benefit from that as well?

I'd say the better kibbles like Orijen offer much better quality of ingredients which dogs will absorb better with much less waste due to the lack of cheap grains, fillers, and preservatives. It still is not as good as a balanced RAW diet, because it's still goes through the kibble making process - but definitely has the "easy factor" as it's still kibble vs. raw / fresh

My "nutritional" measuring stick would be

0 - no food
15 - saw dust
35 - Science Diet
65 - Orijen/EVO
100 - Balanced RAW

[dieterherzog]

Originally Posted by bully

My "nutritional" measuring stick would be

0 - no food
15 - saw dust
35 - Science Diet
65 - Orijen/EVO
100 - Balanced RAW

Mine:

-10 : No food (since you're actually speeding up your dog's death)
0 : saw dust
10 : IAMS/Old Roy
40 : Science Diet
80 : Orijen/EVO
95 : Raw

[Michiyo-Fir]

Originally Posted by dieterherzog

Mine:

-10 : No food (since you're actually speeding up your dog's death)
0 : saw dust
10 : IAMS/Old Roy
40 : Science Diet
80 : Orijen/EVO
95 : Raw

I agree with this more I think. I don't think it's possible to have a 100% perfect diet. Also the difference between raw and Orijen for example shouldn't be too huge. As far as I'm concerned, I haven't noticed any difference from Nia being on raw and on Orijen. EVO was a bit different, it made her urine too basic which caused her to itch a lot after peeing unless she was given a bit of lemon water during the day. But then again she's only been on raw for about 5 days so it could very well be that I haven't noticed a difference YET not that I won't.

[DobManiac]

Originally Posted by dieterherzog

But how about feeding high-end kibble that has been researched, wouldn't dogs benefit from that as well?

Let me just say off the bat that I would never fed a mainstream kibble.

But if you thinking of this from a research stand point, most of these higher end foods are pretty new. And as such their feed trails are short they haven't invested as much time and money into actual research as SD, Iams, or Purina. Labsnothers is correct that mainstream foods are offering the right amounts of vitamins and minerals, and that many dogs blossom on these foods. And I wonder if the reason they are seeing a lower occurrence of HD in the guide dog studies he keeps mentioning, is because generally these foods have a lower ratio of Ca:P. But that is just a guess, since I've never seen the studies.

I personally believe most of these higher end foods are just telling the consumer what they want to hear. Organic, human made ingredients, fresh vegetables, and herbs are all just another form of marketing. It makes you trust a company that might or might not deserve that trust.

We have gotten so caught up on these ingredient lists, that most of these foods are offering four or five different protein sources just to make it appear there is more meat in the food that is actually there. And most of the time that just makes your dog more prone to meat based allergies, and makes it harder for you as the owner to figure out what's causing it. But I only know of two companies off the top my head that will guarantee an actual dry meat percentage in there foods, Timberwolf Organics and Nature's Variety.

You can piece apart that ingredient list all you want to, but don't be naive enough to believe that all of these companies haven't figured out a way to work it their advantage. And with the economy the way it is, I’m sure they are cutting corners left and right. Honestly, until premium companies put up the money for a long term study, you won’t know what the foods have improved on. But no one can argue that the increase amounts of preservatives and chemicals found in mainstream dog food can be healthy for anyone(dog or person) with out consequences.

[dieterherzog]

Originally Posted by DobManiac

Let me just say off the bat that I would never fed a mainstream kibble.

But if you thinking of this from a research stand point, most of these higher end foods are pretty new. And as such their feed trails are short they haven't invested as much time and money into actual research as SD, Iams, or Purina. Labsnothers is correct that mainstream foods are offering the right amounts of vitamins and minerals, and that many dogs blossom on these foods. And I wonder if the reason they are seeing a lower occurrence of HD in the guide dog studies he keeps mentioning, is because generally these foods have a lower ratio of Ca:P. But that is just a guess, since I've never seen the studies.

I personally believe most of these higher end foods are just telling the consumer what they want to hear. Organic, human made ingredients, fresh vegetables, and herbs are all just another form of marketing. It makes you trust a company that might or might not deserve that trust.

We have gotten so caught up on these ingredient lists, that most of these foods are offering four or five different protein sources just to make it appear there is more meat in the food that is actually there. And most of the time that just makes your dog more prone to meat based allergies, and makes it harder for you as the owner to figure out what's causing it. But I only know of two companies off the top my head that will guarantee an actual dry meat percentage in there foods, Timberwolf Organics and Nature's Variety.

You can piece apart that ingredient list all you want to, but don't be naive enough to believe that all of these companies haven't figured out a way to work it their advantage. And with the economy the way it is, I’m sure they are cutting corners left and right. Honestly, until premium companies put up the money for a long term study, you won’t know what the foods have improved on. But no one can argue that the increase amounts of preservatives and chemicals found in mainstream dog food can be healthy for anyone(dog or person) with out consequences.

I don't understand your point. The research that Hills and Purina and Royal Canin do is to find the most cost-effective ingredient that can be fed to dogs without killing them. They take out most of the meat ingredients, add in corn and and lace the whole bag of kibble with synthetic vitamins. Then they package it all up as Prescription food or food for a certain dog breed and sell it for a terrible price.

As much controversy as there remains, there is a standard that needs to be followed when it comes to listing ingredients on a dog food package. You cannot (at least not legally) list chicken as the first ingredient if you're actually providing meat-by-product. And also, it is required that a manufacturer list the maximum moisture content in the kibble package. From that, you can calculate the dry content of protein.

If you buy food that lists chicken as the main content then a long list of other crap and somewhere further down the line you see chicken meal, then you should question it. If the first 3 ingredients are meat and meat meal, then you can be quite certain the meat content is high.

I'm just saying that if a company lists their first ingredient as corn and they can peddle that swill as balanced, I have already lost all faith regardless of how much money they have spent researching.

[DobManiac]

Originally Posted by dieterherzog

I don't understand your point. The research that Hills and Purina and Royal Canin do is to find the most cost-effective ingredient that can be fed to dogs without killing them. They take out most of the meat ingredients, add in corn and and lace the whole bag of kibble with synthetic vitamins. Then they package it all up as Prescription food or food for a certain dog breed and sell it for a terrible price.

I’m not sticking up for them, I’m just trying to add a bit or perspective. These companies were the first ones to do any research into do nutrition, and they are still the only companies to do long term studies. Your angry with them for being cost-effective, but do you honestly believe that Evo and Orjins top profit isn’t profit as well. I have a habit of not just something completely just because it’s better than the alternative. And it does annoy me that some of these premium foods have been in business for 10 to 15 years and yet most of their feeding trails only last 6 months.

Originally Posted by dieterherzog

As much controversy as there remains, there is a standard that needs to be followed when it comes to listing ingredients on a dog food package. You cannot (at least not legally) list chicken as the first ingredient if you're actually providing meat-by-product. And also, it is required that a manufacturer list the maximum moisture content in the kibble package. From that, you can calculate the dry content of protein.

If you buy food that lists chicken as the main content then a long list of other crap and somewhere further down the line you see chicken meal, then you should question it. If the first 3 ingredients are meat and meat meal, then you can be quite certain the meat content is high.

What I was trying to explain was splitting ingredients. We no longer trust a company that only has one meat source because we assume there isn’t enough meat in the food.

But I don’t see the difference between a food that lists one meat source and one grain followed by fat showing that is the predominate portion of the food, than a food that lists three different meats followed by three different grains. Where are we guaranteed that food B has more meat than food A.? All we know for sure is that food B is a lot more likely to cause an allergic reaction in your pet. These premium companies need to guarantee a meat percentage, because the labels don’t tell you actual weights only the order.

Originally Posted by dieterherzog

I'm just saying that if a company lists their first ingredient as corn and they can peddle that swill as balanced, I have already lost all faith regardless of how much money they have spent researching.

Well, that’s your priorities. Personally, I want a dog food that does both. But that’s part of the reason I fed RAW.

[dieterherzog]

Originally Posted by DobManiac

I’m not sticking up for them, I’m just trying to add a bit or perspective. These companies were the first ones to do any research into do nutrition, and they are still the only companies to do long term studies. Your angry with them for being cost-effective, but do you honestly believe that Evo and Orjins top profit isn’t profit as well. I have a habit of not just something completely just because it’s better than the alternative. And it does annoy me that some of these premium foods have been in business for 10 to 15 years and yet most of their feeding trails only last 6 months.


What I was trying to explain was splitting ingredients. We no longer trust a company that only has one meat source because we assume there isn’t enough meat in the food.

But I don’t see the difference between a food that lists one meat source and one grain followed by fat showing that is the predominate portion of the food, than a food that lists three different meats followed by three different grains. Where are we guaranteed that food B has more meat than food A.? All we know for sure is that food B is a lot more likely to cause an allergic reaction in your pet. These premium companies need to guarantee a meat percentage, because the labels don’t tell you actual weights only the order.

I'm sure the profit margin for Hill's Prescription Diet is much higher than that of Orijen's. The Prescription Diet is twice as expensive as Orijen and the ingredients are pig's swill, it's a downright disgrace.

I agree with you that many premium kibbles are shams as well, particularly the organic stuff, that's why I tend stick to the stuff I KNOW is good. Not to sound like a crazed Orijen promoter here but they do guarantee a 70 - 75% meat content. I also agree that manufacturers should list guaranteed meat content on their packaging.

I didn't mean to come off as snarly or uncompromising, it just irks me sometimes when there is too much misinformation floating about that gives ammunition to people who insist that feeding their dog a lower-meat based kibble is alright.

[DobManiac]

Originally Posted by dieterherzog

I agree with you that many premium kibbles are shams as well, particularly the organic stuff, that's why I tend stick to the stuff I KNOW is good. Not to sound like a crazed Orijen promoter here but they do guarantee a 70 - 75% meat content. I also agree that manufacturers should list guaranteed meat content on their packaging.

I'm mostly refering to grain based kibble, which as far as meat content aren't always much better than a corn based dog food. Most grain free foods do guarantee a very nice portion of meat. But not everyone is comfortable with grain free for various reasons.

The bottom line is it all comes down to the owner. And every food as risks not matter what it is. So as long as the owner put in enough research to have conclusions based on some type of scientific data (not just my friend or vet told me this), and their dog does well on the food, then I think we should just let them be.

Now I better go fed my own dogs. Today is raw ground beef, tripe, and duck necks. Sound yummy?