Why a BARF Diet Is Not Good For the Domestic Dog

[Zephyr]

Why a BARF diet is NOT good for a domestic dog:

I've read quite a bit about the pros of BARF diets on this forum, as well as others. Few if anyone ever questions the unscientific assumptions and conclusions reached by proponents. Why is that? If this diet was so wonderful, then why not present the cons along with the pros?

The obvious conclusion is that few bother to question the unproven conclusions of vets like Billinghurst and Pitcairn, two who have profited greatly from their claims about raw meat and bones for dogs. That's too bad, because there's plenty of actual rebuttal out there, and there's plenty to undermine the fundamental basis for the BARF diet, e.g, that dogs and wolves are the same, so because wolves eat raw meats dogs can too. But that's just not true.

Dogs and wolves are as genetically similar as humans and chimps. That's a fact.

The BARF proponents don't like to hear that because it undermines their entire "argument" for their feeding a "natural" diet to their domesticated pets based upon the completely unscientific claim that wolves eat "natural" raw meat and bones [actually, wolves don't eat the bones, they leave those after stripping off the meat, cartilege and fat] and so should a dog. This is a typical case of a logical fallacy and junk science.

Few know that wolves also eat berries and other parts of the kills, such as fur and viscera. The domestic dog is hardly going to be consuming a diet inclusive of fur and berries! And again, that's assuming, wrongly, that dogs and wolves have similar or identical dietary and nutritional requirements. And they don't.

Unless BARFers have performed complex independent DNA research and studies into the differences and similarities of domestic dogs and wolves that they're keeping under a lid, they're really not capable of providing an informed opinion or presenting their views as "facts". They might believe it, but sadly for them, merely believing something won't transform a fad into actual hard science that translates into something that an owner can rely upon.

Currently, there is NO reliable science that justifies the use of raw meat, bones and vegetables to feed domestic dogs. None. Not one study or peer reviewed article. All the vets who claim a BARF diet is superior [actually, not that many] are relying upon anecdotes and the mistaken belief that dogs and wolves are genetically identical. An educated vet should know better.

So who is informed and can provide the data about genetics that undermines the misguided vets and BARFers basic tenet?

Robert K. Wayne, PhD, who did what is considered the definitive study on dogs and wolves, and who authored "Molecular Evolution of the Dog Family" - Dr. Wayne is an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, LA. He led an INTERNATIONAL study to determine the origins of the domesticated dog. He arrived at his conclusions using DNA fingerprinting. "In the past the revolutionary relationship of canids have been studied by morphological approaches, but parellel changes in several evolutionary lineages can make inferences uncertain." He explains this on his own website - <http://www.grapevine.net/~wolf2dog/wayne2.htm>

He states, "The use of MOLECULAR and biochemical techniques to examine genetic differences among species provides an alternative way to investigate PHYLOGENETIC relationships."

Another study he co-authored states, "Mitochondrial DNA control region sequences were analyzed from 162 wolves at 27 localities worldwide and from 140 domestic dogs representing 67 breeds. Sequences from both dogs and wolves showed considerable diversity and supported the hypothesis that wolves were the ancestors of dogs. Most dog sequences belonged to a divergent monophyletic clade sharing no sequences with wolves. The sequence divergence within this clade suggested that dogs originated more than 100,000 years before the present..."


Although the research and studies did indicate that dogs evolved from wolves, this happened LONG before what has been originally thought. Dogs and wolves are far evolved from one another in important ways. The research looked at DNA sequences in cellular metabolism, specifically, a controlled region of the mitrochondrial genome that has a high mutation rate. Based on how quickly those mutations could accumulate, the research concluded that dogs originated as long ago as 135,000 years to 60,000 years. This is considered the largest canine study of it's kind to date.

Dogs have been domesticated for many thousands of years. As a result, today's dogs have physical characteristics and traits dissimilar to wolves, including brain capacity, muzzle length, and strength of jaws - all less in domestic dogs. Dogs and wolves have other important differences in their genetic code that makes them as dissimilar to each other as humans and chimps are, despite the fact that humans and chimps share 98.4% of their DNA. If a human and chimp have different nutritional needs, it's logical to conclude so do dogs and wolves [and other canids].

Dr. Rosalind Dalefield from the Royal Veterinary College, who field is Veterinary Toxicology, was asked about the BARF diet and informed that it is assumed by proponents of that diet that dogs and wolves are essentially the same creature, stated, "When someone convinces me that wolves live longer, healthier lives than domestic dogs, I'll start paying attention to the question of how they do it." Also, "The assumption that "natural is good" is a value-based judgment with NO scientific validity. The most toxic substance we know is botulinum toxin and that is 100% natural."

The actual problems with BARF diets, including diseases related to several well known and lesser known bacteria, broken and abscessed teeth and gum disease [raw bones don't clean teeth any better than a nylon bone], diarrhea, dehydration from the bowel blockages and diarrhea caused by the bones, nutritional deficiencies, and claims that the diet is "natural therefore better", are that these claims are all UNSCIENTIFICALLY proven. Not one proponent, from Billinghurst to Pitcairn and their uncredentialed accolytes, can supply reliable, scientifically valid studies in biology, animal nutrition or health to support their claims.

The claim that wolves and other canids lead disease free lives are also similar FALSE. From advanced dental diseases to bacterial infections overwhelming the wild canid's immune systems, the wild canids face very similar diseases and do die of dietary related problems [in wolves, impacted or damaged teeth from bone chewing is one such problem.]

Facts against about BARF are completely overlooked or discounted as the work of overzealous dog food sellers. Well, I don't sell any dog food and I don't write books on diets for dogs.

Very few responsible vets recommend giving a dog raw bones at all - raw bones can result in dental illnesses including broken infected teeth, and can lead to intestinal perforations, esophageal irritation and colitis and pancreatitis from too much fat. Eating raw meat can also produce the same, as well as kidney failure and other nutritional deficiencies since providing a nutritionally sound diet this way is bathtub lab work at best. There're also problems related to providing nutritional excesses - such as too much fat or too many minerals and toxic vitamins like A and D.

Claims that raw chicken bones aren't dangerous is just pure baloney - many many vets report that chicken bones fed raw are as dangerous as those fed cooked. No responsible vet will recommend chicken bones to any dog owner according to investigative author Ann L. Martin, whose two books, "Food Pets Die For" and "Protect Your Pet" offer cites and sources consistent with responsible research, not reliance on cult-like followings of a few renegade practioners of veterinary medicine and other untrained self-declared "experts" who profit from or follow this nonsense without doing independent investigation.

Another source of reality checks for BARF proponents and those considering the fad diet:

<http://www.mybluedog.com/rawmeat.html#benefits> - My Bluedog.com


[I'd appreciate it if anyone who uses this diet could provide supporting, INDEPENDENT, scientifically relevant and sound data before claiming any benefits besides anecdotal. Thanks]

Payton

[Zephyr]

Dogs are suseptible to the same dangerous bacteria that can kill or cripple a human being.

Consider these few, all of which are generally present in raw meats such as beef, chicken, lamb, fish and other sources, including wild meats and game:

E coli - this pathogen is responsible for human and domestic pet deaths. It is NOT killed by freezing raw meat, as is claimed.

Salmonella - bacteria found in raw chicken and very dangerous to dogs and humans.

Campylobacter - dogs and humans both highly suspectible to gastrointestinal disease from this bacteria, and a human can catch it from a dog who is sick with it.

Clostridium - another pathogen found in raw meat, can be passed to dogs, who do not have inherent immunity from this bacteria.

In fact, many of these bacteria and pathogens have evolved themselves - so that they've evolved "coats" which protect them in their transit through the stomach of dogs and cats, and allow them to take hold in the intestines.

Then there's Hammondia spp. Coccidia, a parasite not common to dogs and cats, but which comes from RAW BEEF. It can be easily transmitted to a dog who consumes raw beef if the meat is contaminated.

Wild canids also eat fresh raw meat - they consume it before it has a chance to develop bacteria. Salmonella and other types of harmful bacteria that cause food borne illnesses are NOT circulating freely in the atmosphere as living organisms. They are contaminants introduced via slaughterhouses.

Also, feeding raw can leave your pet suseptible to Endotoxins - which are gram negative bacteria, formed and which grow and proliferate in uncooked meats, these bacteria die for whatever reason, leaving their own cell walls containing endotoxins, then consumed by the dog, which even in small amounts can cause liver damage and death in pets.

That's just a beginning of the "cons" against feeding raw uncooked meats to dogs.

Payton

[Bruce Lanthier]

I don't feed BARF and don't really have a stake in the outcome here either way. You post was very interesting and informative, to a point. It pointed out that dogs and wolves aren't the "same" and shouldn't eat the same diet. I'll buy that to a degree.

It says dogs shouldn't eat bones. I'm not sure I'll buy that. I would think that the small bones (vertebrae, wings, and such) in a chicken shouldn't pose a problem and I don't really think(granted, I don't know) that dogs are biting big bones (legs, thighs, and such) into pieces and gulping them down. And certainly they aren't(can't?) biting beef bones into pieces and gulping them down. That said, I can't imagine eating small bones as being harmful and can see where it would be beneficial (cleaner teeth, cartilage and marrow ingestion, etc.).

Other "raw" food would include fruits and vegetables and all of the nutrients contained therein. I don't see how that could be bad for ANY mammal, human, chimp, wolf, or dog.

Now, while the post goes a long way in saying that wolves and dogs aren't the same and that BARF is not been proven to be good for dogs it doesn't really prove much in that BARF is necessarily bad for dogs either. It just says it isn't good because dogs aren't wolves but doesn't tell me WHY it's bad. As a disinterested party I would like to hear WHY it's BAD for dogs not just dogs aren't wolves and shouldn't eat BARF.

[Bruce Lanthier]

LOL My first reply was posted while you posted your second comment. I think for the sake of argument that we should assume that people that feed a BARF diet are making sure the food isn't contaminated with any of the bacteria you mentioned. That's a very subjective thing. Everyone's post I've read that refers to the raw meat they feed their animals indicates that they are as concerned with the cleanliness of that as much as they would be with the food they eat.

[Zephyr]

Originally posted by Bruce Lanthier
It says dogs shouldn't eat bones. I'm not sure I'll buy that. I would think that the small bones (vertebrae, wings, and such) in a chicken shouldn't pose a problem and I don't really think(granted, I don't know) that dogs are biting big bones (legs, thighs, and such) into pieces and gulping them down. And certainly they aren't(can't?) biting beef bones into pieces and gulping them down. That said, I can't imagine eating small bones as being harmful and can see where it would be beneficial (cleaner teeth, cartilage and marrow ingestion, etc.).

Please see this website, <http://www.thepetcenter.com/imtop/bones.html> for a full view [xrays included] of how even small bones can cause serious health problems for dogs. In her book, Protect Your Pet, pgs. 76-79, author Ann Martin details her research correspondence with vets around the globe on the issue of eating raw bones - including large knuckle bones and long bones for dogs [beef typically] and small chicken bones. The vets uniformly cite cases from their own practices wherein dogs died and or were seriously hurt by eating bones - even small pieces raw.

My own dogs were capable of eating bones to the extent that the bones were pulverized - and one dog, my Giant Schnauzer, could decartiliage a knucklebone in a half day. I think back now to how silly I was to assume that these were good for the dog - and I'm glad he only had dental disease [thereby putting to lie the claim that bones make a dog's teeth clean - he ate a raw bone a week and still had dirty teeth even eating hard dry kibble too]. He did have problems with blocked bowels, but enemas took care of that - and they weren't pleasant experiences, let me tell you. I stopped feeding him raw bones of any kind after that experience. He then got cleaner teeth from gnawing on a Nylabone, or a compressed rawhide [which have their own health issues as many know.]

[b]Other "raw" food would include fruits and vegetables and all of the nutrients contained therein. I don't see how that could be bad for ANY mammal, human, chimp, wolf, or dog.

The main argument against a BARF diet is the ingestion of raw meats and meat byproducts. Most owners don't feed so much raw veggies to hurt a dog - though some do go overboard with the variety and abundance - taking us back to the issue of nutritional deficiencies in the BARF. Some owners also claim that a pure veggie diet is sufficient for a dog. That's just not factual.

I do give my dog cooked veggies, as she won't eat raw. None of my dogs would eat raw veggies, though one liked watermelon a lot. :)

Payton

PS: oops, cross posted with you twice!! :)

[Zephyr]

we should assume that people that feed a BARF diet are making sure the food isn't contaminated with any of the bacteria you mentioned.

We shouldn't assume that at all. Unless these owners are capable of laboratory testings of the raw meats they feed, there is NO possible way to gather that information. Governmental health departments nationwide have issues with the science of gathering data from given samples of contaminated meats and if full on laboratories can't easily ascertain this information, it's ludicrous to think that Joe or Jane Average Pet Owner can do so for Rover.

In fact, you can't see or smell or feel any bacteria in meat. Which is why even we humans get sick from bacteria [and parasites] in raw or undercooked meat. Bacteria and contaminants require sophisticated techinques to be coaxed out of samples.

As for parasites in meats - tapeworms in particular from raw beef and lamb [in the liver] and tularemia and tapeworm in wild rabbits, trichinella in pork and bear meat....sounds very disgusting huh? Well, it is, because humans can catch these from the pet. And they make the dog sick too.

"Toxoplasma is one of the most common parasites found in raw meat. A veterinary neurologist told me the other day that they have seen a dramatic increase recently in seizure disorders due to brain disease in dogs and cats caused by toxoplasmosis, especially in areas where feeding raw meat diets is trendy. " - Dr. David T. Roen - <http://www.roen.com/011203.html>



Payton

[Homerhomer]

don't know if any scientific studies have been published yet and I am not sure if I really care. I don't really need any study to prove to me that fresh is better than processed, stored and bagged, and other than the studies sponsored by purina and the once alike, you won't find any study proving that barf is worse.
I have switched to barf on the recommendation of our vet who has some pretty good track record and credentials.
" He has served his profession in various capacities, including President of the Toronto Academy of Veterinary Medicine and Director of the American Holistic Veterinary Medical Association and was honoured in 1979 as the Veterinarian of the Year."
Anyway I am happy with my decision about feeding my dogs, hope everyone else is the same way. :)

[Zephyr]

You can feed them Kibbles & Bits if you want. I will continue to feed mine a fresh, nutritional raw diet.

Sometimes, it's just better to not assume anything. Like that I'd want to feed my dogs "Kibbles & Bits" - or that your raw diet is "nutritional" per se. Unless you can concoct a means of removing the contaminants, the parasites and bacteria from raw meats, the nutritional part might all be a moot point. Same goes for "fresh" - do you slaughter your own meats or buy them from a slaughterhouse? Slaughterhouse meats [including "human grade"] are more often than not contaminated today given the agribusiness practices of commerical producers. Organic producers can't keep out the bacteria and parasites either though they might claim to do so [most of these companies should find someone who knows basic biology before making these ridiculous claims anyway.] Even a butcher who buys from slaughterhouses is selling contaminated meats - though I'm sure most would deny it [course, they also can't argue with hard science like testing of the meats which then produce results confirming the presence of such contaminants].

Payton

[Burnsway]

Zephyr,

I too have looked at the pros and cons on this diet. Here are a couple more links not connected to Second Chance Ranch if you want to add them to your research.


http://www.courteouscanine.com/rawfood.shtml

http://www.mindspring.com/~skocher/Nutrition.htm

I have a few more. NO A LOT MORE. LOL. On another computer but I can not access the internet with it right now. I will try to copy those links on a disk later and post them for you too. It is always good to look at both sides of something. WHat you feed is always a personal choice...;)

[Zephyr]

don't know if any scientific studies have been published yet and I am not sure if I really care. I don't really need any study to prove to me that fresh is better than processed, stored and bagged

Well, there are no scientific studies supporting a BARF diet. I've done my looking [I also look to scientific journals which I can obtain via a subscription service I have] and reading of books authored by those who have also looked for the research and as of yet, none exists to support the BARF trend.

Yet, the Journal of Veterinary Medicinal Science has over a dozen articles detailing the dangers of bacteria typically found in raw foods. That's something I can rely upon.

I can't speak to an attitude of not caring however. If you claim to care enough to feed this diet, then doesn't it follow that you should care if it's sound and has a basis in reality? That makes sense to me.

If a doctor told you to feed your infant nothing but turnips and popcorn, because other infants he or she treats supposedly do well on it, would you just heed this advice and not inquire further? I know that in my own experience as a parent and dog owner, I do more than blindly accept one or two vet's words or one doctor's word for it.

BTW not all processing is bad for food. Obviously. Common examples abound: Paturized milk is a lot more safe and healthy for humans than unpaturized. Refrigerated perishables are far more healthy than unrefrigerated ones [how long would raw meat be safe to eat if left unrefrigerated?] Frozen veggies are widely regarded/known to be as healthy as "fresh", and are often actually MORE fresh [frozen in the fields and thus far "newer" than "fresh" sold - though locally grown and sold is fresher than shipped 'fresh']. Modern medicine is far more superior to a life without it [and if you ever use prescription medications, you're using something that was processed often from a natural source.] The list goes on.....

and other than the studies sponsored by purina and the once alike, you won't find any study proving that barf is worse.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Can you name more than ONE study done by Ralston Purina in Canada, by the way? Because there is ONLY one such study and it's scientifically valid. I can cite many other studies that conclude that the different various components of a BARF diet, primarily raw meat, is "worse", if by worse you mean unsafe and unhealthy to dogs because of the unsafety presented by bacteria, parasites and dangers from eating bones.

I have switched to barf on the recommendation of our vet who has some pretty good track record and credentials.

If he's reviewed the peer literature and still recommends this diet, then I can't help but conclude he's being willfully blind to the rest of the scientific community and those studies done. He might also not be reading current scientifically based literature, which to me indicates a lack of competence or care about current avenues of science and thought. Just as I wouldn't want a doctor who last read a scientific study or article in 1967 to treat me, I doubt that a vet who has read all the available data could ethically ignore it in favor of the unscientifically proven claims of a few other vets.

BTW, I put very little stock in anyone who uses the term "holistic" to describe their expertise in science. The term indicates a departure from proven science, and it's into that dubious gray area that far too many self-serving bunksters can operate.

[I say that as someone who has a serious cancer...and who has researched exhaustively my options, read studies, discussed them with no less than half a dozen actual experts in the field and who makes her decisions based upon what is known and proven, versus what I know isn't or which was disproven but still is touted as a "cure"...a word no one ethical or responsible in medicine would EVER use about cancer].

YMMV,

Payton

[Barbara Surplus]

Zephyr, I'd like to know what your personal experience with BARF is and why you've arrived at these conclusions with such a fury? It's pretty hard to even want to debate someone when they've taken such a strong position. What's the point? Is there even the slightest possibility that it make you change your mind or are you just looking for a good argument? Seems to me that you've got your mind made up.

Like Sansano says, we've got better things to do and arguing with someone just for argument's sake is a hollow gesture.
Barbara

[Zephyr]

Hi Barbara,

Thanks for asking......

I'd like to know what your personal experience with BARF is and why you've arrived at these conclusions with such a fury?

Well, if you mean "fury" as in decisive, yes, then I am decisive in my conclusions. I did state up front that I am against this diet, and that while I've seen/read much PRO about the diet on this forum, none so far CON. I've been involved in debating issues online and in online communities for years now and I've learned that there's little to be learned from taking a weak or unsupported position. Why bother? Which is what I stated to Sansone. I can support my "con" argument against BARF, but I'd like to see some pro-BARF support it with some hard science in the true spirit of issue discussions - to get all sides to do more than merely offer personal opinion as "fact". I think that's not only mature, but shows strength of character and an intellectual curiosity. Some might not rise to the challenge and so far, no one has.

Is that "fury" or is that a mature adult taking the time to defend her position? BTW, if I were a man, would it be "fury" or good masculine form? :)

Re my BARF experience: I tried it and then my dog became sick with Salmonella poisoning directly caused by the raw chicken. Since there is no means for the typical person to "remove" salmonella bacteria from raw meats, I took my vet's advice, as well as that of my own research and put that diet to rest. I'm just glad my dog didn't get something deadlier than salmonella from raw meat [which came from a regular human grocery store and cost me far more than many here claim to spend on non-human grade chicken backs, necks, etc.]. All chicken is essentially contaminated in this country - it's the nature of chicken production.

It's pretty hard to even want to debate someone when they've taken such a strong position. What's the point?

The point is to counter-weigh the gung-ho embrace of BARF as a valid diet for domestic dogs and to counter-balance the lack of such information on this site [and many other lists]. I also see this diet as largely the product of trends - and some seriously dysfunctional anthropomorphism. Dogs aren't us - they're animals who have different nutritional needs than us. They don't normally eat stuff like potatoes, beets, carrots, celery, broccoli [!!!], garlic [!!!] and all the other human "healthy" stuff we eat. Thinking they can benefit from that stuff and raw meat is, in my view based on the actual scientific evidence, folly and projecting. :)

Is there even the slightest possibility that it make you change your mind or are you just looking for a good argument? Seems to me that you've got your mind made up.

There's nothing inherently wrong with reaching a sound conclusion [mind made up] if one has done so based on FACTS and valid, tested evidence and science. THere is something wrong with making up one's mind if one doesn't care to find out all the facts [pro & con] about an issue, and there is something wrong with claiming that wanting the whole story is 'fury' or worse.....

If only one thread exists in this forum decrying the BARF diet, versus the dozen or more that tout it, then my job is done. Before Galileo, saying the world wasn't flat was considered heresy by the Church and subject to punishment of death.

Isn't this issue worthy of debate [and some Pro-BARFers giving up some facts with their outrage] or is it that pro-BARFers have made up **their** minds?

:)

Payton

[Jamie & Odin]

It seems to me that scientific studies on "alternative" treatments, diets etc. are usually conducted after they reach a certain level of commonality.

Take for instance chiropratic care; used to be seen as a bunch of hooey by the established medical community. Acupuncture? nonsense, but not any longer.

I know this is a human example, but seems relevant; my mother has fibromyalgia (I'm pretty sure I do too, am going in soon). Anyway, the established medical community can do VERY little for her chronic pain, forgetfullness, fatigue etc. However, complimentary medicine and diet has afforded her the ability to enjoy life again, and do the things she had not been able to for a very long time.

Any scientific studies to back this stuff up? nope, just anecdotal. But what was available to her in treatment that had scientific studies to back it up was virtually nill, and she lived a miserable existence for a long time.

So possibly some vet school will do a scientific study on the BARF diet, but probably not until more people feed it, more vets look into it, and there is an all around demand for information. Then we'll see.

I'm going to make the switch this summer, hopefully the foot chewing and licking, ear infections, loose stools and the malt's stinky breath will go away. I'll let you know;).

[brunie's mom]

I don't think anyone is gung -ho about the BARF diet. Many of these forum members had dog that were ill with immune problems, skin and ear infections and after going back and forth to the vets for a long time and spending thousands of dollars, with no long term solutions... they tried a different diet for their dogs.
So many people's dogs here have completly recovered from their illness's or got them under control because they have put their dogs on a natural diet.
I myself have seen three different dogs recover from severe illness by being fed the BARF diet... even after being taken to a large teaching hospital, where the vets could not help.

Your idea of dog food being the only way of feeding is wrong.
Dog food has only been around for about 50 years... what did dogs eat for thousands of years before that???
They ate scraps and left overs from the kitchen and whatever humans hunted in the area... it could have been rabbits, deer, moose,quail, duck etc.
Pet owners should feed their animals what they are comfortable with, study and explore and listen:)

The reason there has not been any scientific studies done on the BARF diet done is because that no one will make a profit from this diet. Who will carry this study out, the butchers or the greengrocer???
Studies are done to brag about how good a product is and to sell the product... the only one that will make a bit of money are the Vets writing books about BARF.. so they sell a few hundred thousand books... this is not going to make these people rich.
I think we have been brainwashed for many years thinking if it comes out of a can or a bag it has to be good, better, best.... we were wrong:(

Gina

[Roscoe's dad]

Have you bothered to search? this one is new, but there have been others

http://www.rottweiler.net/forums/sho...&threadid=2895

oh wait I just found another

http://www.rottweiler.net/forums/sho...ht=Barf+is+bad

This is not a BARF only forum other views are Ok. a while back I was of the opinion that this forum should be renamed to the "Why to feed your dog Canidae" forum. ;)