BARF diet

I haven't done enough research on it to come to a definite opinion. I won't bother either since it's too much of a hassle for questionable reward. What really turns me off the whole thing, however, is the almost cultlike devotion to their "cause" among BARfers.

>>2449249

Tufts is correct. The huge problem is that 'homemade' diets unless organised by a veterinary nutritionist will most likely be deficient in numerous nutrients.

This is without taking into consideration that raw bones DO splinter, and DO cause perforations.

Tufts is correct- there is NO studies out there that prove raw has any real tangible benefits, just downsides.

With all the commercial raw diets available these days, there's no reason to be making your own. A lot of veterinary criticism is based on the old notion that in order to feed raw, you have to do all the formulation on your own and that you'll be careless in handling raw meat. It's just not true anymore.

To say that there are no studies that suggest a raw diet is superior is a little misleading. While there's still debate as to whether a raw diet has benefits over lightly cooked food, the vast majority of pet owners do not feed "lightly cooked" food. Kibble and cans are processed at extremely high temperatures. There are plenty of studies out there that show minimal processing, the use of high quality ingredients, a high meat level diet (especially for cats), and a moisture-rich diet (again, especially for cats) are beneficial. It just happens to be the case that you'll get all of the above benefits with a raw diet.

>>2449297

Show me those studies please. Not trolling- I'm a vet student, who fed raw prior to vet school - I'd LOVE for their to be some solid evidence with raw being good, but all I've read is completely the opposite.

A high meat level - aka in laymen's accessible, high quality protein source with moisture is easily obtained by feeding cats a wet food diet without all the draw backs from raw. Let me direct you towards this study:
http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/ccah/local-assets/pdfs/Role_of_diet_feline%20health_Glasgow.pdf

For example, the cats in the study fed raw on paper had the correct amount of taurine in their diets- but a good proportion of them were found to be taurine deficient mid-trial. Also, hypervitaminosis A is a huge problem with raw diets where a high proportion of liver is fed.

The only study I can think of that even promotes raw slightly is the Kerr study where it stated that there was an 8% increase in digestibility compared to extruded kibble, but there was no difference between the cooked beef/raw beef- suggesting it wasn't the fact it was raw that made the difference here.

As for commercial raw- that's another minefield. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not actually aware of a raw food company producing a product to AFFCO tested standards as of yet- aka even commercial raw hasn't been tested to be nutritionally complete.

I'd love to believe raw has its benefits, I fed raw myself to my dogs before vet school- but the science has yet to back this statement up, and the more I read the more weary I become.

>>2449255
>>2449264
These.

Don't forget that while it's less likely to occur than in humans, dogs can still get e. Coli and all sorts of nasty bacterial diseases from raw. Not to mention they can then become a danger to you--even if they don't get sick from bacteria, you can get sick from them licking you.

I would have liked to feed raw but it's not cost effective, I seriously doubt my own knowledge would be sufficient to create a balanced diet even with the internet's help, and the risk of splintering bones and bacterial diseases is higher than zero, so it's a no for me. I stick to using high-quality kibble (TOTW and when I finally start making more money, Merrick) and sometimes make food for my dog when he's ill (oats, rice, chicken, broth, pumpkin, unsweetened applesauce, nonfat yogurt or cottage cheese, eggs, vegetables, etc) and I feel good about it.

Plus, you know, by all accounts my dog is healthy and happy and that's what matters. If your dog is doing well--has a shiny coat, no skin or nail or ear problems, has good energy levels, a good weight, healthy poops, etc. why change his diet?

File: 1501897289610.png (4KB, 66x66px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 66x66px

Sounds like someone is shilling pet food to me. Its not like dogs or cats still have mostly carnivorous digestive systems or anything

>>2449650

There's no such thing as a "carnivorous digestive system" and also you lose the argument when the only bullshit fallacy you can muster is a strawman implying that any argument not conveniently structured to make your sensibilities comfortable is "shilling," you dunce.

>>2449575
What to you mean by "AAFCO tested standards"? All the commercial raw diets I know of are "formulated to meet the nutritional standards for all life stages" under the AAFCO standards. I don't know of any raw brands that have conducted feeding trials, but the vast majority of kibble and canned brands haven't either. The AAFCO feeding trial requirements are so minimal as to be practically useless anyway.

>>2449575
This article summarizes some of the studies that back up feeding a raw diet:
https://therawfeedingcommunity.com/2017/04/11/the-science-of-raw-pet-food/

I'll agree that you can probably get essentially the same quality nutrition from a high quality canned diet. I prefer feeding raw though because despite some of the risks, it's less expensive, smells fresher, and my cat enjoys it and seems to do the best on it. We'll see how long she lives.

File: Meat scraps.jpg (253KB, 1200x888px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 1200x888px

>>2449575
>but the science has yet to back this statement up

Who the fuck is going to fund a raw diet study?

Nobody.

Who the fuck is going to pay some asshole to research a prepared diet study in their favor?

Pretty much every major pet food supplier on the planet.

"Pet food" is a MODERN invention based on using grains unfit for human consumption, and prior to about the 30's of the last century, "pet food" was table and meat scraps.

>>2449730
>There's no such thing as a "carnivorous digestive system"

What the fuck are you talking about? A carnivorous digestive system differs vastly from an herbivore in that the digestive track is way fucking shorter, and there's only ONE fucking stomach. It doesn't take nearly as long to process the proteins from meats as it does from grains and grasses, which is why cows have multiple fucking stomachs and a long digestive tract.

Idiot.

>>2450004
>Who the fuck is going to fund a raw diet study?
the same organization that funds all science in the US.

the US government.

>>2449255
Whenever anything has a cult like devotion the harder you look at it the more it falls apart

File: 04c.jpg (10KB, 222x250px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 222x250px

>>2449814
Jesus that's a fuck ton of work to make sure they're not fucking with you. The article is questionable because it's highly biased and I'm almost sure that they cherry picked.

You'd have to go through a verify everyone of their sources were legitimate studies. Then you, yourself, would have to make sure that other studies were able to replicate the studies that they sourced, because findings from a study are completely irrelevant unless recreated in a 2nd, 3rd, etc study.

They take a lot of time to shit on canned dog food but canned dogfood is working, so they're trying to discredit something that is proven to work. Should just spend their effort in proving that raw feeding is better.

>>2449730
Well, time to feed apples to my cat.

Now I've read people saying the problem with pet food is that is has to be processed at high temperatures and it's been proved that that process "creatures" 2 types of carcinogens. How true is that?

File: FB_IMG_1502015432486.jpg (75KB, 751x752px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 751x752px

I feed my dog a frozen chicken 5 days a week and high protein biscuits made from mussels, salmon and mutton to ensure its getting vitamins and minerals.

I dont subscribe to any diet religously, I want a fit dog thats the best that it can be, at this point in time the chickens are giving the best results in terms of condition, coat and energy levels.

Also feeding kibble makes the dog drink like a fish and subsequently pee alot. Its also alot of work cleaning up the kibble dog shit. The chicken dog shits dissolve into the ground in a week in the citrus trees where I have trained it to toilet.

>>2451859
nice, what citrus trees do you have?

>>2449612
Eh seriously. I've had 3 dogs who've lived beyond the average life expectancy for their breeds by 1-3 years. Most recent was my lab who lived to 15. I just feed them whatever I can get my hands on.

Obviously I haven't seen research for this in dogs. But I'm pretty sure that if you exercise them with proper intensity and proper frequency, moderate the *amount* of food intake (and in doing so, body composition), then the absolute quality of intake is secondary and they'll still be just about as healthy as possible (just like in humans).

tl;dr: basically don't let your dog be overweight and get them enough exercise and they'll be healthy

>>2451867
Yes but you have dog food with as low as 4% protein, the same calories with 22% must be better surely?

>>2452483
Yeah but there is diminishing returns, once you've cleaned up your health by basically just maintaining a healthy weight and amount of exercise the rest is just marginal.

But yeah, obviously do everything you can even if it's just marginal, why the fuck not? The only way to know for your particular dog would be to get the equivalent of a full blood panel, like lipids and mineral levels and shit. I'm sure you could find somewhere to do that for your dog

>>2450004
>and prior to about the 30's of the last century, "pet food" was table and meat scraps.
which...isn't good for them either...so...?

>>2450086
Don't overthink it. Dogs and cats have lived long, healthy lives on kibble, canned, dehydrated, home-cooked, raw, or some combination of them all. Treat your pets' diets as you would your own. Keep it interesting with variety, focus on fresh, whole ingredients from reputable sources, ensure that you're getting/providing sufficient vitamins and minerals, and, most importantly, eat/feed what tastes good.

I'd only bother with a raw diet for cats. Most commercial pet food brands don't seem to understand that cats are carnivores and the ones that do are crazy expensive. Cats are a lot more prone to digestive issues and food-caused diseases than dogs are. It's cheaper to just buy raw in the long run, assuming you aren't a moron and make sure they have a balanced diet.

>>2452750
Also add brain bits or a taurine supplement

>>2449249
I'm just wondering who in their right mind would just give all that to their pets instead of cooking and eating it themselves, that's a goddamn feast right there.

>>2452806
Looks pretty close to something I'd give a tegu.

My opinion is that any benefits a raw diet vs a grain free high quality food is barely noticeable for a regular dog, the same way a normal person on a decent diet doesn't have to eat with elite athlete precision for general health. And dog food is cheaper.

>>2452945
Also this is assuming the raw diet is perfectly balanced, which most people arent capable of doing.

>>2452945
The immediate noticeable benefits will be less poo to pick up and fresher smelling breath. The long-term or less noticeable benefits (if any) will depend on the dog.

>>2452957
Why do I keep seeing this objection? The pet store I shop at has nearly a dozen brands of raw diets, all with several different protein options and all formulated to AAFCO requirements. Does this not exist elsewhere?

>http://vet.tufts.edu/wp-content/uploads/raw_meat_diets_memo.pdf
>Sponsored through a P&G Pet Care educational grant to provide educational information from leading experts on nutrition
to pet owners. For more information on P&G Pet Care, visit PGpetwellness.com, Iams.com, Eukanuba.com, Naturapet.com.