|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since embarking on this blog almost two years ago, I’ve undergone something of a conversion on the subject of pet food. With last March’s pet food ingredient crisis fresh in our heads, I would imagine that most of you could easily fess up to the same.
Yet this shift in my thinking has come about less as a result of the recall than you would imagine. Rather, the healthy exchange of ideas you’ve participated in on this blog has done most of the work on this thick-skulled, traditionally-schooled vet’s cache of nutrition-minded opinions—not the least because it sent me looking for answers I knew I wasn’t offered in the standard vet school curriculum.
One of the first topics I set out to conquer was the issue of raw vs. cooked pet foods. I have to confess—I was curious to learn more about what fuels this vituperative debate. And as it turns out, I knew next to nothing about it.
I offer this disclaimer-ish preface to a post on raw feeding partly because I know I’ll be set upon by wolves within a few lines—no matter which way my opinion leans. Because, as many of you already know, raw feeding of pets is as divisive a topic as they come in the pet world. In this fiery debate there can be no middle ground, it seems.
The raw foodists contend that dogs (omnivores) and cats (obligate carnivores) are biologically attuned to masticating and digesting their food—mostly meats—in their uncooked state, hence the origin of the BARF diet (variously known as the “biologically appropriate raw food” diet or the “bones and raw food” diet). They contend that raw food contains the live enzymes our pets biologically require for optimum wellness and disease prevention. Moreover, the delivery and mastication of the food is viewed as better suited for their behavioral satisfaction and dental health, respectively.
The raw-food naysayers are equally firm in their opposition, citing the lack of evidence to support these health claims while offering up a wide range of potential pitfalls: gastrointestinal obstruction, severe bacterial infections, zoonosis (the spread of disease to humans) and a high rate of dental fractures. They scorn the assertion that dogs and cats require the raw foods they once consumed in the wild given their adaptation to cooked human foods over these recent millennia.
The non-committal answer to the debate seems pretty simple to me: To each his own. Do what works for your pet. I’ve been holding firm to that stance these last few months, where before that time I might have been counted among the BARF diet’s detractors—though never a staunch one, I must admit.
But a vet shouldn’t be so wishy-washy on the subject I came to believe. After all, we’re talking about potentially major health concerns on both sides of the aisle. It’s not only within a vet’s purview to research BARF diets and develop an informed opinion, it’s practically an imperative given that at least a few of our clients are likely to try raw feeding.
Problem is, there’s not a lot of research for the average vet to look into. The handful of scholarly papers I uncovered (sourced only from peer-reviewed journals) relied on tiny, barely significant studies or on case studies from shocking, raw-food-gone-wrong nightmare cases.
In view of the scarce array of scientific information, it’s no wonder most vets fear and loathe raw food. It’s not because we’re in bed with the pet food companies (though some of us admittedly are). It’s not because we’d rather have more sick pets to treat (as some crack-pot conspiracy theorists insultingly opine). Rather, it’s more to do with the following points:
1-There’s little research and what we do have focuses on the negative as the positives here are inherently difficult to prove. Food-borne encephalitis, on the other hand, is an awful lot sexier (to us, anyway).
2-We weren’t schooled in raw feeding and the little clinical training in nutrition we do have isn’t an ideal basis for extrapolating what we know about commercial diets to raw foods’ effects.
3-If we don’t have solid research backing us up and the standard of care is to feed cooked foods, every time we recommend raw we put ourselves out on the firing line for a lawsuit. (“My puppy is dead and I have $7,000 in vet bills from the specialist because you didn’t tell me he could get this sick from eating the food you recommended.”)
It’s no wonder we don’t spend more of our time and energy trying to convert the world to a diet that may well be beneficial in a majority of cases. In fact, there’s no statistically significant, peer-reviewed research demonstrating that there’s any benefit to feeding this way. Sure, it makes some sense that it might be better than what we can do with cooked foods, but the anecdotal findings of a small but growing community of raw feeders isn’t enough to sway the medical establishment.
And that’s what troubles me most about raw: All this high-volume back and forth is not a healthy environment for change and improvement. Research can’t flourish when each side protects its position with a passion sufficient to ensure that any observation will typically serve to support whatever side it’s on. My investigations into this subject may be weak, but on that score I’m pretty clear.
For those of you truly dedicated to the advancement of pet nutrition in general (all of you reading this) the best place to vent your energies is at the level of your local vet and your vet schools. If you believe in what you feed your pet, impress upon your vet the extent to which you believe his stellar health reflects your methods. And support clinical nutrition training in vet schools—we need it!
Though I still plead the case for my school’s biochemically based nutrition coursework (I was not taught by a Hill’s rep, as I’ve read that others have been), clinical training in small animal nutrition still has far to go in my alma mater (the University of Pennsylvania) as in all the rest. There are some notable exceptions where more ambitious strides are in the works (UC Davis comes to mind based on some recent press) but these pockets of clinically relevant nutrition research and training are still isolated. What’s more, they’re miniscule relative to the size of the pet food industry and fall way short of the pet-owning public’s demand.
Do your best to make a bigger splash by writing letters that reference larger issues like the pet food recall, not your specific feeding preferences. And don’t add fuel to the fire of this debate. Make your point one pet, one letter, one vet, one support group, one coalition at a time…with a view to getting to the bottom of whether raw (or any other feeding method) is right (or not)—not by proving that all you want is to advance a particular position.
I think I’ve said enough for one day, except for this: I still know next to nothing on raw vs cooked. Are those wolves on my heels? Time to feed my dogs.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
I saw this article recently and thought it had some important implications for the pet food industry: http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/foods-not-specific-...
Have you heard the recent rumblings about the FDA possibly setting standards for premade raw pet food companies at a level so high that they'll be unreachable? Let me know and I'll send you a letter I got from the North American Raw Petfood Association... they're looking for support from vets who have experience with raw fed patients.
I believe there is merit in both diets but I do not know where to start as far as balancing a thoughtful, researched diet. I do know that a female GS that has had sebaceous and GOK other tumors hanging off her skin sloughed them within 3 weeks of me cooking! THEY FELL OFF! This female has had cryo surgery over the years.
I DO believe that there are numerous ways to treat illnesses.
Many of these treatments may not be embraced at this time.. My motto is to keep an open mind.
One thing that does concern me is the amount of corn, wheat, and soy products in processed dog foods. (I'm allergic to soy and corn, so it is a major concern of mine. See the movie King Corn to see how much corn is everywhere ...)
Why don't I give him raw meat? Well, there is this organism called e. coli that worries me in the food supply with current manufacturing techniques being what they are.
-- steamed, mashed yams
-- grass-fed course ground Dexter beef, brought back from my friend's Texas cattle ranch
-- pureed organic dandelion greens
-- whole milk yoghurt
-- wild salmon oil
plus Glycoflex and live digestive enzymes.
For dinner, it's raw grass-fed buffalo knuckles (known source, also brought back from Texas) for a while under supervision, and then those go in the trash.
Often they get crock-pot "stew" -- cooked meat, grains and veggies. Sometimes raw turkey and chicken necks, consumed under close supervision. Sometimes a commercial raw food. I have a BIG freezer, and it's always full.
For me, it's not a raw v. cooked debate, but rather about feeding a wide variety of fresh whole foods as often as possible. When I travel, when I'm on deadline or when I'm sick, they eat a high-quality non-raw commercial food. That happens a LOT, and I don't stress about it.
What did *I* have for breakfast? A cuppa coffee and the Sunday New York Times. Hmmmmm.
First, I wanted to correct you on something (though I'm sure some will disagree with me): dogs are carnivores. They're not obligate carnivores like cats, but they're carnivores nonetheless (many call them "opportunistic" carnivores). One only has to look at the teeth, jaw structure, and digestive system of a dog to see that they're much further towards the "meat" end of the scale than the "plant" end. Not to mention, dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) are a subspecies of gray wolves (Canis lupus), and I'm pretty sure that no will argue that the vast majority of a wolf's diet is animal-based. That's not to say that dogs can't survive on plant matter--they are great opportunists and scavengers after all--but they certainly can't thrive without a diet based on meat. This page gives a very convincing argument in relation to this issue:
http://www.rawfed.com/myths/omnivores.html
In fact, if you haven't read through the Myths About Raw Feeding website yet, I highly recommend it. It's full of very good information, with references when possible:
http://www.rawfed.com/myths/
Along with this, you said that dogs and cats "masticate" their food. Assuming I know the correct definition of that word, it means to chew. Dogs and cats don't chew...they don't have flat molars made for chewing. They rip, tear, shred, slice, crush, cover with saliva, and then swallow. Digestion doesn't start in the mouth for them, like it does for us.
There are plenty of vets out there who support, or even advocate, raw diets. They may be taking a risk by doing so, which is sad, because (as someone else here mentioned), vets aren't held accountable if they recommend a kibble brand that makes the animal ill. But the only way people will learn, and the only way raw feeding will become more mainstream is if more vets put their necks out there, so to speak. There are advocacy groups promoting this--it mostly started with Dr. Tom Lonsdale, who wrote "Raw Meaty Bones Promote Health" and has been trying to show people the benefits of raw feeding for quite a long time now. His website is rawmeatybones.com, and the groups that work based on his principles include ukrmb.co.uk and usrmb.net (and the Yahoo! Group "RawMeatyBones").
There is no doubt in my mind that a raw diet based on nature's model (a whole prey animal) is the ideal diet for our pet carnivores. However, obviously there are lots of people who disagree with me. I don't think many of their arguments have much merit, except perhaps in the case of a dog with a digestive problem that makes them unable to break down nutrients (and bacteria) properly.
I think part of the issue is that vets generally only take into account the fact that a dog is eating a raw diet if the animal is sick. And there are many vets who immediately blame the diet for any tiny thing that's wrong, unfortunately. The owners of those hundreds of thousands of dogs and cats (or more) that are eating raw with no problem generally don't bring up the diet when they go to the vet. Perhaps that a mistake on our part...we need to show the vets that there are plenty of dogs that do wonderfully. However, I know that I personally haven't told my vet what Fudge eats because I'm afraid of backlash...I've heard way too many stories of people getting lectures (or worse, yelled at) for feeding the way they do. Of course, not all vets are this way, but it's hard to know who is vehemently against it and who is okay with it.
I know that many of us often end up going to vets that we know already support raw feeding (these are often holistic vets), and as a result, there aren't many anti-raw vets learning the positive aspects of the diet. I'm not sure what to do about that, honestly. Many don't want a vet that doesn't know anything about the diet they're feeding, because then questions can't be asked about it. So I think vets do have some obligation to learn more about it on their own.
Okay, I think I've rambled on long enough here...I'm not sure I had a point, but hopefully something came through. :) Oh yeah, and I wanted to point out that the Yahoo! "rawfeeding" group has over 10,000 members now. Considering only a tiny fraction of the world's raw feeding population is on that group, and most members have more than one dog...that's a lot of dogs and cats (and ferrets!) successfully eating raw.
Oh, and I may have mentioned this before, but if you (or anyone else reading) are interested in learning more, I highly recommend browsing through the Raw Food Diet forum on Dogster sometime. There's lots of knowledgeable people there, without too many of the militant types that you often find in Yahoo! groups.
That's a pretty strong endorsement of a raw diet, but Dr. Pion does (or at least did ... I'm pretty sure he still does) feed his own pets a commercial diet. Which suggests it's all pretty open for discussion, wouldn't you say?
In the '80s, as a researcher at the University of California, Davis, Dr. Pion discovered a link between taurine deficiency in commercial cat food and dilated cardiomyopathy, which at the time was killing 100,000 cats a year. The peer-reviewed article made the cover of the prestigious journal Science and is still considered one of the most important discoveries EVER in veterinary research.
His work led to the reformulation of cat foods, which did NOT make the pet-food industry happy at the time. Dr. Pion was also fearless during the pet-food recall last year. As head of the Veterinary Information Network (VIN.com), he's known for insisting on seeing the science, and what he says is what he thinks, unvarnished. Never met anyone in my life who cares less about what other people think
He's not against a home-prepared diet, and he's not against a commercial one.
It's all food for thought, far as I'm concerned.
Dr. Patty, you are a gem. You know that there's always more to learn, and you never close your mind. If I were in Miami, I'd beat a path to your door with my critters.
Thank you for bringing up this subject.
I'm dreading telling my vet(s) that one of my cats is on raw and the other may be going raw as well.
I can be very long-winded, so please forgive the ramble that follows...
One of my cats has been in and out of the hospital for what started out as not eating well and constipation. Well, on three occasions, she pooped out some foreign material (strings and feathers). The vets said it was pica, probably caused by a nutrient deficiency. A couple of them wanted to put her on Hill's w/d, while another just said as long as it's Science Diet, Iams, or Eukanuba, it should be fine because they are nutritionally "balanced".
Then vomiting started, which prompted another trip to the hospital. The vet called that night saying she thought it might be food allergies (some scabs on the face though it may be from a tussle with the other cat). Now here's one thing that bugged me...I left the food I'm comfortable feeding with the vet...no by-products, none of the other ingredients I'm uncomfortable with. So she had food that she could have been feeding until I could be reached with her new plan. Instead, she took it upon herself to just give her a different food (Royal Canin rabbit and pea) and *then* called me after. I should probably have said that I would prefer she'd contacted me first, but I'm not one that likes confrontation. I reluctantly agreed to try the RC rabbit for a while. I realize when food allergies are suspected you want a novel protein, and, well, she'd already given her some anyway, so against my better judgment perhaps, I didn't protest.
But, I was determined to find something without the first ingredient being rabbit by-products (basically the refuse of the rabbit carcass, something I don't consider to be a good source of nutrients). So, I looked around. I found Nature's Variety raw frozen rabbit medallions, and have been giving that for a couple weeks now. She seems to be doing well so far.
I'm dreading telling the vets at the hospital this. If there is no problem and I don't have to take her back sooner, they're both due for their annuals later this month. So talking about diet will be inevitable. And I'm sure they'll have a field day with the fact I'm feeding her raw. Not only am I not feeding their recommended brand, but I'm feeding the dreaded raw. Horrors. The last few times I've been there and diet has come up, I've left wondering if I'd have a stroke due to rising blood pressure. Okay maybe not *that* bad but my blood pressure did seem to rise some. So I expect that will be the case when I take them in for their annuals.
Dr. Khuly...if I may ask your opinion from a vet's point of view; if you had a client that was going to feed their pet something that you *really* didn't want them to feed, yet they felt that would be in their pet's best interest they feed it anyway, how would you prefer the client bear the bad news to you that they will be feeding something against your recommendations?
As with any food company, they are not all the same as far as quality. I prefer Stella's because they do their own manufacturing in their own factory in Wisconsin. They use only free range meats from local farmers, which they obtain letters of guarantee from and visit regularly. They also post salmonella and e.coli test results on their website.
I am hesitant to recommend home prepared raw diets because lets face it, most people are not nutritionists. While it sounds like a good idea at the time, most people tend to slack off as time goes on. If people don't want to go the premade route, I usually tell them to try premixes like Dr.Harvey's. They have all the necessary nutrients you just add your choice of meats, either cooked or raw.
"I am hesitant to recommend home prepared raw diets because lets face it, most people are not nutritionists."
While I agree that not everyone wants to put forth the effort to learn how to feed a dog or cat properly (and there's not much we can do about those people), I also don't think it's rocket science. Most people are not nutritionists, and yet they manage to feed themselves. Once one understands the main differences between the a carnivore's and omnivore's requirements, you can take it from there. If animals (humans included) required a very specific formulated diet every single day of their lives...well, they would have gone extinct long ago. :)
The "complete and balanced" thing is very much something made up by the pet food industry. People fed their animals scraps for thousands of years before the pet food industry came about, and yet the animals thrived just fine. I'm not saying that people should just give their animals pizza and candy, but once you learn the basics it's really not hard at all. At least, not any harder than feeding a human kid. :)
Like you say, there's just too little research to back anything up. I see way too much anecdotal information. I also don't usually issues like salmonella and other disease addressed. How do we know when a product is safe to give to our pets? In fact, how much of a favor am I doing my pet if I am feeding him meat from mass-farmed, hormone-injected animals? (Forget feeding organic meats, that's just too pricey!) Then, what about animals with specific dietary needs? I'd rather feed Hill's for the rest of Sasha's life than go through another urinary tract blockage.
Heck, there are those out there who believe humans should eat raw, too.
It sounds so nice. It just needs the science to back it up.
You see, in choosing how to feed an infant, we choose between the "traditional", "old", or "natural" way - i.e. the one that was followed by just about everybody until sometime during the 20th century - and the "new", "modern", "scientifically formulated" way - infant formula. And despite the research and science involved in the latter, we still don't have anything that comes close to breastmilk. Breastmilk is still by far the healthier choice for our infants.
When it comes to our dogs (or other pets), it seems to me there's a parallel: we can choose to feed them what they've eaten for many thousands of years, or we can choose to feed them a scientifically-formulated and conveniently-packaged alternative. Do we really know so much about animal nutrition that we can confidently say that the modern alternative provides everything that a natural diet would?
What actually made this connection in my mind was recognising the similarities in how the debate is framed: mostly (including in this blog-post), people focus on the lack of research supporting the choice to feed raw - but is there adequate research to support feeding *otherwise*? And why is it the old way, the one that has kept the species alive for so long, that requires justification? Commercial foods are, after all, the new kid on the block. It's the same with breastmilk: we hear how it "reduces" the incidence of asthma or diabetes or obesity - when in fact it should be the baseline by which other feeding methods are measured, and we should be talking of how those choices "increase" the incidence of those medical problems. When we talk of raw-vs-commercial for our pets, why are we using commercial foods as the baseline?
If there is indeed research which shows that commercial diets result in healthier animals - and longer lifespans don't necessarily show that, because they are often the result of more effective treatment of problems *after* they occur - why are we not giving commercial foods to animals in zoos and similar environments? Why, given equal costs, would most of us choose meat from animals which were raised organically, grass-fed, free-range, rather than the animal raised on pellets and additives? Indeed, would any of us choose to feed a commercially-prepared, scientifically-formulated diet to our children, or ourselves, if one were available? If not, why not?
I have clients who do the BARF thing, and I alwasy make sure to talk about exactly WHAT they are doing and point out that just feeding chicken breast is not a balanced diet! I personally feed Purina, an dI don't beleive there is a single magic perfect diet that all animals will do equally on...I tell clients this when they ask for food recommendations. Every animal is a little different, and because my cat does well on Purina Pro Plan doesn't mean your cat will do equally well.
Personally, I hardly cook for myself, and I have a hard time recommending a home made diet for ME...but for clients who want to try it, I'm also willing to research recipes. I did have training in nutrition prior to vet school and we had some in vet school with Dr. Arleigh Reynolds (who has since moved on to Purina, IIRC--he absoultely did not endorse a single food or company though) but I know this is unusual.
I've recently been rethinking feeding my cat her premade diet as I've been moving to feeding myself more of a locally grown diet...it is making less sense to me that I try hard to make sure things I eat were raised within 100 miles of my home but I am OK shipping stuff made who knows where in for my cat! I do need to buy food for her today, and I'll do that, but I suspect the next time she needs food, it will be something I've whipped up in my kitchen (after as much research as possible, natch!)
That's precisely why I said that longer lifespans are not adequate as evidence that commercial diets improve pets' health. There is no evidence, as far as I know, of any causal relationship. Without research to prove a relationship, putting the two facts together is at best misleading. It would be just as meaningful to say that smoking became more popular in the 20th century and human life expectancy increased.
They do very well on it, and they enjoy the whole prey immensely. Dead mouse = best cat toy EVER as well as breakfast.
I feed a good quality kibble and raw meaty bones depending on my schedule. I am currently catless but my next one will get raw foods too.
Great topic!
Marie: I was impressed that Ann Martin doesn't do raw. I think it comes down to the no risk on the bacterial issue if I remember correctly.
Cats, now, that's another matter. Cats, unlike dogs, kept a substantial percentage of raw, fresh-killed prey in their diets until the last few decades, and in fact large numbers of them still do, even in areas where they're almost exclusively pampered pets. Given an economical and trustworthy source of whole ground mouse, vole, etc., I'd seriously consider feeding a future cat raw. Heck, I wanted to consider it during the recent recall crisis, when parts of my cats' diet, carefully established by trial and error, suddenly became unavailable. I just couldn't find anything that I both trusted and could afford.
Anyway, there is very little difference between wolves today (esp. gray wolves) and domesticated dogs - evolution hasn't made a great difference (14,000 years isn't a very long time in evolutionary terms). Domestic dogs and wolves are genetically close enough that they can produce fertile offspring. Physiologically, our pets are very little different from wolves, and have the same digestive system, so we can use what we know of wolf diets to study the natural diet of the domestic dog (and we can use the domestic dog to study some things about wolves too).
Remember, hunter-gatherers don't generally share the general modern distaste for organ meats.
2. Yes, the differences are tiny, but isn't it interesting that pariah dogs hang around human settlements and go after our garbage, as well as hunting and scavenging in the areas around our settlements. They're not moving off into real wilderness to live free and proud and eat raw exclusively.
I suspect that the reason pariah dogs hang around human settlements is that food is more easily available than in the wilderness; I'm not sure what (if any) conclusion we can draw from that behaviour about the natural diet of the dog. We already know that both wolves and dogs are opportunistic when it comes to food :-)
Dogs are not wolves. They are not a wild species held captive; they are domesticated. Their diet has for thousands (maybe millions) of years been our diet, and it that way they are omnivores, ones who eat vegetables and grains alongside meat.
I find it interesting that two posters argued that 1. Dogs are carnivores who specifically need mostly meat, and 2. Dogs have been living off our table scraps for so long and have done fine, and yet both arrived at the same dietary conclusion despite the contradiction there. I personally believe the latter, and that dogs have adapted in ways we can't know through studying wolves in the wild. (I have in fact found through my reading a Czech breed called the Chortaj, for whom a high-protein diet is discouraged as it has become used to meager table scraps for its diet throughout the breed's development.)
The science I'm asking for out of home feeding is: what? How much? For what animal? I will not buy that variety is enough when I hear vets and vet techs complaining about clients who cause deficiencies and health problems in their animals through attempts at home diet.
"At the molecular level not much changed at all: The DNA makeup of wolves and dogs is almost identical."
http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/data/2002/0...
We have selected dogs to look very different than wolves--but only on the outside. We haven't been selecting for different digestive processes, enzymes, teeth, etc. These are still the same as in wolves. I like to give the example of the panda: this is a carnivore that eats 99% bamboo. Wikipedia says: "Despite its taxonomic classification as a carnivore, the panda has a diet that is primarily herbivorous, which consists almost exclusively of bamboo. However, pandas still have the digestive system of a carnivore and do not have the ability to digest cellulose efficiently, and thus derive little energy and little protein from consumption of bamboo. The average Giant Panda eats as much as 20 to 30 pounds of bamboo shoots a day. Because pandas consume a diet low in nutrition, it is important that they keep their digestive tract full." So despite this animal eating bamboo for however many millions of years...it still has not adapted very well to eating plants. By comparison, dogs have not been eating plants for that long...on the contrary, they have been eating mostly meat.
These two articles have more information on this:
http://www.rawfed.com/myths/changed.html
http://www.rawfed.com/myths/cooked.html
The carnivore vs. omnivore thing isn't really that important to me, though, because these are human terms. There's no divisions and groups like this in nature. There's simply some things that animals are good at digesting and that they thrive on, and other things that they don't.
As long as the science says that my dog digests food in the same manner that a wolf does (from the teeth shape and jaw structure all the way down to the relatively short intestine length), I feel that it's appropriate to feed her as close to a wolf's diet as is possible.
But genetic sequence and gene expression are very different things. It's not fair to say that obviously canine digestion is identical to wolf digestion due to their similar DNA sequences, but acknowledge that there are phenotypic differences, behavioral differences, etc. Identical sequences mean identical starting point, but not identical outcome.
Whenever we select for a small number of traits, we will invariably affect other aspects of gene expression. For example, in the "tame fox" experiment, researchers started with wild foxes and selected for one trait: tameness. Within a few generations of selection, they had tamer foxes, but also ended up with foxes with floppy ears and curly tails. Temple Grandin has other examples in "Animals In Translation" of unintended behavioral consequences in farm animals selected for single traits such as leanness of meat or high egg production.
To think that we can change external traits without affecting internal anatomy or physiology is unrealistic. Did domestication, or even selection for specific breed traits, also pass on a change in gastrointestinal physiology? We can't know for sure until someone decides to do side-by-side studies on kibble-fed and raw or cooked whole-food-fed dogs.
Please, be specific.
Lis: I can't say either way, because I don't know how pandas are affected by eating meat. My guess is that there is a reason that they have the diet that they do (in the wild), though I don't know what that reason is. Perhaps it's just what is plentiful in their native habitats? Or perhaps there's something about bamboo that gives them some competitive edge in the wild, and we just don't know what that is yet. I do believe that nature generally gets things "right", in that animals in the wild are generally eating the diet that is most likely to make them successful (i.e. reproduce). We can say that wolves very much thrive on their wild diet, because they are a very successful species...or they were, until humans started killing them off. I'm not sure about pandas, except that I'm pretty darn sure they wouldn't have the diet they do unless there was a good reason, in terms of natural selection. That said, I'm pretty sure that pandas were never as successful as a species than wolves were (and are). If anything, pandas are much more negatively affected by habitat loss than wolves, simply because they are so specialized with what they eat (unlike wolves).
I would say that any wild animal should be eating what it would eat in the wild. In terms of domestic animals, I think we should use the guide of what their wild counterparts eat if we have such a model (which we do both for dogs and cats...they are both subspecies of their wild counterparts--wolves and wildcats, respectively). For humans, it's harder to say since we don't have a good model. Though I do many people who eat a Paleolithic diet, and I do believe that this sort of diet has much merit.
Honestly, I don't think we (as humans) will ever be able to do better than nature in terms of diet. Sure, we can provide safer food than nature can, both in terms of parasites and by feeding things already dead, but in terms of nutrient make-up I don't think we can beat out what nature has provided. Science is great, but there's so much that we don't know that I'm not comfortable relying on the knowledge that science has in regards to nutrition. For example, leaving taurine out of the diet of cats for so long is a huge mistake, and one that would not have been made if cats were eating whole prey.
My brands of choice are Solid Gold, Natural Balance and Merrick's. I feed mostly kibble, but I add canned for variety and flavor. Yes, I switch foods. I think one of the biggest mistakes we make with dogs is "training" their systems to just one food - then when you have to switch, the poor dog gets the runs, or at least gassy. I've found that switching foods frequently, and feeding the highest quality foods, develops tolerance and at least gives them variety.
Not that it matters to the dogs - all of mine have incredible appetites and I'm sure would enjoy a bowl of 'Ol Roy just as much Solid Gold. But the Merrick's canned foods trumps everything - they LOVE that stuff and will bounce off walls. That's not necessarily a cool thing with two pit bulls and two cattle dogs - LOL
Are you claiming that it's fine for us humans to eat McDonald's every day because we're living longer than people did back when everyone was eating homecooked meals? Diet has a huge impact on health, but rarely does a bad diet outright kill someone, especially when we have the benefit of medicine.
One question about what was said in the blog entry- "They contend that raw food contains the live enzymes our pets biologically require for optimum wellness and disease prevention"
Wouldn't any enzymes be broken down (and therefore inactivated) during digestion? The various proteases would turn them into amino acids starting in the stomach? (We are doing our D and M module right now, 2nd year UK vet student, had this lecture today). Thanks!
Alli, making your own diet for your dog or cat isn't particularly complex. You do need to know something about the differences between what they need and what we need, but making a decent diet for dog or cat is no more complex than making a decent diet for a human being, and most of us are capable of that (whether or not we choose to follow through.:)) What it is, though, is time-consuming, because you can't just make more of what you're making for the human members of the household, but have to prepare it separately--raw or cooked.
Freezing, however, does kill the vast majority of parasites. Freezing is especially important if you're going to feed raw, wild-caught salmon from the Pacific Ocean to a dog. This salmon can carry a fluke that can cause salmon poisoning in dogs. So it must either be cooked or frozen solid for a couple of weeks. Farmed salmon and salmon from other oceans does not carry this risk.
In fact, all wild-caught game meat should be frozen for a few weeks before being fed (if you're feeding it raw), since they may contain parasites. That said, game meat is a great food source. :)
Lis: I agree that "natural" is not the same thing as "good". However, I think a raw diet is good not because of some arbitrary term "natural", but because I believe (from what I've researched and learned) that it's what our dogs' bodies are built to digest the best. And how my dog has done on the diet only solidifies my beliefs.
And just FYI, there are many people who feed raw by a gorge/fast method...which means not feeding the dog every day. Dogs' stomachs are actually made to eat a whole lot of food all at once, then not much for a while after. They expand and contract very easily. This doesn't mean you starve the dog...you just don't feed exactly the same amount every day/meal. Dogs often are less hungry when they get to fill their stomachs periodically. There's an excellent article about this here:
http://www.k9joy.com/dogarticles/dogfood01stomach....
I don't object to people feeding raw. I object to the self-righteous certainty that it's obviously the BEST, indeed ONLY CORRECT way, based on the assertion that a chihuahua and a wolf have no important differences.
Agadore is my 4 yr old standard poodle. I got him when he was 6 weeks old. He started having SEVERE allergies by the time he was 9 months old. He was on Iams, Purina One, Eukenuba, and some Science Diet that was for dogs with allergies...the protein was broken down so his body wouldn't recognize it...nothing worked. He had constant ear infections, chewed his feet, and his nose dripped. The vet was worried that he may have to be put down, since he was so young to be having such bad allergies.
Then, I got on the internet. I researched raw. I talked to lots of people, breeders included, that fed raw. I decided to try it.
Agadore is 4, and hasn't had an ear infection or allergy since beginning raw. I know the diet isn't a miracle- it won't cure everything. But it sure stopped Agadore's allergies in their tracks.
Beaner, my 2 yr old rescued pit bull, is also on raw. We just got back from the vet today. They said whatever I was doing to keep it up..that he looked great. Which is funny- my vet has lectured me on raw. I made the mistake of telling my vet about feeding raw.... I got THE LECTURE. So now I just keep quiet about it, cause aside from the feeding issue, I love my vet to death.....
So I agree do what works for your pet. If raw hadn't worked, I'd have tried every other diet out there..... cause my guys are worth it...
While I'll admit there are a few I've met who do fall into the "if you're not feeding a whole prey model you're KILLING your pet" camp, I've generally found those who prepare meals from scratch (whether raw or cooked) for their pets to be interested only in the possibility that there may be a better way to feed than a processed commercial food. They are looking for information, doing research and trying their best to do what's right for their own pets, and they are constantly questioning what they're doing and why.
As I've mentioned upstream, I do a little of everything: I feed some raw, some cooked, some commercial. They also eat my pizza crusts and cat poop when they can get it.
The most important thing to take away from this is that we're all trying to do what's best, and to find what's best. There is no one magic way, for any pet or any person.
"Gina: And that's what's best about the current camp of raw/home cooking feeders. Unlike the vast majority of dog owners, raw/home cooking feeders actually THINK about what goes into their pets' food bowls--which is not to say that others don't, but rawists/hc's are generally on the ball when it comes to observing their pets' response to foods (something the vast majority of the population has allowed to go by the wayside)."
"not to say that others don't" ? Hmm. You're certainly implying something there, though.
My older cat, Retsina, was the runt of a feral litter--the only one of a large litter who, once they and mom reached the shelter, wasn't growing normally. She was also having nearly daily diarrhea. All parasites were eliminated, they ran every test they could to try to identify the problem--nothing. No explanation. At four months old she weighed only one and a half pounds, and they didn't want to let me adopt her, but I persuaded them that I was able and committed to taking on the responsibility.
Once I had her home, I was able to identify what they really couldn't at the shelter--her problem was a food intolerance. I found the limited number of foods, at that time, that didn't contain the offending foods, and her diarrhea ended. She continued to vomit more often than reasonable, and the quest continued to find the foods that would upset her least and give her the best health. This included a journey through home-cooked, but she and my other cats wouldn't eat it reliably enough for me to feel comfortable with that choice.
Fast-forward fourteen years. I've found the food mix that works best for Retsina, and also works well for my younger cat--Felidae dry and Blue Buffalo canned. And then Blue Buffalo canned gets recalled...
Back to home cooking for awhile because, ideal or not, I have to feed them something that isn't going to poison them. Still not reliable enough, though, and Retsina's fourteen. At this point, I'm willing to seriously consider raw, if I can find something I consider suitable and reliable. I can't, though, and really, would Retsina eat it? Aquavit would; when Aquavit catches a mouse, she doesn't share, and I have very little cleanup to do. When Retsina sees a mouse, she screams for me and Aquavit. And of the two, she's the less willing to eat home-cooked.
So back to the Felidae dry, with Wellness canned. Pretty good--there were years along the way, prior to finding Blue Buffalo, when I'd have been completely happy. But now I know Retsina can do better, and Blue Buffalo canned is back on the market. I start alternating cans--and there's no question which they both like better, as well as Retsina doing better on it.
Aquavit doesn't have Retsina's problems and sensitivities, and seems to do well on anything Retsina is willing to eat (well, augmented by the very occasional mouse.:)) Addy (my dog) did require some experimentation to avoid soft stools and tear stains.
But, here's the thing: no previous pet has required this much attention, research, and experimentation in order to feed them successfully. Sometimes I've had to home-cook for a while, but for short periods for specific reasons, not as part of a desperate effort to find something, anything, that that pet could eat safely as a normal diet. I think most people who either home-cook or feed raw are doing it because their pets have had significant problems that haven't been addressed successfully by other means. Raw feeders pay more attention to what's going in the bowl, not because they are more caring, attentive, concerned pet parents, but because THEIR PETS, just like Retsina, actually require that level of attention to their food. Someone whose cat is healthy, active, and strong eating Little Friskies is OF COURSE going to spend their pet-directed attention elsewhere--building a better cat tree, or investigating cat fencing maybe.
Gina: On forum elsewhere, we have peole who feed raw, feed home-cooked, feed various commercial diets. We all accept for the most part, that we're doing what works best for OUR pets, and answer questions if any but don't get pushy about it. But, every so often, we get Visited. And oddly enough, we never get Visited by home-cooking evangelists, or commercial food evangelists. By some weird, unaccountable coincidence, it's always raw-feeding evangelists. Every time.
As for diet evangelists, well, there's just as many Hills evangelists as raw food evangelists. It all depends on what a particular food has done for your pet. Diet choices come from personal experiences. The other salient factor is, that for many, preparing their own pet food is their first venture in defying authority.
Reactions to any diet can vary from animal to animal. At the age of 18, my elderly cat was diagnosed with moderate renal failure. A Hills rep emailed me suggesting I get her on their k/d and she would live longer. I didn't change her food other than to try to get a bit of cereal in there (which she refused) and she lived to the age of 20.5. How much longer can you ask a cat to live?
Requiring proof of safety, sufficiency, etc., seems to be reserved for people who formulate home prepared diets. Someone could put just as much thought into choosing a commercial food. Generally, I think they don't, though unless there's a particular health problem that needs to be addressed. As things stand now, one would assume people would be more aware of the ingredients of pet food, as commercial food can obviously be as deadly as the anti-raw people claim raw food is. The biggest factor, for me, is that I can't control the ingredients in a commercial diet, and as we all now know, perhaps not all the ingredients are on the bag or can. Whether you buy that bag/can or make your own pet food, the buck stops at your desk.
And as for the wolf thing, wild dogs and wolves will eat whatever they can get their paws on. Whether they thrive or not as a pack depends on whether the environment supplies sufficient required nutrients to successfully breed and produce viable, healthy pups. Size of territory, diseases, parasites, having enough members of a pack to make a kill all play a factor in survival. Wolves or wild dogs born with congenital problems don't make it. These kinds of issues have nothing to do with any kind of particular food, but the difference in wild vs. pet, on their own vs. cared for. In the end their innards are the same. Wolves require the same list of amino acids as dogs do.
Whether or not your dog does well on a particular food depends on the invididual and to a certain extent the results of inbreeding inherent in a particular breed - like Dalmatians and purines or certain breed prediliction to pancreatitis or familial hyperlipidemia. This has nothing to do with basic diet requirements of a dog, only the results of our tinkering.
Dr Patty - excellent blog. I enjoy your views/experiences even though I don't always agree, but you make your point and your experiences are insightful.
What I wish the veterinary profession would do is a. open their mind to raw or "BARF" and b. get some research going.
Having to reject the commercial pet foods can be stressing, but for those well-meaning intrepid pet owners, I can only offer a nudge into the raw direction. Don't let anyone tell you there is a "right" way and a "wrong" way. There is none. Done't let anyone tell you you can't provide a "balanced diet". Most of us humans do not eat a "balanced diet". As long as you feed human-grade meats and vegetables and keep the diet varied, or as varied as you can, your furry companion will be fine. In my case, my cat is intolerant to some meats (beef, venison, lamb) and just doesn't like others (egg), I also found out he is grain intolerant (big time!) and can only tolerate miniscule amounts of precooked vegetable matter. I often joke that I have an obligate carnivore as a pet, but in reality he is more "strict carnivore".
I use an allopathic vet for general health issues (rare), but since going raw, health issues have been few. I've noticed no eye discharge, cleaner teeth, mellower personality, more affectionate, lush/luxurious coat, small stool with little odor, and for a cat looking at 11 years old, he acts and looks kittenish. I can't tell the allopathic vet my cat is raw feed. They are against it. Which is unfortunate they (partnership) have taken that opinion.
If I ever adopt another furry companion, I would likey continue with raw feeding. It's as nature intended.
BTW, my favorite scenario is (when asked about raw feeding - so I find the vole in the blender amusing as well!), "...If a cat is outdoors hunting and catches a bird/chipmunk/mouse, it doesn't whip out a Zippo(TM) lighter, start a fire and roast it. It rips off the feathers/fur and eats it raw, regurgitating what it can't digest." Most people start to smile imaging a cat with a Zippo(TM) lighter. I wonder why? :-)
>Wouldn't any enzymes be broken down (and therefore inactivated) during >digestion? The various proteases would turn them into amino acids starting >in the stomach? (We are doing our D and M module right now, 2nd year >UK vet student, had this lecture today). Thanks!
# Posted By Alli | 11/14/07 3:35 PM
I think that's a great point, although some enzymes are quite resistant to acid hydrolysis. Also, cats and dogs produce their own enzymes (digestive, metabolic etc), and it's unlikely they need top-up from dietary sources, even if that were possible.
While there may be good reasons for raw food diets, I think the "enzymes" argument is not one.
Before I thought all cat food was good enough. That there was no differences between wet and dry. That cat food companies could be trusted to sell products that were healthy to cats. Well I had one who was overweight and diabetic and two who had urinary issues.
I started the raw, and haven't had another urinary problem with my cats. Unfortunately my diabetic cat came down with cancer, so she's not a good example, but many a cat who go on a good quality canned food that is high in protein and low in carbs - or on a raw diet - go into remission from diabetes. The right diet seems to hold promise for a lot of other issues too. Obesity, IBD, just to name a few. Not that it is 100%, but it does hold promise.
"Pets are just as susceptible to the bacteria and parasites in raw meat as humans are."
"A veterinary neurologist told me the other day that they have seen an increase in seizure disorders in dogs and cats caused by toxoplasmosis, especially in areas where raw meat diets are trendy."
Not to mention her careful wording of the "studies" she uses in her examples. A perfect sample is the study that tested three homemade raw diets and two commercial diets. Several of them were found to be "unbalanced." However, she never specifies which ones. In fact, commercial raw providers offer guaranteed analysis of their foods as well, and as the owner of an AAFCO manual I have yet to find one that doesn't meet AAFCO's requirements for 100% complete and balanced nutrition!
Even Ann's first book was poorly done, focusing on the rendering process rather than the science behind why processed food of any quality will never measure up to fresh foods raw or cooked.
For a more balanced opinion, check out "See Spot Live Longer."
We had a dog, got him as a pup, a true mixture. He was fed table scraps which he loved, and otherwise he ate whatever wild things he could catch, and he was good at catching. He was energetic, well-behaved, loving and protective, and had the most gorgeous, glossy coat though never brushed. And was never ill. He waited beside the highway each afternoon for our school bus, and died age 9 years when an idiot swerved way off the road to hit him on purpose.
How he was fed was probably the norm in the dim past when most people lived outside urban areas. A dog in a city home couldn't survive as our dog did. I'm planning to get a dog now that I'm retired, and plan to have extensive discussions with the vet on feeding. I hope he/she will be well-informed, because I'm not!
Despite the claims, it’s never obvious that the raw diet actually improves the health of a pet, but it’s usually very obvious when there’s a bad outcome from a raw meat diet (food poisoning, bones getting lodged in the GI tract, etc).
So what you get are people advocating a lifestyle with known, proven risks, but no proven benefits. Based on the website rawfed.com and from the different forums where the arguments are taking place, many (not all, of course) of these people are dishonest conspiracy theorists with a feeling of entitlement, who spend most of the time refuting arguments against them instead of providing evidence in favor.
These are the tactics and attitudes of cranks, frauds, and fundamentalists. This is why I'm extremely skeptical of the raw food diet. If you want to convince me, drop the conspiracy theory, and get some scientific research done. I will gladly switch my pets to such a diet if it truly proves to be better than the expensive kibble their on right now. Until then, I’m not going to experiment on my pets for no reason.
I've been reading up on all of this lately, and I wrote a little essay about it: http://cyborgsuzy.livejournal.com/33012.html#cutid...
My dogs ate mainly chicken leg quarters for dinner and mixed veggies and other goodies including bananas (because we all know that bananas are a typical food for wolves, right? ROFL), for breakfast, and they were models of good health. My little (35lb) American Eskimo dog, a breed notorious for having tear streaks, had beautiful clear eyes after I started her on the diet, and my BC/AS had a nice clean coat with no dry skin flakes. They both had such beautifully clean teeth that the vet, who was dead set against the diet and wanted me to feed my dog cooked venison and sweet potato, (as if I could afford that on an academic's budget) thought I brushed their teeth every day.
Alas, I had to quit feeding them the BARF diet about five years back, mainly because buying 100lbs. of chicken leg quarters in 10 pound bags and reportioning them for freezing was too much even for my wonderful husband to take, and I am the one with the aversion to raw meat. Ugh.
Now they eat premium dog foods. My Eskie has urinary tract issues, so she is on a prescription diet, and we were finally able to find a hypoallergenic dog food that doesn't make my BC/AS itchy. Their teeth are not nearly as pretty any more though, and their breath is killer awful. The Eskie has those typical tear stains, too, along with tooth decay from all that food that stays on their teeth.
I'm not a raw food fanatic, as evidenced by my switch back and forth, but I clearly saw benefits from it in my own non-scientific little world.
It's also true what other people say: As a vet I get to deal with the negative sides of feeding raw diets (9 Rottweiler pups dead after feeding salmonella infected raw diet) but hardly get to hear the positive sides. This makes me hesitant about recommending anything else than a commercial diet.
The "it's not that hard to feed a dog a balanced diet as long as you can feed yourself properly" argument leaves me a bit scared as I think large numbers of people are suffering from MALnutrition. A lot of people are NOT able to feed themselves a healthy balanced diet.
All in all a very interesting subject and I think an eye opener for a lot of vets. In my personal opinion it is always nice to have alternatives. A mentioned above: no 2 animals are the same and there is no such thing as THE perfect diet.