Why a barf diet is genetically sound

[palepeople]

I recent thread was started on why a Barf diet is not good for dogs based on the false assumption that dogs are not wolves, and should not be eating a wolf (raw) diet. It quoted the first paragraph of the article written by a geneticist Dr. Wayne. After reading this post, one was led to believe that Dr. Waynes's research states that dogs and wolves are very different. This is not at all what the article states. If anyone would read further down on the article, under the sub-heading THE EVOLUTION OF THE DOMESTIC DOG, the reader would see that the Dr actually says "dogs are gray wolves, despite their diversity in size and proportion".

I am sure that many members tired of this thread and did not read too many of the replies. So, I have started this thread, using the exact same research paper used as "scientific proof" (only read word for word) to show that according to the afore named geneticist, dogs are gray wolves.

We might conclude from this paper and others that I will post, that genetically speaking, a raw diet is precisely appropriate for dogs, which according to these several geneticists, ARE WOLVES.

After reading these articles, one might see that a barf diet study is not really necessary, as most of the argument against it seem to be based on the false idea that dogs are now "domesticated".
Genetically speaking, the gray wolf must then be domesticated!
http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/wayne2.htm
Please read at least the part on The Evolution of the Dog

A more in depth group paper that was co-authored by the afore mentioned geneticist.
http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/wayne2.htm

An easier to read, and shorter review of the papers by a peer of the geneticist.
http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/wdgenes.htm
please note one of her lines to those of us not interested in being science experts:
"To those of you who are not molecular geneticists or evolutionary biologists, this means that dogs are really not "dogs" at all, but simply a diverse group of modified wolves".

More wolf-dog dna papers:
http://www.grapevine.net/~wolf2dog/dnaid.htm

http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news24.htm

http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/genetic1.htm


In conclusion, if you are feeding your dog a raw diet, you are feeding it a genetically appropriate diet. A new acronym G.A.R.D. = genetically appropriate raw diet.
:D

Since I have genetic studies and no barf studies to refer to, I will now refer to the raw diet as GARD, and back it up with these fine genetic research papers!!:D Besides, " I feed gard diet" sounds better then " I feed barf diet", right?:D

[Homerhomer]

and anyone who wants to participate in the barf research can do to the following link:
http://www.barfworld.com/html/barfworld/research.shtml
I know, it's run by the hated and "so called" veterinarian by the name of Billinghurst, so it may be bias, but hey, seems like that's what's some were asking for.

[rottnkidd]

Good post palepeople! I'm familiar with the Robert Wayne study on the wolf and the domestic dog. The link you posted http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news24htm)
really explains the study in a nutshell. Yet the skeptics may I ask what does this have to do with feeding raw food to a dog. The answer is simple, and I posted it in the other thread. Our dog's,
like the wolf from which they came, are carnivores. This is the
species that all zoo texts classify dogs as. Therefore, their short, simple digestive tract, and a stomach with a heavy concentration of hydrochloric acid is designed for digesting raw meat and bones. Grains aren't part of the diet required by a carnivore; they're harder to digest, and not well utilized.
A genetically appropriate or species appropriate raw diet is in order for the carnivore.
kathy

[rottnkidd]

Peter - Thanks for the link!

[palepeople]

Apparently many still have not read the genetic research articles started in a previous thread to say that dogs are not wolves, and dogs should not be fed barf. That research article does the opposite. I am bumping this thread to the top so that people can easily find the links to that article and others that cleary state that dogs and wolves are "genetically identical".

[spidey]

Given that this reply was deleted as part of another thread, I'll repost it here (hope that's okay):

Just because wild canids can survive on a raw diet it does not follow that this is the best possible diet for them to eat,
this is not a logical thought progression. I do not doubt that many dogs do very well on the BARF diet, I just doubt this aspect of the reasoning behind why you should feed it (please don't view all comments which question specific aspects of BARF as anti-BARF). Solid critical thinking skills are useful in all walks of life, including this one, and applying critical thinking to something does not mean you are condemning it. Discussing your chosen way of feeding your dog should not preclude being able to accept that not everything that diet's proponents say is true or logical. There may be many good reasons to feed BARF, but this isn't one of them.

As for dogs being genetically identical (or similar, since I've seen both views stated by reputable scientists) to grey wolves, genotype (genetic characteristics) and phenotype (physical characteristics) are not the same thing. The wildly different jaw strengths and lengths, overall sizes, coats, medication tolerances etc. of wolves and different breeds of domestic dogs are all different phenotypical expressions of the same (or similar) genotype. Given that nobody in their right mind would say that a Boston Terrier is identical in all respects to a grey wolf, it's illogical to state that simply because a domestic dog and a grey wolf have the same genotype that they are identical in all phenotypical respects, including in dietary needs.
Thousands of years of selective breeding has radically altered the domestic dog's phenotype, even if it is genotypically identical to the grey wolf.

[palepeople]

Points well taken and appreciated. However, the original thought of the previous post was to say,"your dog is not a wolf, don't feed it like one, here is the genetic research to prove it". The so called proof actually did the opposite, saying that dogs are wolves. So, my point is, if you are going to say "your dog is not a wolf, and here is the genetic proof", then the original thread starter, and those that agreed should now be saying (based on their previous pattern of thought) "I guess dogs are genetically wolves after all, so feed them like wolves". That is all I was trying to get across.

I also like your "logical thought progression". It seems that we have domesticated the dog socially, but we have not changed it's genetics. All our many years of domestication has not taken away nor added to its genetics. Can we agree that nature has selected the wolf to eat what it does, same as a panda has been selected to eat bamboo, and a kiwala eats eucalyptus leaves. While I agree that a terrier looks much different then a wolf, does that mean we have also changed what nature designed the canid to eat? Looking at the genetic papers, I would have to say, we have not.

I'm actually trying to be very "logical" here. If the "foremost expert" says in the "largest study to date" that dogs are gray wolves despite the way they look, then why would a few thousand years of man's contact (which is a blink of the eye in biologial evolution) which contact has not affected it's genetics, erase what nature has selected for millenia? As in many things, man has taken a wonderful natural thing, and shaped it in to what he wants it to look like.

Logically speaking, if the animal has been designed to eat in a certain niche, why then would we think we could take it out of that niche, or think we could design a better diet then what nature has designed? Just a thought to ponder. And just don't feed kiwala's anything but their "natural" diet, or you'll kill em eventually, or give hip dysplaysia, food allergies, chronic ear infections, etc, ha ha.:D

[spidey]

I hear what you're saying, but I think you're missing a cruicial element here. It does not follow that because something survives eating one way that this is necessarily the "best" diet for that thing (natural selection doesn't tell you what is "best" or "most appropriate", it just tells you what is needed for survival, these are not the same things). If this 'argument from nature' were true, the FDA would recommend that we all eat only berries, occasional raw meat and whatever vegetation we can find (since our earliest genetically-identical ancestors did not eat cooked food for the first little while they were on this planet)! Clearly this is not the case. My point is that genetics aren't really the issue here, physical capabilities are. F'rex, many domestic breeds cannot give birth vaginally (Bostons, Bulldogs), but wolves can, so even if they're genetically identical, they do not have the same physical characteristics as each other. And besides that, of course wolves eat raw meat, what other choice do they have? I think the entire issue of whether or not dogs and wolves are genetically identical is irrelevant when it comes to diet (and I think Dr. Billinghurst et al do their credibility harm by claiming that it's relevant), the issue is "what is the best diet for a domestic dog?". I'm very interested in hearing about the pros and cons of BARF, I'm just not prepared to accept faulty logic as evidence in favour (or against) any given diet. And saying that "dogs are wolves therefore they should eat like wolves" is faulty thinking. Wolves can and will eat cooked meat and survive quite well on it, does this mean they've evolved to do so?

[palepeople]

I like your discussion, but I do not think wolves are "surviving", they are thriving, and have been for millenia. It is also obvious that our many dogs (and cats too) are "physically capable" of eating raw foods, and also thriving. As for your thoughts on our ancestors, I believe dieticians have actually been saying "eat only berries, occasional raw meat and whatever vegetation we can find", haven't they. Yes I am joking about the raw meat, but raw meat is consumed in many human cultures, just look at your local sushi bar. Besides, slaughter houses contribute to most of the bacteria in our meats. Alaskan natives will prepare raw fish, and red meat by drying it out on racks, but it is still raw, and they have been doing that "forever" ;) Here is your main question ( I think):"what is the best diet for a domestic dog?".

I suppose my question is, what do you mean by domestic? Clearly they are now our social companions, but how else have they been "changed" from being a wolf. Please don't refer to short legs, color, floppy ears, or other "bred in problems"etc. because these things don't affect diet, and digestion, do they?

I don't think nature providing a niche for all her creatures is considered "faulty logical", obviously you do. On that note, would you recommend feeding kibble to wolves in protective breeding programs, kibble to lions and tigers, bears, oak leaves to kiwala ( I don't think I spelled that right), corn husks to panda's or bamboo? I just see wolves in their niche, not barely hanging on or "surviving", but being a very lively part of their ecosystem. Incredible atheletic ability, endurance that boggles the mind. Eating exactly what they are supposed to eat.

As for pro's, to the diet, you'll find many people with success stories related to health, it is cheaper, you control what the dog eats, there is far less stool, and it is virtually odorless compared to the Canidae stools that my dogs create, they have more energy, their teeth do not get tartar build up, there is variety, it is not one food for every dog (how is that possible), shedding is not a year round thing, they seem to actually be getting pleasure while just laying there gnawing on a bone. Other may wish to add their pro's.

As to the con's, I've only seen two arguments against it: #1 dogs are not wolves, and will get sick or choke #2 there are no barf studies, and dogs will get sick or choke.

Referring to what man has done to domestic breeds birthing problems, and other "bred in" problems doesn't take away from the "physical capability" of that unfortunate animal to eat meat and thrive. Wolves are not poor victims in this, they are right where they are supposed to be and eating what they are supposed to eat. Dogs are wolves.

[palepeople]

Sorry for yet another post,but may be you could start a new thread on the "pro's and con's of the raw diet" based on the guidlines you mentioned here. I've been on here enough these past few days, so I don't want where out my welcome. tah.;)

[spidey]

Well, I think we're going to end up agreeing to disagree on some things here :) . Given that studies on wild wolves posted here show that the majority of them are malnourished, I think they're surviving, not thriving, and the fact that wild canids survive on raw meat is not sound evidence that domestic dogs should eat it (which doesn't mean that there isn't other evidence that they should, but the dog = wolf argument is a poor one, IMHO). And, since you ask, if there's a safer, more convenient way to feed any animals in captivity a diet which meets their nutritional and psychological requirements, I see no reason why they shouldn't be fed it.

how else have they been "changed" from being a wolf. Please don't refer to short legs, color, floppy ears, or other "bred in problems"etc. because these things don't affect diet, and digestion, do they?

You can't pick and choose :) . If bred-in traits have negative physical effects you cannot see (like certain breeds being allergic to certain anaesthetics, for example, or Dobermans having an extremely high incidence of blood clotting disorders), then you can't just choose to ignore that other effects may also be present as a result of breeding, some of which may be digestion-related.

Referring to what man has done to domestic breeds birthing problems, and other "bred in" problems doesn't take away from the "physical capability" of that unfortunate animal to eat meat and thrive

How do you know this? What is the difference? We didn't "breed in" an inability to give birth vaginally, this is a side effect of breeding for extreme brachycephaly (snubbed noses), how do you know that breeding for other selective traits hasn't has the side effect of affecting digestion ability? (I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here)

In any case, I still say that the dog=wolf argument is irrelevant when it comes to this diet, thus far you haven't shown me that wild wolves are eating the best possible diet for them (indeed, the available evidence seems to point the other way), so how can you convince me that the fact that a dog and a wolf are genetically identical means that a domestic dog should eat what a wild wolf eats? And anyway, this argument is further invalidated by the fact that wild wolves don't actually eat the kinds of meats recommended by the BARF diet. If the diet was based around carrion and caribou and rodents and the sorts of things that wild wolves eat, and if you could show me any evidence that wild wolves are actually nutritionally better off than domestic dogs, then the dog = wolf argument might hold more water, but the diet isn't based on what wild wolves eat, and the available evidence seems to indicate that wild wolves are nutritionally worse off than domestic dogs, so this aspect of the pro-BARF argument seems irrelevant to me. By all means tell me about the other pro-BARF theories (I actually am interested), but as far as I'm concerned anyway, the dog=wolf argument for BARF is logically and factually unsound.

[palepeople]

I'll ask others to way in on it now as I see wolves as healthy not ill, so we will happily agree to disagree. If you are referring to muzzle length and pelvic size as a reference to have BREED SPECIFIC diets then we agree. I would not feed a pug the same way I would feed a grey hound. The food would be same, but not presented in the same way.

So far your logic seems illogical to me and vice versa. It seems you feed a dog with three legs differently then those with four, a dog with narrow pelvis differently then one with a "normal pelvis".

No one that I have ever seen said that they feed their dogs a diet like they would get in the wild, what they have said is one that they could control with human grade products and is "close to nature".

While we can agree to disagree and that is the beauty of this forum, the original reason of this post stands.

To refresh memory and to keep it on subject: A previous thread said "don't feed dogs a barf diet, because they are not wolves, here is genetic research paper to prove that they are not wolves".
As I pointed out, that very research paper was the "proof" and "facts" in that thread but showed the exact opposite point the thread was designed to make. That thread should have ended itself with only the original post. However it grew and grew and grew off subject as the moderator pointed out. I certainly grew tired of the thread and did not want to read every last one of them.

My purpose of posting this thread was for that exact reason. I think many people thought the thread starter was making good sense with his research paper to back it up, and then lost interest in the never ending thread. They then never read that the entire premice of that thread was very, very mixed up.

So while I've enjoyed our discussion, I can't wait to put an end to this thread, and read yours which might be 'pro's and con's of the raw diet:no junk science please". tah my friend:D

[Barbara Surplus]

Originally posted by palepeople
As to the con's, I've only seen two arguments against it: #1 dogs are not wolves, and will get sick or choke #2 there are no barf studies, and dogs will get sick or choke.

palepeople, You have a marvellous way of clearing away the chaff. :D I love it!

Spidey, welcome to the forum. Your points are very well taken and add much to this *controversy* - always a pleasure to see someone consider that there are, indeed, pros as well as (perhaps... ;) ) cons to this issue. Those of us who feed BARF/GARD really don't care what others feed their dogs but it's tough to always be on the defensive when our dogs are walking evidence that it suits them just fine.

Peter, thank you for the link to the survey. I'm lucky that I have a couple of months off work this summer to get cracking on it. (Geez, could they have made it any longer? ) It'll be interesting to see the results.
Barbara

[palepeople]

Barbara, thanks for your post, you are always timely.;) I was getting tired of dancing.

I just spoke with a scientist for the US Fish and Game that monitors YellowStone wolves. He's not a vet, but his thoughts were insightful.

While I did not want to bother him for long, he did say some interesting things.

Thriving. In 1995 and 1996, they introduced 29 and 36 wolves respectively. They now have "about 500 adults, and about 200 pups".

About the diet of the wolf:
First, "dogs that eat like wolves will do great". Problem is, they would have to eat elk, and deer, and consume the "whole carcass". Anybody got any links to whole elk products for the dog?

Second interesting point, wolf scat. Wolf scat looks like a nasty log of fur. Open up the scat and you find bone fragments from the large prey animal. Hair seems to act as a protectant from these large bone frags. The wolves eat bone, the hair/fur protects them from larger frags. (apparently, wolves don't chew nicely in the presence of other wolves)

Third, they go for fatty stuff first, liver, green tripe, other guts and actual fat stores. "meat doesn't really have a lot of the good nutrient stuff they need". "meat only would eventually kill the animal" . (nothing new to barfers so far right?)

Fourth, "wolves don't eat chicken, or any other birds for that matter".

Fifth, "I feed my dog, dog food, with the occasional treat and fat drippings". He didn't say what food it was, but does it really matter. I forgot to ask.

Sixth, "We feed (some) captive wolves something called a carnivore log. It has all the essential nutrients they need until release".

Lastly, "I would think dog food would be fine, it has all the nutrients they need".

By the way Barbara, off subject for this thread, but have you ever seen a list of pro's and con's to the raw diet? I agree with Spidey, it would be nice to see them listed. Maybe one thread would be pro's and another con's, so they would be easier to read. Later.;)

[CarolineS]

To me, the biggest question is not whether raw, cooked or kibble is better, but is whether the diet is nutritionally balanced. Blood panels really show little in the way of specifics about the diet. They will inform you if the kidneys, liver, pancreas and other organs are working properly, but they will not tell you if the dog is missing any nutrients in his diet. I realize if a diet was horribly unbalanced, it would have an effect on the body's systems, but I doubt any of us feed a diet that poor. I'm sure we all want to feed a diet that is complete in every way.

The only way to prove a diet is nutritionally complete is to have it analyzed by a completely independant board-certified veterinary nutritionist. You can usually get a referral from your vet or there is an on-line service available. Neither is cheap but is worth it for the peace of mind.