Talk:Raw feeding

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cats Portal

This article is supported by the Cats WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to Cat-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Dogs Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Dogs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

1 Info on raw feeding controversy
2 Content of article
3 Thoughts on possible rewrite
4 I shall return in a few days
5 final expanded thoughts in reply to Elf
6 Major edit
7 Merging the BARF diet into "Diet Types" subheading
8 Rational for some of my edits

[edit] Info on raw feeding controversy

This article is about raw feeding. It is a controversial topic. The only place in which to address the arguments of the proponents and the opponents is in this article (there are no articles, for example, on raw feeding (opposition) and raw feeding (advocates). In wikipedia, articles on topics that have controversies around them attempt to convey information from both sides without emphasizing a wikipedian or authorial opinion about either side. If you think that the material is phrased in a manner that isn't like a nonbiased reporter, then it can be rephrased, but the info should remain in the article. Elf | Talk 18:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Also note that "www.rawmeatybones.com" is a commercial site for a book and its author, not a general reference about raw feeding, and "www.barfworld.com" is a commercial site for a specific brand of raw diet. Elf | Talk 18:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Content of article

(Copied from User talk:Elf): Thanks for taking the time to write an explanation of your editorial policy. The article that I first edited appeared to be exclusively angled at dog feeders and excessively biased towards processed feed manufacturers. Now that you have explained that it is "controversial" it will need much more attention and work to even begin to contain a fair picture of the amount of spin that is put out by manufacturers against any form of feeding except their own product.

The Salon.com article is an op ed that appears to have been undertaken for "colour". Do you seriously consider that a quote mined with third party references is worth throwing in? I can produce ten times these within a few minutes. But will they increase understanding of the basic "nutrition" argument? Your selected quote really says nothing more than that the British vet association agrees that there are dangers in feeding raw food. It doesn't say that other forms of feeding are NOT dangerous. And it doesn't say that raw feeding cannot be accomplished safely. Take the quote down please.

Two questions: Do you derive income from dog training, breeding? Do you derive income from a pet feed manufacturer?

I am an Australian and you will have to allow for cultural differences in the approach to feeding animals that I may inject into the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Thedarky (talk • contribs) .

I don't imagine that there are really a lot of differences between australians overall and americans overall in pet feeding. But that's a guess. I know many people who feed their dogs raw diets. I have one friend whose dog died from it (a bone perforated the intestine I believe). I have heard of dogs who've had intestinal blockages from all kinds of amazing things. I have many friends whose dogs have died of cancer and we don't know why; some people think it's commercial dog foods but who knows. I don't feed my dogs raw diet because it's too much of a pain in the butt. My only interest is in attempting to portray the issue fairly.

I'm trying to take out the high amount of spin on why raw diets are good and have no problems that seem to keep reappearing. I would love it if someone would spend more time researching BOTH sides of the issue and putting up specific references to claims and statements from both sides. It might be possible to find links from the various Vet associations about raw diets and cite them explicitly but I haven't found them yet.

You won't find specific references because no vet would be silly enough to put themselves in a legal position of advocating a particular diet, processed or raw, in writing. The science is just not out there in the public domain because, as I state in the article, the only big work getting done is funded by food manufacturers and they are not about to publish stuff that shows them up either badly or stuff that shows that other kinds of feeding is as good as their own brand. Besides, there isn't much science to feeding an animal well.

I'm inclined to let the quote from another article stand for now because I think that Salon.com reporting is decent and it's certainly not an invalid quote--and I do cite its source explicitly. If other people think it shouldn't be there, then maybe it could come out, but I think it provides some balance to what otherwise would seem to be a glowing review of raw feeding.

Remember that this isn't to convince people to raw feed or not, this is to describe what raw feeding is and to identify the issues involved.

This was precisely why I responded in the first place - because there was no "controversy" in fact, but an apparently manufactured one with far too much spin in favour of processed food. This appears to be acceptable to you. This is confusing to me in the light of your claim to want to show the controversy fairly. I am amazed that supporters of raw feeding need a Wikipedia article opened simply to balance their claims out. Surely they are a wierd minority who aren't doing much harm? Did you originate the article? And if not, why do you feel the need to weigh into the "controversy" when your stated preference is simply that which is not a "pain in the butt"? Why not leave them to their fad?

You also asked about what are good external links to include: Those that aren't blatantly commercial and that provide information about the topic in a more encyclopedic manner.

I don't think that because a site provides information in that way that it has tabs on trust. Don't you look into the funding and motives and qualifications of the writers for this kind of thing? I deplore the ready linking of such facile internet "information" sites and had thought that Wikipedia would be a step up from this.

A web site that sells a book

The book in that case is a source that I'd be inclined to quote from if you insist that a journalist without scientific qualifications is entitled to make a concluding sentence in favour of one form of nutrition. The book's author is a veterinary surgeon who is a member of both the Australian and the British Vet Associations. How do you want the book referenced and are you seriously going to forbid a web reference to a book - what about an Amazon link? would that be considered commercial too?

and a web site that sells a brand of food are the former, not the latter.

The barf site is run by an Australian veterinary surgeon. Do you challenge his credentials over a journalist's. If you deplore a veterinarian selling a specific diet, then what do you say about the food on all vet surgeons shelves?

It really has nothing to do with whether the domain is a ".com".

Is this your own policy? Remember that I have no idea about your qualifications to tell me what to do and what not to do in Wikipedia and that I won't accept your directions without good justification.

I am a horticulture graduate of Burnely College and at present derive my income from greenkeeping. I also am a BSc. with a Botany major. My domestic animals include cats and two shepherd dogs, who are reponsible each for bringing in milking cows and the odd baby beef herd. They eat in the traditional Australian manner - ie selected human butcher's items plus table scraps plus the odd shot parrot when opportunity happens. Lead poisoning is a real but finite risk in that case. Ha! They are wormed regularly and I've had charge of generations of such dogs without feed-induced injury. I have however lost a couple to tractors and mad ma cows. They are normal dogs, nothing out of the box. I don't claim that raw feeding is best, but I do observe that dogs (not cats, who actually do need flesh and bone for good health) can do quite well on a variety of wierd and wonderful diets, including processed extruded dried pellets, if that floats your boat. You mention working dogs. In what capacity do they work? Do you get prizes from pet feed manufacturers? So far you read like a dog fan with few qualifications in the science area. No disparagement intended, but you yanks seem to be really wierd about this Raw feeding thang. Thedarky 21:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

 Elf | Talk 20:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and to be explicit about your other questions, no, I don't derive income from those sources but I do compete in dog agility with my working dogs. Elf | Talk 20:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Responding here to above insertions:

Re: "because there was no "controversy" in fact, but an apparently manufactured one with far too much spin in favour of processed food.."

If you think there's no controversy, then you've never been around a group of dog breeders and trainers at best sneering at each other for their choices of diets. Or never talked to vets who don't recommend raw diets. And I certainly hardly put anything at all into the article about processed foods.

RE: " Did you originate the article? And if not, why do you feel the need to weigh into the "controversy" when your stated preference is simply that which is not a "pain in the butt"?

This is wikipedia. No one owns articles, not even the originator. I try to remember that. I weighed in because the article sounded like an everything-is-roses-with-raw-food, processed-food-mfgs-are-conspiring-against us article. Maybe that's not what you intended, but that's what it sounds like to me. And it's a "pain in the butt" because I have no idea how to ensure that my dogs have safe sources of raw protein when I can't even ensure it for myself; how to ensure that they get the right balance of nutrients and grains etc. for what I believe is a healthy diet (not just meat); how to be sure they get roughage or whatever and make sure there are no dangerous bones in the food (although I know some raw diets don't have them and I know some people feed the bones anyway). So these seem to be issues that need to be addressed when discussing raw feeding.

RE: "I don't think that because a site provides information in that way that it has tabs on trust. " etc.

That's why it's important to provide specific references whereever possible (and WP has gotten tougher on that over time), and why I think that sites that aren't trying to sell you something are more worth looking at than those that are trying to sell you something (e.g., commercial food companies who fund research). To cite a book reference, use this format in a "References" section in the article:

{{cite book | title=this is the title | last=Smith | first=John | publisher=name of publisher | year=xxxx | id=ISBN nnnnnn}}

People can then click the ISBN number and get a tremendous list of sources both commercial & noncommercial (e.g., libraries) from which they can look up a copy of the document.

RE: "Is this your own policy? Remember that I have no idea about your qualifications to tell me what to do and what not to do in Wikipedia and that I won't accept your directions without good justification."

Good questions. These might be helpful:

RE: "You mention working dogs. In what capacity do they work? Do you get prizes from pet feed manufacturers? So far you read like a dog fan with few qualifications in the science area. No disparagement intended, but you yanks seem to be really wierd about this Raw feeding thang."

Hmmm, I guess all us 300 million Yanks are exactly the same with exactly the same opinions and thoughts and ideas. Had never realized that before. And I'm not sure where you're going with the questions about my relationship to pet food manufacturers. You know, there are actually people who object to a raw diet. One doesn't have to be in the pocket of a company to do so.

My dogs don't bring in the cows, sorry, they work by training up to a couple of hours a day or more and competing on weekends. They're "athletes" rather than "working" dogs I guess, but they're not just companion dogs; they work hard when they're working. I don't have your qualifications in the science area, but then wikipedia is not a place for original research, yours or mine, so it doesn't matter. E.g., there's a vet who's updating a lot of dog-disease articles and he's citing the references from where he's getting the info, so people know it's not just his own wacky theories. I do try to find sources for info that I post and I'm trying to get better about citing them. And I try to rework articles that seem very biased in one direction to not be so biased.

I'm going to solicit other opinions to see whether I've gone completely off the deep end on this one because it was never my intent to drive someone away from wikipedia.

Elf | Talk 03:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thoughts on possible rewrite

You know, ideally it would be nice to discuss it without blatantly dividing pros and cons. Not sure whether that's possible. But here's an example of what it might contain (I'm not saying that the content of this paragraph is correct, but that it's an example of how to present info):

Because raw meat and animal products can contain bacteria and various parasites, food for a raw diet must be selected, handled, and stored carefully. Some companies that sell prepared raw diets irradiate the food to minimize this risk. (remember i'm just making this up) Those who feed a raw diet must regularly test their animals for infestion by parasite A, parasite B, and z, and use appropriate treatment to eliminate the problem, although (cite reference) research indicates that such infections are no more likely with raw diets than with commercial canned food. (remember I'm just making this up) In addition, because of the danger of mad cow disease, raw diets must not include sources that include animal's brains. Proponents of raw feeding suggest that it might be easier to avoid such problems than it is with commercial diets, which are also made of animal parts but over which the consumer has no control. The manufacturers of commercial packaged pet food are not regulated in the USA as to what parts of animals can be included in pet food. (cite reference)

Elf | Talk 21:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You could if you wanted to get yourself into silly knots. The reason you want to go and get all "scientific" is? because that's the way the faddists like to write about their hobby horse? Plain basic veterinary practise has stuff like regular worm dosing, avoidance of infested meat, careful handling and storage. This doesn't need saying from us non-professionals. It's a vet's responsibility to their relationship with their customer. The composition of commercial feed is indeed mostly self-regulated - but then it's up to the buyer to choose their product accordingly. It's nothing to do with whether to feed raw or not, surely. I myself think the stuff is a pure waste of money. I can feed my animals cheaper and better myself. But that's not the raw feeding controversy. Thedarky 21:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I shall return in a few days

For a last look at the article, that's if you want to go and frame it a different way. I am very interested in why you feel the need to get involved at all in the Raw feeding article - see my question up in the thread. I hope to see the answers to my questions about your authority to decide on references. They will enlighten me on the whole Wikipedia process but I am not really interested in flogging away any more at such a trivial bit of faddism as the Raw feeding framed in such awkward terms as appear to have been mooted. I had a look at the list of "hot" topics and the "controversy" over Raw feeding is indeed in good looney company - homeopathy and Holocaust denial. It seems that the "fair and balanced reporting" policy that you outlined promotes fringe topics to greater prominence than they warrant.

There is no hard data on the argument between processed feed manufacturing and raw feeding.

You are welcome to try to beat it up.

Thedarky 22:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I know that my vet doesn't like most raw diets and there are other people who breed dogs I know who think it's a bad idea. There are also some who think it's a great idea. So I know it's not universally accepted. But I also know that I can't use that as authority in either direction. And labeling people as "looneys" isn't likely to make you any friends, so I'd appreciate it if you'd keep to discussing the topic and how it's conveyed. Elf | Talk 02:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This article has been linked to from the Cat food article. Reading this article, it seems to be predominantly based on raw dog diets. I will try to assemble some information more specific to cats, although since I do not feed a raw diet I can only go by what I read on other sites.

Hi, will you state your reasons for avoiding a raw diet in the discussion? I'd be fascinated to find out where this idea comes from.Thedarky 17:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I avoid it out of laziness mostly. I do not have the desire to put in the effort that would be required to feed my cats a raw diet. A related laziness issue is meat quality. I do not consider myself to be careful enough to undergo all of the sanitary requirements that would be needed to make me feel comfortable feeding my cats a raw diet. I am perpetually in search of better pet food, and will most likely be sampling some of the packaged raw foods in the future. I have done a decent amount of reconaissance on these, and have contributed what information I can in the main topic. I believe that these foods are quite close to a homemade raw diet (I have even heard from some cat owners that the recipe they used is identical to one that is used by a particular brand), with the major difference still being the unknown quality of the ingredients in the manufactured food (similar to a frozen dinner versus homemade). TAsunder 18:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Howdy again, and thanks for expanding on your reasoning. It is most instructive. The handling of raw meat for cats is in no way different to that for humans, so if it helps you work out your contradictions a bit better, you should be perfectly confident that meat supplied by the shop where you get your own meat is safe for kitty. And you should be confident that if you store it in the refrigerator (and the freezer) in the same way as you store your own meat that it will remain safe for kitty. But raw packaged foods from pet shops don't have the same standards of handling and thus have more risks attached.Your choice as an informed shopper. As for the time/laziness factor. I can understand the lure of the can opener.But it only takes a minute or so more to feed my dogs and cats with raw meat and bones, so I prefer to have complete control of the raw (no pun intended) materials myself. It's a lot less expensive and I know exactly what's going in to fido and kitty.But then this is all beside the point of the article - which is about some mythical controversy that I still see no evidence for except in loony groups on the web. all the best and may your cats be long lived and prosper Thedarky 18:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, the "proponents" section does not list what theoretical benefits are suggested by proponents of the raw diet.

I'd have thought that this is clearly because the article is a pushed point of view on behalf of commercial processed feed. Indeed the only meaty (excuse the pun) discussion in the article is about the attributed ( I find the practise of putting words into the oppositions' mouths to be a poor debating tactic by the way) opposition to commercial processsed feeds from supporters of raw feeding.

Good luck finding any nutritionist who will publicly state the absolute benefits of one kind of intake over another. Food is food is food. It all gets digested. Some better than other but most is good enough. I myself find that cats do fine on raw butchers items and a bit of tinned fish now and then. Of course I avoid the traditional milk in a bowl because so many cats are intolerant of it, even if they love it. And they do of course look after their own diet a fair bit with their hunting in the grain shed. Where they don't hunt wheat and oats, but have a feast of mice.

The cats next door get pelleted feed mostly. They are happy and as healthy as mine are, and often come over to help hunt mice in the shed. What's all the fuss?

Will you convince Elf to take the article down? It's a dud out here on its own. Maybe put it in with the dog feeding page?Thedarky 17:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this topic is of some interest to pet owners, though it still has some work before I'd recommend it as a definitive source. There is growing evidence about the long term effects of some of the more inexpensive cat foods on long term health. For example, there is a startling incidence rate of CRF in cats that are largely fed pellet type foods. I think as more evidence of the benefits and risks of each form of food come out, more pet owners will want to evaluate what the feed their pets, with a raw diet being something worth considering. TAsunder 18:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Lastly, it may be worth mentioning that there are some "manufactured" raw diets which are somewhere between a high quality canned food and a homemade meal. TAsunder 14:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, there is no mention of the common term BARF (Bones and Raw Food) which is very frequently what a raw food diet is termed. TAsunder 14:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see that it is mentioned under diet types. TAsunder 14:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

So that's about all the input I want to have. I shall be interested to see how the thing irons out and all the best to you experienced contributors. Now I'm going to put that boilerplate up to warn other searchers about the article's lack of neutrality in terms of it appearing very much to be a pushed point of view.Thedarky 17:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] final expanded thoughts in reply to Elf

What's to be afraid of meat? I have written the following without trying to edit myself - mainly because I don't have all that much time to devote to it, but I think I owe you my full thoughts, since I appear to have stumbled on another's baby and treated it uncouthly. So here's what I've got out of the discourse:

"And it's a "pain in the butt" because I have no idea how to ensure that my dogs have safe sources of raw protein when I can't even ensure it for myself; how to ensure that they get the right balance of nutrients and grains etc. for what I believe is a healthy diet (not just meat); how to be sure they get roughage or whatever and make sure there are no dangerous bones in the food (although I know some raw diets don't have them and I know some people feed the bones anyway). So these seem to be issues that need to be addressed when discussing raw feeding." taken from Elf | Talk 03:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The worries that you list above are those that anyone with experience in handling animal feeding would have addressed and come to terms with long ago. Pet dogs and cats, ferrets and snakes and lizards have been eating meat of all kinds of quality supplied by their owners for thousands of years. They evolved to eat it and to cope with a much higher bacterial load than is implied in your question. This is not opinion. The data are there. Choose any basic comparative anatomy and physiology text. Interview keepers of carnivores at zoos. Of course there will always be misadventure with any kind of diet, raw stuff included; that's life. As they say in the casino, ya pays ya money and ya takes ya chances. Life isn't all complete certainty. What in general do you consider to be "dangerous" in a bone? In terms of an outrageous risk, not in terms of an acceptable normal (in the sense of a usual, daily event such as using stairs or driving a car) risk, please. And I am not interested in any of the dog-world's side-taking and anecdote. As I said above, it is a small section of the general population and it deserves the label fanatic, for which 'looney' is an acceptable synonym in Australia. Most of us out here in the wider world consider you dog-people's in-fighting (about training, showing, breeding etc) to be faintly ludicrous and of very little real value to the general state of knowledge. Surely you've seen the very clever movie "Best in Show"? It's the same with any group of afficionados. You can't expect not to be considered looney; it's part of your obsession. Of course, if you want to write an article about "raw feeding dogs - the controversy within the dog fanatic world about raw meat and bones versus processed commercial feeds"- then I wouldn't presume to have any editing input, not having any knowledge of the arcana of such a world. But you would have to honestly declare that intent in plain words within the article, even if you don't want the title to reveal the bias.

Why do you think that a dog's diet needs to be dissected into "right balance of nutrients"? That phrase is exactly what a processed feed manufacturer uses to convince purchasers that their product is the one that should be used. It may indeed have meaning when applied to the mixes that are processed to produce a uniform packaged article, but it has no meaning when applied to whole food (raw food is a subset of this I suppose). For example, "roughage" is meaningless in terms of a carcass. Except perhaps that bone and cartilage consists in connective tissue (it's called collagen - another term misused by advertisers a lot in cosmetic pushing) which is not broken down completely in an omnivore's or a carnivore's digestive tract. Is this what you mean by "roughage"? Stuff that isn't digested? But it is certainly the spin term that is used by food processors as a desirable component in processed feed for humans. Do you know why? Is it listed in processed feed for dogs too now? I wonder what justification, besides advertising spin, this listing could have in dog feed? From the amount of undigested matter I see excreted by dogs at the local dog park, I'd say they all get far too much "roughage". Are commercial feed manufacturers working to reduce the "roughage" component? Hope so.

Your language signals that you've been trained into trying to view food in terms of a list of "nutrients". Do you read a list like this when you feed yourself a barbecue? Or a pizza? Why should it be so for feeding your dog?

What's to be afraid of in eating meat? You surely aren't implying that butchers are not regulated and taking utmost pains to deliver wholesome items to their customers? This is surely verging on looney? Mind you, I am not clear about your problem, so I hope you understand that I am not yet calling you a lunatic. Smile. There is always, of course, a finite risk, although very very small, that a meat eater will acquire disease from the act of ingesting contaminated meat ; the increase in Kreutzfeld-Jakov cases acquired from prion contamination of beef in recent years is a good example. But to avoid eating meat on account of such a vanishingly small risk is surely not a logical reaction? Same for your dog, but in even less intensity, given the zero reports of prion-acquired K-J-like dis ease in dogs so far. Maybe minced meat is your fear? It would me mine too, if I was a regular buyer of such stuff; there is just so much more scope for contamination and incubation of bacteria in minced meat compared to a whole cut that has only a single surface area to present to invading bacteria. But I wouldn't feed myself on raw mince, and even less would I give it to a dog, who has teeth and needs to use them. And I wouldn't waste good chipolatas on the dogs either. Smile.

You say that you "believe" a healthy diet is "(not just meat)". If this isn't extreme bias, then I don't know what is. What an eskimo with a line of huskies would have to say to you I can't imagine. Not to mention an eskimo who never themselves ate anything non-animal, not even a slice of bread or a single tiny pea, in their traditional lives and were by all reports a healthy lot of humans.

Look again at the introductory remarks I added to the article, about the variety of diets upon which pet animals are, and have been for a very long time, sustained. There is no bias in my approach towards what items to feed a pet animal. I don't point the article towards a rebuttal of processed feed - this has been done by either yourself or the originator - or in the editing process somewhere. My rebuttals to the list of "opponents" concerns are not couched in terms of any processed feed. My contribution about veterinary surgeon's possible bias towards retailing processed feed was not originated by me but was prompted by the original introduction of processed feed manufacturers as shapers of veterinary opinion on the matter - by whichever author contributed before I weighed in. And since veterinary opinion was quoted by yourself in the salon opinion piece that you present as an unbiased overview, I added the fact, not opinion, that veterinary surgeons are not qualified nutritionists, and are unable to hold qualified opinions on the desirability of any diet, let alone this "raw feeding". A veterinary surgeon has no nutritionist qualifications. Full stop. At best, the veterinary surgeon may be able to identify gross deficiencies, for example lack of adequate calcium in a lactating bitch's or a growing pup's diet, but they will only be able to pronounce on most diets in the most general of terms. And they usually do not question customers on diet unless the animal has disease symptoms, and even then they are not often able to tie disease to diet quality. It needs exceptional forensic skill to tie food-poisoning to a definite source - so how a general veterinary surgeon could finger any particular food source as "dangerous" leaves me still wondering. One area where all veterinary surgeons ARE able to link diet to disease is obesity of course. Quantity is easy to measure, raw or processed or scraps. Smile. The quoted objections on bacterial contamination terms are nothing to do with the nutritional quality of raw meat. Indeed the objections are fairly vague and, as I have said before in this talk, don't amount to anything concrete against ONLY raw feed, and don't chime with the general experience of people who store and handle their meaty stuff with normal care. I'm happy to see no reference to processed feed manufacturers, but, as I pointed out in my second revision - this leaves you with no real need to write any detailed article, since it is perfectly clear that the central argument (even if it is not stated) is about dog raw feeder's rejection of processed feed (or, as I read the sub-text, it is about commercial processed feeders rejection of raw feed). In fact, the article could equally be titled " processed feeding" (for dogs), and simply have the arguments turned upside down, to make the same kind of ultimate sense. For example: "processed feeders are commonly opposed to raw feed. They consider raw feed to be a poor substitute for processed commercial feeds." Indeed, it seems to me that this is the kind of "balance" that you are trying to achieve. Unfortunately, once you get through the few flimsy objections that processed feed manufacturer supporters (or whoever wrote those objections) list, there is no other place for the "dispute" to go. There is no either/or dispute that can rationally be mounted. All that can be said is that some people prefer one to the other. An interesting comparison could perhaps be on cost. I'd be interested to see the difference between the cost of raw and commercial processed stuff within USA so that I could compare it with my Australian experience. My experience is that the manufacturers have a license to print money. Smile. I see the little old lady (actually I see more young bachelors buying for their cats than old ladies, but you get the picture, I trust) carefully choosing little bitty bite-size tins for her fluffy cat that cost as much as a pork chop - which chop would feed 3 cats. Without reference to processed manufacturers, the first and second paragraphs alone remain. And that's hardly worth an article on its own. Have you tried adding the raw feeding outline as a sub-topic in dog feeding? I sense that that article is an attempt to guide the general dog owner towards how to distinguish between commercial processed brands, but there is a BARF (what a silly name that is btw) supplier listed, so there is room to introduce the raw alternative there. Btw, I can't understand half the rationalisation of the barf processing and supplementation in any other terms than of commercial self-interest. Fancy mincing meat to feed it to a dog with teeth! We reserve that final indignity for the infirm and dying - human and dog. The only bias I am ready to own is one towards rejecting the spin of commercial advertising, rather than rejecting plain facts.

If the article remains, I shall place a boiler plate warning on it and confirm my opinion that the article as it stands is mis-named and needs to be recognised as a pushed opinion that there is a basis for a controversy over feeding raw stuff to dogs. It smells of a subtext and the questions I put to you have no hidden direction. I think they clearly show that I suspect that you have been either subject to the bias of processed feed advertising or are running some kind of paid campaign in their behalf. It is up to you to be very clear that you are not paid by any manufacturer. I think your declaration of not being paid by them is almost clear. You haven't stated specifically that you are not paid by a pet food manufacturer, only that you " don't derive income from those sources". I won't press you to state it clearly. Your bias towards processed feed, because of your fear of meat and bones is clear enough. There are many other alternatives to manufactured feed. They haven't come into consideration. Why not? It appears to me that the article is a pushed opinion that processed feed manufacturers present the only alternative to feeding pet dogs on raw carcass stuff and that raw feeding is undesirable because of some unsubstantiated fear of bacterial contamination/cross infection and bone-mediated harm.

Your stated intent to solicit other opinion indicates that you reject mine. Mine is that there is no harm in feeding a domestic pet, be it dog, cat, ferret, lizard, snake, on mainly whole butcher's raw items. It is not a "glowing" report. It is a plain statement of "what is all the fuss? why write the article?" So be it. Can you understand that your actions so far are indicative of bias? Whose opinion will you be soliciting? I trust that it will be some kind of guiding editorial opinion and not just another dog-feeding fanatic. At best, the article should be titled "Raw feeding dogs." You don't address any other pet animal's feeding - I had to add the single reference to cats (you are clearly not interested in having any animals other than dogs included in the article), and in the terms of the article about POV pushing it's a prime candidate for getting labelled as an un-editable POV push.

I claim the latitude to use the term "looney" to describe the fanatical supporters of any kind of fad - raw diet or otherwise, dog or human. It is an acceptable term in polite discourse in British societies and I didn't call you yourself a looney at any point in this discussion, except by association with a minority group of the USA population, that has a fanatical interest in dog matters. I most certainly would refrain from such colloquialisms in any article itself, but I refuse to relinquish my national identity in an informal conversation in favour of terminology that a yank finds more comfortable. I suggest in return that you refrain from taking offense when a contributor describes USA (yank) dog fanatics in general… It's only the internet, not life and death. And I promise not to publish dog trainer cartoons. Smile. However, I detect in your discourse a worrying lack of understanding of the basics of selecting and treating dietary meat. Could you possibly have some kind of neurosis about meat? Note that I am refraining from calling you nutty. Smile.

The article is not worth keeping. It's meaningless to most readers. This talk contribution from you has far more information for the general reader than the actual article. Your aim to be able to work out an "acceptable balance of nutrients" in the light of your fears about raw meat may have been much more helpful overall if you had included it in the preface to the article. It would have saved much of each of our talk writing. You are, from your stated first principles, biased against raw meat and bones in your dog's diet; you fear them. You appear unable to dissect advertising claims from data and it's pretty clear that you accept that commercially processed dog feed is the only acceptable alternative to raw items. You admit that you haven't researched the topic, whatever the topic is. Why don't you canvas putting it among dog-lover's articles somewhere - where it won't catch the eye of the general scientifically qualified reader like myself as something entirely ridiculous? You most certainly may discount a scientific training as credentials to contribute to Wikipedia, but it does give a person a method and a set of basic concepts with which to analyse specious rubbish. Does everyone get basic scientific education in the USA still? The general inquirer about raw feeding domestic animals would most surely get a bum steer if they happened on this article. I myself could have avoided falling over it if only I'd left out the terms "gastrointestinal" and "dog" when going to find out about a bit of dog anatomy for a necropsy I was doing on a wild dog.

Now I'll get along with a bit of work myself. I shall pop back again one day to see if there are other than people who aren't confident with feeding raw items to their dogs (or cats) willing to contribute to the discussion. I remain fixed about my decision to no longer participate in editing the article because I don't see it's justification in getting written, but I retain my intention to add a boilerplate notice to it if it retains the title, whatever the content. It has all the hallmarks of a pushed point of view, all from the feed manufacturers bias. Note that I am not accusing the author of being in the pay of feed manufacturers, only that the author appears unduly influenced by commercial producers advertising.

I've also asked the "expert" quoted in the salon article - the proprietor of the animal rescue site "second chance ranch" - about their bias towards processed feed manufacturers. They have so far declined to answer whether they recieve payment, either in goods or otherwise, from any processed feed manufacturer. Their impassioned rant against plain old flesh is incoherent and is not supported with any public data. What a looney. But what a nice thing to do to rescue all those poor mistreated animals.

All the best to you. And I love watching dog athletes. They put their handlers in the shade when it comes to good looks I always think. Your concerns about appropriate diet are much easier for me to understand in this context; a performing dog would need much more attention to intake than the usual working dog, who gets to just lie around for most of the day - the only workout being short bursts of herding. In fact I detect echoes of human body builders and athletes and their intense diet disputes in your concerns.

You might like to know that when it comes to sheepdog trials, during which I've had to endure a few rainy weekends among more looneys than you in the athlete world could poke a stick at, the dogs put their handlers in the shade wrt brains and commonsense.

Thedarky 16:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I cannot speak for dogs, but cats will generally consume some vegetables and grains in the wild, as their prey often has this in their stomach. Feeding butcher parts only without a stomach full of whatever the prey was eating may account for the perceived nutiritional discrepancy.

surely a "perceived" discrepancy only. Show me the studies to back up this quaint idea. I observe that the cats around my place will as often eat only the head,liver and lights of mice they catch - preferring to leave the lower half, containing gut and faecal matter, untouched. What's the point in this kind of back and forth silly point noting?Thedarky 18:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, some cats don't eat stomachs. How do we know that those are healthy cats though? Most recipes for raw food call for something other than just butcher parts. It's a pretty safe statement to say that many or most raw feeding advocates do not think that just buying random slop from the butcher is an adequate feline diet. Just do a google for raw food recipes and you will see what I mean. TAsunder 23:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that there is no "perfect balance" nutritionally, I think we can all agree that both dogs and cats have a certain "minimum" required of certain vitamins and minerals and also an amount that should be desired to achieve "good health".

I agree that there most certainly is a minimum in any diet for any creature, below which deficiencies will reveal themselves in many morbid ways. But I again ask - what has this to do with feeding animals raw food?Thedarky 18:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It has to do with your supposition that "nutritionally complete" is a phrase made up as some sort of conspiracy to sell pet foods and that there is no such thing. There certainly is a list of minimum nutrients a particular cat would need, and probably cats in general. Whether or not you agree with the AAFCO's list is a different issue. TAsunder 23:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Cats may also have a natural desire to consume grass, which may have enzymes that aid in digestion (or may simply cause vomitting due to the serrated grass blades).

And what's this point about? Grass isn't meat but grass is raw? I don't know anything about your proposed digestive aiding enzymes. But it sounds all nice and nutritionisty. And yes, cats and dogs will eat grass that they vomit soon after. So will chimpanzees. I don't. Lot's of variation in the world. Thedarky 18:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

My point is about whether or not nothing but meat is really nutritionally adequate. If cats eat smooth bladed grass for digestive aid, then it follows that it might be something useful to cats. To feed a cat entirely raw meat and no such digestive aid would therefore be something less than optimal. If I put cat grass out for my cat along with food, one cat I own eats it and the other doesn't. The cat who eats it has some digestive problems, and eating the grass helps. It's not rocket science. The point is, not all cats and dogs will be healthy on 100% meat and no supplements. TAsunder 23:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major edit

I have just made a major revision to this page. I have kept as much of the pro and con topics as possible, and I think that it may be adequately neutral now. The structure now more closely resembles what other wikipedia articles with a controversial topic might look like. I have also moved the section on veterinary bias into its own topic, so that the more common benefits and oppositions to raw diet can be weighed seperately. I have not yet read the full discourse above, so please revert or add changes if you find the restructuring inadequate. One thing I want to note is that the references and external links could really use some additional information. Most of mine is from sites that I consider unfit for linking due to being snippets of a book for sale or due to a particularly strong position for or against raw foods. TAsunder 18:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the article looks OK. Elf | Talk 21:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a major edit. It's a fudge. Careful reinforcement of the manufactured feed pusher's disinformation about mythical dangers from infection and those nasty alien bones by placing the anti "arguments" nice and clearly after the pro fudging. All unsupported third-party opinion retained. A few more hand-waving (admittedly un-sourced by the author) generalisations. It's a joke, to put it kindly. I managed a little more reading on this "controversy" outside Wikipedia and the recent aflatoxin poisoning event in Diamond pet foods distribution is alone a far bigger and provable warning against the real dangers of processed (be it processed raw or cooked feed) pet foods.

It is very clear that the article is not a credit to the authors'claims of objectivity. I repeat that you should seriously consider dismantling it.

I shan't return to the discussion.Thedarky 18:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The bone puncturing issue is supported and referenced by a holistic vet who is a strong advocate of raw feeding. I would say that there is some credibility to the dangers. Keep in mind it's not just dogs who are fed bones. Cats are being fed bones as well, and cats do not have any sort of bone-like dental treats as dogs do. Since this article is not specifically about dogs, then the risk of punctures and obstructions cannot said to be similar in any other cat product. Furthermore, the alternative of ground bone is still well within reason and suggested by numerous raw feeding advocates as preferable. Just because you think that whole bone is preferable does not mean all raw feeders do. Whether or not it should be a major point in the opposition probably is debatable. Perhaps the point should refer specifically to raw diets with whole bone only.

The bacterial infection issue is more debatable, but it is certainly listed by the opponents. Major veterinary organizations such as the AVMA cite it as a danger. To not mention it would do a serious disservice to the reader to ignore a common opposition, baseless or not. The article cited in the bone point specifically addresses this issue and more or less disputes it. The basic premise of the dispute is that it is not a significantly greater risk. This means logically it is still a risk.

It is not necessary to back up claims about AAFCO with a source. It is simply fact that homemade meals are not certified or tested unless the cook does so intentionally. If I cook a meal at home, it is not going to be AAFCO certified. What may need to be sourced is that some people find this potentially dangerous.

You seem to want to ignore all opposition to raw feeding even though it is of academic interest to those who want to know about raw feeding. Whether or not you support raw feeding, the purpose of an encylopedia is to provide information about the subject, not to render a specific opinion. The opposition to raw feeding is a fact, whether or not their points are credible. To ignore that there is a huge community of people who oppose raw feeding for the reasons listed is absurd and totally POV. I have tried to find credible sources of actual scientific study on raw feeding. The only one I have found is a seriously flawed study of cats fed nothing but raw chicken versus cooked chiken. Not surprisingly, the cooked chicken led to malnourishment. The author concludes that raw food is better, but modern nutritional knowledge leads us to realize that cooked chicken loses some nutrients such as taurine. A proper study would have been cooked chicken with taurine supplement (and any other nutrients lost during cooking) versus raw chicken. If you know of any other credible studies, please provide them.

To be honest, I find the conspiracy theories a lot less informative and fact-based than the opposition to raw feeding. I believe a raw diet is a good idea generally, but that does not mean that there is some global conspiracy out to quash raw feeding. Instead it just means that not everyone agrees. The benefits of raw feed are certainly less understood than the dangers of raw feed, being that its recent resurgence must be countered with modern understanding of nutrition and health of pets. TAsunder 22:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

One final note, I have found numerous sites that explain the arguments for raw food, but all of them are either selling a raw product or refer to the Pottinger study (the one I refer to above - which is clearly flawed and more or less proven so) as major scientific evidence. I do not feel comfortable citing as reference articles that offer junk science as evidence. I am sure there are legitimate studies out there somewhere, perhaps by companies such as Nature's Variety Prairie which sells all forms of food and therefore I assume is neutral. I hope someone can find them. TAsunder 23:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging the BARF diet into "Diet Types" subheading

I've been looking at this article for a while, and plan to make some contributions in the near future. However, one thing that can (should) be done immediately is to merge the Bones and Raw Food stub into the "Diet Types" subheading.

Any discussion? Gordon | Talk, 4 June 2006 @12:40 UTC

Seems ok, although are we sure that billinghurst was the source of BARF? I thought he just sold a particular brand of BARF diet. TAsunder 16:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems Billinghurst claims credit for the "Biologically Appropriate Raw Food" diet, which is much the same as "Bones and Raw Food". OTH, does it matter? There's not a lot we can do to expand the BARF article, but it does fit neatly into the Diet Types subheading here. Gordon | Talk, 6 June 2006 @11:05 UTC

Just my two cents: I have been feeding 100% raw diet for 2 years to my german shepherds. I have researched the raw diet for over 3 years and read many books on the subject which I can reference for anyone interested. So in a nut shell, my reasons for switching to 100% meat diet, in contrast to the BARF theory which I started out on, are: kibble has only been around 60 years, and vaccines haven't been around much longer (my gsds are also vaccine free). And over the last 60 years, more and more vets are opening practices and pushing science diet which is crap in a bag, excuse my language. The reason for this is that science diet is the company who give the vets a whole few hours of training in animal nutrition before they are licensed vets. Also, science diet pays for partial education for the vets carrying their food. My previous gsds died of cancer, they were kibble fed on the best kibble on the market at that time, and also fed cooked chicken, rice, veggies, raw fruit and given supplements. They still all 3 died of cancer at the age of 12. So this led me to my current study of raw diet and vaccine free animals. It has been proven that cat in particular develop cancer at the site of which they received their vaccine, but now I am getting off topic. There is an abundance of proof that vets and kibble companies do not want us to know about the health of dogs and cats on a raw diet. Dogs and cats are carnivores and it has also been proven that although wolves eat the stomach and organs first of a kill, most of the stomach contents are shaken from the stomach prior to eating. So what little vegetation or fruit they may receive is insignificant. For those interested, I can provide links to books and research on the raw diet and/or vaccine free well being of our animals. My web site will be up and running shortly and I will have compiled this information for everyone to research for themselves. I am now on my 2nd generation of raw fed, vaccine free gsds, this is my long term project in which I should write a book after my 4th and 5th generations are born. It takes atleast 4 generations to breed out any negatives to kibble, vaccines, and what we used to say was 100 genetics, they have now proved it is more like 30% genetics, 70% nutrition and environment. So this also means chemical free (which my dogs are) from wormers, heart worm meds, pesticides, etc. And as far as raw feeding being dangerous... so is a turned stomach in a kibble fed dog that drinks or excercises too much after eating - this happens way more often then a bone puncture. If you are worried about bones, then grind your whole prey ie:chicken before feeding, but then the animals do not get the benefit of teeth cleaning which is the other #1 cause of vet bills - dirty grimy teeth cause bacteria of the entire body - vets don't want you to know that either. I choose to feed whole chickens without the hollow bones, so I cut off the legs/thighs and the rest of the bones clean my dogs teeth. Wild deer meat is 90% of my dogs diet for those who are curious. The deer carcasses provide recreation and teeth cleaning, but they do not get bones daily, they can wear down their teeth. Chicken backs/breasts are my favorite for teeth cleaning. Sincerely, Tina Berry k9baron@gmail.com Kriegshund German Shepherds 3rd generation raw fed/vax free due summer of 2008

If you have proof of these things you can cite (not your website, that would constitute orginal research, as well as violations of other policies), feel free to post them here. I would like to see such things. Remember, sources used in wikipedia must be reliable and verifiable - Trysha ^(talk) 18:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

References to back up my above edit (and yes, I have read these,Tina Berry):

Books: Raw Meaty Bones Promote Health by Dr. Tom Lonsdale, Work Wonders by Dr. Tom Lonsdale, See Spot Live Longer by Steve Brown, The Nature of Animal Healing by Dr.Martin Goldstein, Vaccine Guide for Dogs & Cats by Catherine Diodati, Natural Immunity by Pat McKay, Homeopathic Care for Dogs and Cats: Small Doses for Small Animals by Don Hamilton, The Science Of Vaccine Damage by Catherine O'Driscoll, Give Your Dog A Bone - by Ian Billinghurst , Grow Your Pups With Bones - by Ian Billinghurst , The Barf Diet - by Ian Billinghurst, Natural Nutrition for Dogs and Cats - by Kymythy R. Schultze , Natural Health for Dogs and Cats - By Richard H. Pitcairn, D.V.M., PhD, and Susan Hubble Pitcairn, Shock to the System - By Catherine O'Driscoll ~ A Sequel to "What Vets Don't Tell You About Vaccines", Raw Dog Food - By Carina Beth MacDonald, The Allergy Solution for Dogs - By Shawn Messonnier, DVM, Homeopathic Care for Cats and Dogs By Don Hamilton, DVM

Web Pages: http://www.rawlearning.com http://www.rawmeatybones.com http://www.rawfed.com/myths/ http://www.rawfeddogs.net/ http://www.ukrmb.co.uk/

[edit] Rational for some of my edits

I removed "However, dogs have very acidic saliva and stomach lining. Most of the bacteria will therefore be killed." because of this:

"dogs have very acidic saliva" - Its states here and here (and just about anywhere you google) dogs have a very high pH. High pH means more basic (alkaline), the exact oppisite of that statement.
"and stomach lining" - It states here that "One explanation was that the pH in stomachs of fasted dogs can reach 7 (13)... The pH in fasted human stomachs is approximately 2" (in Discussion section). And here states that dogs have a pH of 3.4 to 5.5. It also states in this article (which you can read from the abstract) that dogs have a basically neutral pH intestional tract. So basically, dogs have a less acidic digestive system throughout compared to humans.
"Most of the bacteria will therefore be killed" - Since i've invalidated the premises, the conclusion does not stand.

I removed "But salmonella is also found in kibble-fed dog stools." because if your read the actual cited article it says that no salmonella was found in commericial fed test animals in the study.

I removed "Some of the lower-quality dry foods use infected meat (this can include euthanized, diseased, or disabled animals) that can be dangerous." because it was unsubstantiated, unrelated to the salmonella study, and a strawman attack on commercial foods. I kept it in the article, however, I just moved it to the justification for feed raw food diets under "Benefits of raw feeding."

I reworded some of the content in "Benefits of raw feeding" because it was written in first person ("we have seen") and not NPOV.

I added the bit about Pottenger's experiment not taken account for taurine in a cat's diet because this is a valid critism of the dated study. I took out the "were astounding" because its an opinion.-- Snaxorb 17:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I changed the section title back to "Perceived benefits of raw feeding" since there aren't many references in support of the benefits in this section. --Snaxorb 15:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I reorganized the external links section. Previously it was only site advocating Raw feeding and had commercial sites mixed with individuals advocacy pages. I tried to separate it so that sites that had a large amount of information went under "advocacy" and sites that were primarily "commercial" went under commercial.

I removed http://www.rawfeddogs.net/ because the site was short on information and the "recipes" were mainly just naming cuts of meat. There are better sites out there, like http://www.ukrmb.co.uk/ which I added.

I added sites critical of raw food diets to even things out, because before, only sites advocating it were listed.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/a/w/Talk%7ERaw_feeding_f45a.html"

Categories: B-class Cats articles | Unknown-importance Cats articles | B-Class Dogs articles | Unknown-importance Dogs articles