Raw feeding

Additional recommended knowledge Correct Test Weight Handling Guide: 12 Practical Tips Daily Sensitivity Test Don't let static charges disrupt your weighing accuracy Contents 1 Raw diet types 2 Commercial animal food 3 Arguments in favor of raw feeding 4 Arguments against raw feeding 5 Veterinary controversy 6 References 7 See also 7.1 Critical

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 of raw feeding believe that raw diets are closer to the natural diets of the animals in the wild and would therefore be better for the animal. 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.

Preliminary studies assessed the presence of Salmonella spp. in a bones and raw food (BARF) diet and in the stools of dogs consuming it. Dogs fed raw chicken may therefore be a source of environmental contamination potentially leading to human or animal illness. (CanVetJ 2007 jan48(1)69-75. canvetj2002 jun;43(6) 441-2.)

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

Raw diet types

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-style 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 composed of a variety of meats and butchers' scraps.

Commercial animal food

Further information: Cat food and Dog food

Some pet food manufacturers, such as Paw Naturaw, now offer organic frozen raw diet products for pet owners. Some consumers believe that many of the same issues they find with commercial pet foods exist with packaged raw diets, others use it due to its convenience and for some products with AAFCO certification, its assurance of a nutritionally balanced product.

Arguments in favor of raw feeding

Proponents of raw feeding commonly believe their animals benefit from a raw diet that mimics the natural food source of their wild relatives. They are commonly opposed to commercial pet foods, which they consider poor substitutes for raw feed.

• A raw diet is believed to improve the nutritional value. The intense heat used to process commercial pet food reduces nutrients.^[1] Studies with rats showed that the digestibility of amino acids in cat food is changed significantly by heat processing.^[2] 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. Some raw feeders 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.

• 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.^[3]

• Commercial pet food often contains meat by-products — typically offal, skin, bones, etc. not normally consumed by humans, but readily consumed by animals in the wild. Meat and bone meal is frequently used as a low-cost protein source for pet foods, particularly in the USA. Opponents of meat by-products and meals in pet foods believe that this practice harbors the risk of spreading diseases; for example meat and bone meal is thought to have been responsible for the spread of BSE (mad cow disease) in Britain. Frequently, unhealthy tissues such as tumors or parasite-infested organs are included in meat and bone meal production.^[4]

• Commercial pet foods, especially dry foods, also often contain a large amount of grains, which proponents of grain-free food feel are inappropriate for dogs and cats. Studies comparing the source of protein in dry cat food concluded that the digestibility of meat-based protein is superior to corn-based protein.^[5]

• Some commercial pet foods contain chemical preservatives (BHA/BHT and ethoxyquin) which opponents of these substances feel may be harmful. BHA and ethoxyquin were found to act carcinogenic in rats^[6], but more recent studies point to a potential anticarcinogenic activity of the BHA/BHT amounts used to preserve food.^[7]

• 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. 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.

Arguments against 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.^[8] 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.^[9]

• 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. ^[10] However, an outbreak in August, 2007 of Salmonella in dry dog food in Pennsylvania, reported by the CDC^[11], seems to indicate that Salmonella is not just restricted to raw food diets.

• Raw meats may contain harmful parasites. As with bacteria, these parasites are destroyed during the heat processing of 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.^[12] 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.^[13]

• Raw food diets can be low in calcium and phosphorus and have abnormal calcium-to-phosphorus ratios.^[12] This can lead to hyperparathyroidism and fibrous osteodystrophy in puppies.^[14]

• In some raw diet recipes, whole bone is used. Some experts believe that the use of whole bone creates a risk of dental fractures,^[15] intestinal obstruction, gastroenteritis, and intestinal perforations.^[16][12] 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.

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."^[17]

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 – discuss]} It is sometimes no more detailed than that provided to human medical practitioners, who are themselves not entitled to prescribe or proscribe diets^{[dubious – discuss]}. 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,[3], funded by the pet-food manufacturer Ralston Purina Company, [4] have published a paper outlining the potential dangers of raw food diets.^[12].

Unfortunately, for the raw feeding controversy, pet feed manufacturers are the source and controllers of most major animal nutrition studies^{[dubious – discuss]}. 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[^[18], 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. .^[19]

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.

References

See also

Appeal to nature

Critical

• "How safe is a raw diet? Not very" — A Better Nutrition Magazine article on raw feeding.
• "An ethicist's commentary on the “Raw Diet”" - Canadian Veterinary Journal article
• "Why A Raw Food Diet IS NOT The Answer" — Dog food and nutrition site's page critical of raw feeding.
• "Cautions Against Raw Food Diets" — Description of a study observing poorer health in dogs fed a raw food diet (note: this company sells dry dog food).
• Burns Pet Nutrition — Critique of BARF diet.