Raw feeding

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality.
Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page.
This does not adequately cite its references or sources.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. (help, get involved!)
This article has been tagged since June 2006.

Contents

Raw feeding is the practice of feeding domestic dogs and cats a diet primarily of uncooked meat and bones.

Domesticated dogs, which are a classified as a subspecies of wolves, and cats, which are obligate carnivores, would have a diet largely consisting of fresh prey in the wild. Canids are known to eat fruit and vegetable as part of their natural diet.

Supporters believe that the diets are closer to the natural diets of the animals in the wild and would therefore be better for the animal (see Appeal to nature). Opponents believe that the risk of foodborne illnesses posed by the handling and feeding of raw meats would outweigh the purported benefits and that no scientific studies have been done to support the numerous beneficial claims.

Aspects of the debate, which have not yet been academically resolved, include consideration of how wild/feral animals thrive rather than merely survive, and whether the health of pets has actually been enhanced through the use of commercially manufactured formulas.

[edit] Diet types

[edit] Raw feeding

One popular raw diet is the BARF model, an acronym for Biologically Appropriate Raw Food or Bones And Raw Food. The BARF diet, which includes non-meats and numerous supplements, was designed by Dr Ian Billinghurst. Billinghurst claimed that commercial kibble does not allow domestic animals to thrive as their wild ancestors did on a raw diet. In some ways, BARF is analogous to the human Paleolithic diet. Other diets similar to BARF are the Ultimate Diet[1] and the Volhard Diet[2].

Another model is a Whole Prey diet, which simulates the proportions of an actual prey animal in a pet's diet. This includes organ meat, heads, fur (and feathers and scales), skin, muscle, and bone, without supplements.

Others feed a diet largely composed of as wide a variety of meats and butchers' scraps as possible, and table scraps as supplements.

[edit] Commercial animal food

Commercial dog and cat food falls into two types, kibble and canned.

Kibble is dry or moist pellets and biscuits with a cereal or meat base, ground meat by-products and various additives, eg. mineral supplements and vitamins.

Canned food is usually based on meat, "meat by-products" and vegetables, pre-cooked and ready to serve. It is almost always very soft in consistency and must be refrigerated if unused. As with kibble, canned food usually contains additives to make up for perceived and real deficiencies in the food sources. One example is taurine which is added after cooking.

[edit] Comparison to commercial food

Most commercial manufacturers quickly alter formulations when deficiencies become evident; however, there is no baseline study of raw-fed pets on which to base any of the processed feed manufacturers' claims that their products are superior to raw feeding at its most basic, where the majority of intake is raw meaty bones and offal taken from butchers.

Some commercial pet food manufacturers offer a "raw diet" product. This is typically sold in large bags that are kept frozen. The food is thawed days in advance and fed in small portions. The quality of ingredients in these products are often far closer to a standard raw diet than typical commercial pet foods. Some raw feeders use these products, while others believe that many of the same problems of more popular commercial pet foods exist with these packaged raw diets.

[edit] Opposition to raw feeding

Opponents of raw feeding generally believe the potential risks of a raw diet outweigh any potential benefits of a raw diet.

  • Raw meats may contain bacteria that are unsafe for both dogs and cats.[1] Because of the high incidence of bacteria, some experts and enthusiasts believe that the risks inherent in raw feeding outweigh the benefits when compared to a manufactured pet food with high quality ingredients. Manufactured pet food generally is processed with intense heat, which destroys any potential bacteria. Opponents note that though the risk of bacterial infection can be greatly reduced with safe handling and trusted meat sources, there is always a potential for bacterial infection. An example of this danger can be seen in a disease that afflicts greyhound racing dogs, called "Alabama rot." The disease is caused by E. coli in the raw meat that was given as part of their diet.[2]
  • Landing Animal Clinic in Alberta performed a small study on the levels of salmonella in the stool of dogs that eat a raw diet. The study did not examine the health of dogs that ate a raw food diet. 30 percent of the stool samples from dogs fed a raw food diet contained salmonella, while none of the control dogs (commercial fed) contained salmonella. Dogs on a raw food diet may therefore be a source of environmental contamination. [3]
  • Raw meats may contain harmful parasites. As with bacteria, these parasites are destroyed during the heat processing manufactured pet foods. Some raw diet recipes call for freezing of the final product, which greatly reduces (but does not necessarily eliminate) the potential for parasites. Careful handling and dosing of raw meats further reduces this possibility.
  • The nutritional balance of a homemade raw diet is not generally verified by organizations such as the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO), and as such, many who oppose raw diets believe that a raw diet carries a risk of unbalanced nutrition. One study that analyzed the nutritional content of 3 homemade diets (included the BARF diet) and 2 commercial raw food diets and compared it to the AAFCO standards, showed that nutritional imbalances occurred in one or more of the fellowing areas: calcium, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, sodium, zinc, vitamin D, and vitamin E.[4] When feeding a raw diet, even proponents of raw diets recommend frequent analysis by a veterinarian to verify that proper nutrients are being ingested. Proponents of raw diet sometimes dismiss the importance of AAFCO standards, claiming that many inexpensive pet foods are far less nutritionally complete than most raw diets. Many cite that the oldest dog ever recorded, a 29-year-old Australian cattle dog named Bluey, died in 1939, several years before commercial pet food was invented, and that, of the two oldest dogs in recent years, one was fed primarily on kangaroo and emu meat. [3]
  • In some raw diet recipes, whole bone is used. Some experts believe that the use of whole bone creates a risk of dental fractures,[6] intestinal obstruction, gastroenteritis, and intestinal perforations.[7][4] Some proponents of raw diet believe that there is noticeable benefit to the dental hygiene of pets who eat raw bones, while others believe that ground bone should be used instead, which virtually eliminates the possibility for intestinal puncturing and dental fractures. Furthermore, many note that the same risks of obstruction, puncturing, and dental fractures are present in pet chews, with little evidence indicating that this is a serious problem particular to raw diets with bones. Most veterinarians state that chewing raw bone is an inadequate substitute for regular dental cleaning and tooth brushing. Raw bones are flexible and not prone to splintering. If the dog swallows them right away without chewing, the bone should be held to force the dog to chew. Cooked bones should NEVER be fed, as these can be very dangerous and can splinter.

[edit] Perceived Benefits of raw feeding

Raw feeders are commonly opposed to commercial pet foods, which they consider poor substitutes for raw feed. The intense heat used to process commercial pet food reduces nutrients.[8] Some dry foods contain preservatives (BHA/BHT and ethoxyquin) which raw feeders feel may be harmful. They also often contain a large amount of grains, which raw feeders feel are inappropriate for dogs and cats. It also often contains meat by-products — typically offal, skin, bones, etc. not normally consumed by humans, but readily consumed by animals in the wild.

Proponents claim feeding a raw diet with bones eliminates the need for dental cleanings, helps strengthen the animal’s immune system and gives them a more natural diet. Wolf care managers questioned on the topic of feeding bones identified the presence of animal hide with hair as offering some protection from intestinal perforation in the wild.[4]

By feeding a raw diet, it is believed to improve the nutritional value. Some believe that supplements have reduced nutritional value compared to the same nutrients in raw food. Some raw diets, however, include supplements such as fish oil, Vitamin C, and apple cider vinegar, among others.

Cats are thought to more clearly benefit from a raw diet. The degree of assumed benefit varies based on the form of commercial cat food. Most commercial cat foods contain a disproportionate amount of carbohydrates. Because cats are obligate carnivores, little grain is generally found in their natural diet. In addition to grains, cat foods often contain a large amount of vegetables, often included to achieve proper nutritional balance. Taurine, an essential amino acid for cats, is reduced or eliminated in heat processing. Pet food manufacturers must add taurine supplements to cat food, which is generally unnecessary in a raw diet. Proponents of raw diets believe that a raw diet more closely matching the diet of cats in the wild will yield many improved health benefits, including a noticeable reduction in the incidence of many late-life feline health issues.

[edit] Veterinary controversy

"Neither the American Veterinary Association nor the British Veterinary Association endorses the health benefits of raw food. Both organizations caution that animals fed raw meat run the risk of contracting food-borne illnesses. The British veterinary group declares that "there is no scientific evidence base to support the feeding of raw meat and bones," and warns humans they risk exposing themselves to bacteria like salmonella."[9]

It is believed by many raw feeders that veterinarians are influenced by academic departments and professional associations that rely upon funding from pet food companies. Some veterinary practices also act as major retailers of commercial pet foods. Others may receive funding directly from pet food manufacturers. For these reasons, raw feeders are often skeptical of the motives that some veterinarians have in recommending commercial foods. Some raw feeders believe that veterinarians may recommend certain commercial pet foods out of self-interest rather than for the benefit of the affected pet, or at the least may have divided loyalties.

Another common belief is that veterinarians lack adequate information on raw diets or diets in general. Frequently, veterinary schools receive nutrition training that is provided to students or sponsored by pet food manufacturers.[dubious — see talk page] It is sometimes no more detailed than that provided to human medical practitioners, who are themselves not entitled to prescribe or proscribe diets{dubious}. In human medicine, this is the province of nutritionists, who are independent scientists obliged to declare any association with any human food manufacturer. However, two certified veterinary nutritionists from the American College of Veterinary Nutrition,[5], funded by the pet-food manufacturer Ralston Purina Company, [6] have published a paper outlining the potential dangers of raw food diets.[4].

Unfortunately, for the raw feeding controversy, pet feed manufacturers are the source and controllers of most major animal nutrition studies [dubious — see talk page]. It is therefore not yet possible to find credible large independent animal feeding studies on which to base diet advice and choice for pet owners. One of the few studies is Pottenger's study of 900 cats over a period of 10 years from 1932 to 1942. His results showed that cats that were fed raw foods were disease free and healthy. Those cats who were fed the same food cooked developed degenerative diseases. After a few generations, many cats lost their reproductive capabilities while some were born blind and weak and had much shorter lifespans[citation needed]. This study is used by many people feeding pets a raw diet to back up their claims of raw food being superior to cooked. It is also frequently used to justify a raw food diet for humans. However, the study was done before the importance of taurine in a cat's diet was known. In a study on feline maternal taurine deficiency[7], the group of taurine-deficient cats exhibited symptoms similar to the Pottenger's cats on a cooked diet. It is likely that the group of Pottenger's cats on cooked food simply suffered from taurine deficiency as heating or cooking food causes a reduction in taurine content. .[10]

Pottenger's Cat study is also flawed, because the Raw Diet was 2/3 meat and 1/3 milk, while the Cooked Diets were 1/3 meat and 2/3 milk. He was not comparing like with like. He doubled the milk (or tripled it), and cut the meat in half (or eliminated it). There was a fifth diet of "Raw Metabolized Vitamin D Milk Only." The cats failed to thrive on that diet, also. What this shows is that cats don't thrive on cooked diets with 0-50% as much meat, and 2-3 times as much milk. We need to repeat the study with 2/3 meat and 1/3 milk across the board, to draw valid conclusions from it. An all-meat diet should've been tested, since cats are carnivores. Also, fish and liver could substitute for cod liver oil.

[edit] References

  1. ^ O'Rourke, Kate. Raw Meat Diet Sparks Concern. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. Retrieved on 2006-04-06.
  2. ^ Hill, Richard C. (1998). "The Nutritional Requirements of Exercising Dogs". The Journal of Nutrition 128 (12): pp. 2686S-2690S. Retrieved on 2006-10-25. 
  3. ^ Joffe, Daniel J.; Daniel P. Schlesinger (2002). "Preliminary assessment of the risk of Salmonella infection in dogs fed raw chicken diets". The Canadian Veterinary Journal 43 (6): pp. 441-442. Retrieved on 2006-10-25. 
  4. ^ a b c d Freeman, Lisa; Kathryn E. Michel (2001-03-01). "Evaluation of raw food diets for dogs". JAVMA 218 (5): pp. 705-709. Retrieved on 2006-10-25. 
  5. ^ DeLay, Josepha; Jenny Laing (2002). "Nutritional osteodystrophy in puppies fed a BARF diet" (PDF). AHL Newsletter: page 23. Retrieved on 2006-10-25. 
  6. ^ Tangsiri, Laleh and Emami, Emma. "Periodontal disease and the treatments in dogs" (PDF). Retrieved on 2006-10-26.
  7. ^ Hofve, Jean. The "Dangers" of a Raw Diet. littlebigcat.com. Retrieved on 2006-04-06.
  8. ^ Morris, Audrey; Audia Barnett, Olive-Jean Burrows (2004). "Effect of Processing on Nutrient Content of Foods" (PDF). CAJANUS 37 (3): pp. 160-164. Retrieved on 2006-10-26. 
  9. ^ Mieszkowski, Katharine. The Beef Over Pet Food. Salon.com. Retrieved on 2006-03-07.
  10. ^ Tu, Jean-Louis. Lesson of the Pottenger's Cats experiment: cats are not humans. beyondveg.com. Retrieved on 2006-10-25.

[edit] External links

[edit] Neutral

[edit] Advocacy

[edit] Critical

[edit] Commercial raw food diet sites

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/a/w/Raw_feeding.html"
In other languages