Hiya

I know that there have been a few posts recently regarding the BARF diet, but I wanted to get this off my chest as it has been bugging me!

I feed both of my dogs the barf diet and have only one kinda problem and that is getting them to eat whole chicken wing, so I chop them up into big chucks and they only have wings twice a month and even then the wings have to be cover in tuna before they will eat them.

Well my oldest dog was very sick went I got in from work so I took him straight to the vets and when the vet asked what I feed him I innocently told him "barf", well by the way he reacted you would of though I told him I feed him poison then give him a good kicking around the garden! He then decided that he was ill coz of chickens bones even though I repeatedly told him that he has not had any for a 1 ½ weeks!!
The visit ended with him telling me to think about changing his diet and bring him back tomorrow.  The next morning I was seen by a different vet and I had the same reaction! When I told her that I have had no problem with the diet since I have started feeding him it and that infact he has stopped clearing rooms with his smelly wind passing, she was very surprised and told me that recently a lot of dogs have come into that vets with problems coz of this diet and that even thought dogs use to eat raw meat, we had domesticated them since then and I should think about cooking the meat first and adding a complete dry food to it!!!!

I am sorry to go on but this has really upset me, I feel like because they are trained professionals that I am totally in the wrong for feeding this diet! Do most of the vets think this way?? Has anyone else had this problem??

At the end of the day, does it really matter what the vet thinks of your diet for the dog. Its 'you' choice at the end of the day.

For example, im a smoker, I can go to the doctors with a broken toe, lets say. She would still ask me if I smoked and it would be more painful because I was a smoker. If your vet isnt educated on BARF, its a quick and easy excuse to blame every ailment onto. I was a bit cagey about the barf diet, but I done some research (which isnt hard, lets face it) and decided to give it a try. I have never looked back. Gonzo looks alot better, no smelly farts, breath etc, cot heaps better, plus, he enjoys it more :D

Also, Gonzo is a bit funny about chicken wings, I have to cut the meat of, and leave the striped bone and meat on the same plate, then he'll eat it. If its Lamb or Pork ribs however, they dont touch the sides ;)

Dont listen to your vet with regards to diet, as far as I know, vets are not dieticians. It is up to you to make an educated decision on feeding, which im sure you did do. Tell the vet straight that you're happy with his diet, and dont need a lecture on it. :D

I have a smashing vet ..lovely chap but even HE is the same when I mention BARF lolol I guess they don't get paid a percentage with BARF whereas they do with the food they sell in their practises ;)

There must BE some vets out there who agree with BARF ..but I have yet to meet one :D

Oh and I agree with what Gonzo said ..as a smoker I *know* that anything that is wrong with me is ALWAYS far worse because I smoke ;)

My Vet doesn't give a monkeys what you feed as long as the dog and you are happy with it.  A Vet that reacted like that would get a sharp reply from me, how rude!
Dawn.

Most vets have no knowledge of raw feeding or pet nutrition at all.  People fear what they don't understand.

No need to get upset, just nod, agree with everything he says, and then leave the building and carry on as normal.

Remember YOU are the customer, the vet is there to diagnose and treat illness; unless he is qualified in nutrition there is no more reason to take any notice of him in this department than if he was going to give you training tips (IME) :D

Tohme,

My vet as well as a few others in my area have had experience in treating dogs who are fed BARF - mainly surgical experience because of impacted or stuck raw bones.  They also claim to have treated dogs for salmonella and various other stomach ailments resulting coming from raw meat. Although I have no idea how they think they can pinpoint where a bug came from - it was just as likely to come from some unmentionable whatever the dog ate in their own garden. 

I am not anti-BARF, I am anti feeding any kind of bones that a dog can ingest, cooked (especially) and raw.  I haven't heard anyone on this site mention it, but in the U.S. many of the people who feed BARF use a grinder to grind the bones so they cannot cause a problem. 

I would not ask my vet about dog nutrition either, however. What mine know wouldn't fit in the smallest bag of Science Diet they sell.  :-)

Stacey

Ditto Stacey, though I am anti-BARF. IMO BARF is a quasi-religious crusade not a diet, it is totally unproven and neither the inventor(s) nor the owners who feed it have the facilities for research or the availability of properly trained canine nutritionists that the dog food companies have.

My biggest concern about BARF isn't infection or even bone ingestion, it is about getting the balance right especially, for large/giant puppies and IMHO few if any hobby breeders have the ability or facilities to do that correctly. I am old enough to have fed a home-made (cooked) diet before BARF was invented. It worried me then and now I prefer to let the dog food companies do the worrying about puppy nutrition.

We used to see so many bone / growth abnormalities in the big breeds, including those bred by very experienced breeders, that the less extreme cases were passed as more or less normal and many went on to do well in the show ring. The wonky forelegs just about disappeared when home made diets fell out of fashion, but I sadly expect to see them back as more people become instant home canine nutritionists on the basis of a couple of popular paperbacks.

My vets - who don't sell dog food of any variety - dislike BARF because, like yours, they have seen some of the results. Not that BARF crusaders take any notice of that!

Rant mode off!

Jas - do you eat a balanced diet in one meal...Didn't think so!  A diet is balanced over numerous meals and over a period of time.  I started my bitch on kibble when she was a pup.  I couldn't help but notice the cereal/starch content (dogs do not contain amylase in heir saliva and therefore not adapted to breakdown starches,) additives and sugars to name only a few   Does a dog really need this commercial 'balanced' diet full of fillers E numbers and general rubbish?  No was my simple answer and therefore researched a more biological appropriate diet for my dog - I now feed raw meaty bones, muscle meat, eggs, offal and fish and my dog has never been so keen at mealtimes and never looked better!
You dont INVENT a boilogically appropriate food - who invented grass for horses??  There are many vets who wholeheartedly approve 'BARF' as you call it and others that think its bad news because your dog may sustain injury as a result of this diet, goodness if I removed everything in my dog's life that could possibly cause an injury I would have one unhappy dog, wrapped in cotton wool.
If the vets are honest they see more illness as a result of crap commercial diets than they do 'barf' - but hey, they dont want to put themselves out of business - all that scurfy skin and those bad teeth ££££££££
Sarah
PS CJ1 - I would recommend you do some research and make up your own mind, because if my vet spoke to me like that I would be taking my business (which of course it is to most of them) elsewhere!

"do you eat a balanced diet in one meal...Didn't think so!"

No, but I'm not as fit as I expect my dogs to be. Nor am I growing at the rate of a large/giant puppy or youngster under ~10 months.

"dogs do not contain amylase in heir saliva"

No mammalian species depends on saliva for digestion. The digestive action of saliva is minimal.

"You dont INVENT a boilogically appropriate food"

No, but the acronym - which has meant different things at different times - was invented by Dr Billinghurst who as far as I know has no post-graduate or nutritional qualifications.

"who invented grass for horses??"

Do horses live by grass alone? I don't know of many well cared for ones that do these days.

"There are many vets who wholeheartedly approve 'BARF'

I don't know one but would be very happy to discuss the diet with any vet who is wholeheartedly pro-BARF that you can put me in contact with.

"your dog may sustain injury as a result of this diet, goodness if I removed everything in my dog's life that could possibly cause an injury I would have one unhappy dog, wrapped in cotton wool."

I wouldn't want a miserable cottonwool wrapped dog. Nor do I want a completely avoidable mouth/GIT perforation. Or a litter of puppies with crooked legs.

"If the vets are honest they see more illness as a result of crap commercial diets than they do 'barf' - but hey, they dont want to put themselves out of business - all that scurfy skin and those bad teeth ££££££££"

Why such distrust of the veterinary profession? I accept that most of the tales I've heard about ill effects of BARF type diets are anecdotal though it's hard to mistake an impaction due to bone fragments or a lump of bone sticking through the GIT wall as anything else, and more and more reports of BARF related problems are finding their way into the peer reviewed literature. Can you accept that stories about "illness as a result of crap commercial diets" are at least as anecdotal? As are tales of "scurfy skin and those bad teeth" in dogs not fed on BARF.

In my experience some breeds are more prone to tartar than others, probably because of the shape of their mouths, as are some individuals either for the same reason or because they have never developed much of a chewing habit. Again IME it makes precious little difference what such breeds/individuals are fed. I have however seen teeth worn down to stubs in a commercial breeding establishment that fed a form of BARF (because it was cheap in the form given, not for any nutritional reasons).

My vet doesn't make any £££££££s treating my lean, well groomed, well fed, well exercised dogs for scurfy skin because none of them has it. And they don't make any ££££££££s by scaling bad teeth because I do it myself for the odd oldie who needs it. But then my practice may be weird. No doubt the vets are interested in ££££££££s but they are interested in animal welfare and care too.

So a balanced diet = fitness.  Digestion of starch doesn't begin in the mouth for many, many mammals including humans.  BARF was 'invented' by Billinghurst.  Horses cant live on grass alone.  No vet approves of raw feeding.  All raw feeders will get a perforated gut wall.  I distrust vets.  Consider tartar when choosing a breed. 
:D  Thanks, if anything you have given me a laugh tonight - and your responce only reinforces the fact I am doing the right thing by feeding raw.  I feel you need to reserach your argument a little more - then I may actually think about respecting your opinion on this subject :)
Sarah 

I think what we really need to remeber here is that Vets ARE NOT CANINE NUTRITIONISTS they wil only have had a day or 2 I beleive it is about this sdubjecxt in their training, and the talks are given to them by oine of the dog food manufacturers.

Vets are trained to identify and treat injury and disease, pure and simple.

They are not experts in breeding, training, breed standards or any of the things many people think they must be.

Vets may not be canine nutritionists (is there some sort of qualification?) and may only study the subject lightly during their initial course but like all graduates their learning will not stop there.  Not only are they highly intelligent people, they have a good understanding of anatomy and physiology, see the good and back results of nutrition on a daily basis and therefore are likely to have an interest in the subject, have access to peer reviewed veterianary press and professional seminars and, I would imagine, even conection to t'interweb and therefore can trawl through all the psuedo science along with the rest of us:) if they so wish.  All in all I have always felt them likely to be at least as informed as anyone else.

BARF a quasi religious crusade?

I don't think so, just a return to what is species appropriate, the same thing we have seen in human nutrition by people eventually realising that eating a diet of processed food is not a healthy one.   It is a fact that animals do best on species appropriate food.

Unproven?

hehehhe  Hmmm, correct me if I am wrong but I think dogs were eating raw food several thousand years before the advent of processed commercial dog food which did not arrive until the middle of the 20th century!

Invented?

Now who was it that invented the Koala Bear diet, the Panda diet et al?  Oh yes I remember, God! :D

Balance right?

Extremely easy to do, no need for a white coat or a degree in animal science.  You just need to know what an animal needs, where it comes from and feed it!  Loads of books can tell you eg Vitamin A comes from Liver and Egg yolks, Vitamin C from fresh fruit and veg.

It is incredible isn't it?  What is even more incredible is that most of us manage to feed ourselves and our families with no degrees in human nutrition?  Gasp

Oh, and are these the same scientists that recommended feeding dead poultry to our cows?  Fantastic, it just shows what a trained nutritionist/research can achieve, and in such small amount of time.  One gasps at such technical prowess!

I think you will find that the reason behind most growth abnormalities in the past was the obsession in adding calcium to everything, which is completely negated by feeding raw (as opposed to cooked) foods as bones provide the calcium in an appropriate manner.

I am sure that there are dogs in the vets due to problems with raw feeding, just as there are with those who have problems from commercial diets, choking on balls, corn on the cobs, tape etc etc etc

I am surprised that you don't know of many well cared for horses that are not well cared for on grass alone?  There are thousands of them all over the UK and millions more all over the world; horses need supplementation only when required to expend more calories than provided by grass!

I have not seen any litters with malformed legs etc raised on raw feeding, but I HAVE seen quite a few raised by "conventional" methods by "established" breeders who still give supplements!

Rant away, some of us prefer a more logical and reasoned approach! :)

I believe, and have often posted on here, that people should feed the diet they are comfortable with and which suits their dogs.  If and when they want to explore the raw route to equip themselves with the appropriate information, research on the web, talk to experienced exponents and make up their own mind.

I find it quite interesting that it is the Commercial Food companies that need to advertise, not the raw feeders and that converts come to us, we don't go out proselytising to others.  After all, if you think about it, it is against our interests for others to "come over" so to speak as it seriously impacts on our sources! :D :D

"BARF a quasi religious crusade?

I don't think so, just a return to what is species appropriate, the same thing we have seen in human nutrition by people eventually realising that eating a diet of processed food is not a healthy one.   It is a fact that animals do best on species appropriate food."

Which begs the question 'what is a species appropriate food?' We know the nutrients dogs require and the correct balance for calcium / phosphorous etc. I doubt that anyone disputes those. But BARF isn't about nutrients it seems to be all about ingredients which is not the same thing at all.

"Unproven?

hehehhe  Hmmm, correct me if I am wrong but I think dogs were eating raw food several thousand years before the advent of processed commercial dog food which did not arrive until the middle of the 20th century!"

Yes, unproven. The small amount of scientific research that has been done has shown problems with BARF style diets. I can look them up if you like but as far as I remember one study showed that 80% of home prepared raw meat diets contained E.coli and 30% of BARF fed dogs shed E.coli and another examined various raw diets and found them all to be seriously unbalanced.  Alabama rot in greyhounds shows what E.coli can do, though admittedly it is associated with meat that is not fit for human consumption. I'm not aware of any research to show that the claimed benefits of BARF are anything more than claims.

Canids have indeed been eating raw food in the form of whole carcases including GIT contents for a long time. But canine ancestors and wild canids today do not live as long as we hope our domesticated dogs will. I doubt that anyone would deny that dogs now live longer than they did 30 years ago despite the advent of "crap commercial diets". Or could it possibly be at least in part because of them?

"Invented?

Now who was it that invented the Koala Bear diet, the Panda diet et al?  Oh yes I remember, God!"

But God did not invent BARF, write pop science books about it, proselytize for it and popularise it. God doesn't give away freezers to BARF distributors or sell BARF patties & supplements. God doesn't charge $39.00 p/a to use his website. God doesn't advertise consultations at  $75.00 for the first half hour and then $45.00 per subsequent half hour. And if God did I doubt that he would have a rider in very, very small type saying "Note: God assumes no medical responsibility for decisions made based on information dispensed during your consultation. It is the responsibility of each individual to confer with their personal veterinarian before making any medical decisions." In fact I don't know of any vet who does not assume medical responsibility for the information (s)he gives. But Dr BARF does all of those things.

Balance right?

Extremely easy to do, no need for a white coat or a degree in animal science.  You just need to know what an animal needs, where it comes from and feed it!  Loads of books can tell you eg Vitamin A comes from Liver and Egg yolks, Vitamin C from fresh fruit and veg.

It is incredibly difficult to do, especially for fast growing pups & youngsters. Even Dr Billinghurst has said so in his less guarded moments

"It is incredible isn't it?  What is even more incredible is that most of us manage to feed ourselves and our families with no degrees in human nutrition?  Gasp"

Gasp indeed! Dietary factors are well up there with smoking and alcohol as a major cause of human ill health. Obesity is a major problem for both humans and dogs. Mars bars have recently been shrunk because of it. In fact human health would probably be a good deal better if the only food we had available was carefully researched and well balanced human kibble.

Oh, and are these the same scientists that recommended feeding dead poultry to our cows?  Fantastic, it just shows what a trained nutritionist/research can achieve, and in such small amount of time.  One gasps at such technical prowess!

From the Institute of Animal Health :

Why did BSE occur?

There is no clear answer to this as there were probably several factors involved.  These include the fact that:

* the UK has a large population of sheep in which scrapie is a common disease

* there were changes taking place in the rendering processes used to produce meat-and-bone meal

* the demands on the dairy industry resulted in larger quantities of meat-and-bone meal being fed to cattle.

It is possible that the combination of these factors resulted in an initial infection in cattle that was then recycled through meat-and-bone.

Feeding meat-and-bone meal to cattle and sheep was banned in July 1988.

It is possible that the combination of these factors resulted in an initial infection in cattle that was then recycled through meat-and-bone meal.

No doubt there were scientists involved in the manufacture of the cattle feed but that is not a reason to abandon science. Everyone accepts that the scientific method is imperfect but it's better than anything else we have.

I think you will find that the reason behind most growth abnormalities in the past was the obsession in adding calcium to everything, which is completely negated by feeding raw (as opposed to cooked) foods as bones provide the calcium in an appropriate manner.

I agree that supplementation was a problem and became more of a problem when people insisted on continuing to supplement when they moved over to complete foods. But having tried very hard to balance the Calcium: Phosphorus in a cooked home made diet in the past - and having never felt confident that I succeeded - I find it hard to believe that you can do it by adding some chicken wings and necks.

I am sure that there are dogs in the vets due to problems with raw feeding, just as there are with those who have problems from commercial diets, choking on balls, corn on the cobs, tape etc etc etc

There now, and I thought raw diets cured everything :D

I am surprised that you don't know of many well cared for horses that are not well cared for on grass alone?  There are thousands of them all over the UK and millions more all over the world; horses need supplementation only when required to expend more calories than provided by grass!

The lucky horses you know must all be native breeds or have a lot of excellent pasture to rotate through if they don't even need to be given hay.

I have not seen any litters with malformed legs etc raised on raw feeding, but I HAVE seen quite a few raised by "conventional" methods by "established" breeders who still give supplements!

I'm surprised that any decent breeder still supplements when feeding a complete diet but I'm not surprised if they are getting malformed legs. I've not seen pups raised on BARF type diets with bone/joint abnormalities but then I don't know many breeders who use BARF. The possibility does worry me however and I find it incredible that BARF advocates do not seem to accept the possibility that their diets could be unbalanced.

Rant away, some of us prefer a more logical and reasoned approach!

I prefer that approach myself.

I believe, and have often posted on here, that people should feed the diet they are comfortable with and which suits their dogs.  If and when they want to explore the raw route to equip themselves with the appropriate information, research on the web, talk to experienced exponents and make up their own mind.

I find it quite interesting that it is the Commercial Food companies that need to advertise, not the raw feeders and that converts come to us, we don't go out proselytising to others.  After all, if you think about it, it is against our interests for others to "come over" so to speak as it seriously impacts on our sources!  

Proselytising for BARF is one of the things I'm most uncomfortable about and there is a whole lot of it on the 'net. Worse many BARFers take such an aggressive / amused / superclious stance, and are so reluctant to consider alternative povs, that I suspect many people like me who worry about the diet are rarely prepared to disagree with them. That creates the cult like atmosphere of many BARF discussion groups - and I stick by calling BARF advocacy as a 'quasi-religious crusade'. On a forum like this the lack of opposition to BARF must give the impression that everyone agrees that it a good thing.

>On a forum like this the lack of opposition to BARF must give the impression that everyone agrees that it a good thing.

Not at all. ;) The discussions have taken place many times, and generally descend into aggression. Then the entire thread is removed. I personally reject any evangelism from any point of view, but agree it tends to come more from one side of the debate than the other.
:)

One needs ingredients to provide nutrients. It is impossible to have one without the other unless, of course you can show different! :D

E-coli is not actually a problem to dogs unless their immune system is compromised.

Unfortunately one cannot make a comparison on the health of the dogs of yesteryear and the dogs of today because the environment is not the same; eg vet care, drugs etc so that is a no brainer; it is not the quantity of life that matters but the quality.

IB is not the one who invented raw feeding, nor the others who wrote books about it.  Those of us who choose this route do not necessarily follow the gospel according to IB, TL, KS or any other writer and we certainly do not make any money out of it. 

However anyone who is enthusiastic about their product/service will promote it either commercially or by word of mouth; that is of course perfectly natural!

I certainly do not consult my vet re nutrition matters as they have not been trained in them unless they have taken it separately.

Obesity et al is a human choice based precisely on those choosing to ignore the facts and stuff themselves full of junk!  Despite education this is what people elect to do to themselves like drinking to excess and smoking.  Some choose to heed advice and eat a species apprropriate diet, others don't.

No one I know is discounting ALL science however not all FACTS are presented to people.  For example on the WALTHAM site it clearly stated that "there is no proven need for carbohydrates in dogs" however they do not put that on the side of the bags of cereal and carboyhrate rich food they produce!

I don't know anyone who has claimed that raw diets cure everything; they do prevent a lot of stuff though :D

As for the horses, of course they are!

I don't think that raw feeders do not accept their diets may not be balanced; most of the ones I know regularly check what they are giving their dogs and I do an annual complete blood chemistry work up as I did before I changed.

Raw v commercial is similar to docking/anti docking, pro and anti hunters it does tend to polarise people a those who debate it feel very strongly; again this is natural, people who believe passionately about something will do so.  A bit like converted non-smokers! :D

I am surprised that you don't know of many well cared for horses that are not well cared for on grass alone?  There are thousands of them all over the UK and millions more all over the world; horses need supplementation only when required to expend more calories than provided by grass!

Sorry - you're a bit out of date there.

There are not enough nutrients in grass alone to sustain a horse. Thats why we tend to feed balancers these days from such companies as TopSpec. Grass is simply not enough for horses maintained on restricted acreage/grazing - even for those like mine on 14 acres with all their own "supplements" of nettles and thistles. So its not only calorific - its vitamins and minerals.

I better report all these nice happy healthy horses to the RSPCA then!  :)

Funny cos the BHS says:

Average pasture will maintain approximately two horses per hectare as permanent grazing (1-1.5 acres per individual), provided that good pasture management is employed:

no doubt they are wrong too.

I call "maintain" somewhat different from "flourish".

As for the BHS - I prefer more Natural methods than those the BHS advocate so yes, they are out of touch. Please don't forget that most horses do not benefit from decent grazing all year round so they certainly need something extra then. Leaving a horse to survive on grass alone is the same as leaving a dog on a mixer all year with nothing else...it might just do the job but it won't give a gleaming coat, strong hooves, healthy condition and maintain weight on a horse that lives out all year.

And if horse can survive on grass alone - what about laminitics?

A very good point about laminitic ponies, Chloe. My neighbour's old pony is forbidden grass for most of the year for that very reason.

Indeed - in most circumstances feeding a balancer can help to prevent laminitis - there is a link to increased magnesium helping to reduce the risk.

Sorry, had to ask, and dont mean to cause another argument but,
What about the black forest ponies, that are only ever out on pasture land. I know they round some of the foals and ill looking horses up every year and sell them, but surely most of them arnt mal nuritied. I know the foals/young horses and the mare wasnt thin, just old that I looked after didnt look ill.
Or the didycoy ponies that are left out on grass all year?????????  I know where some are and they look lovely.
Not a fact as I am only talking from my experience, but would love to know how they survive????
Lea :/

Like I said - theres a difference between surviving and thriving. A horse can survive on grass alone - especially if not worked, it can survive with a large worm burden, but it won't do it any good! It can surivive covered in bot fly eggs, but it won't be healthy, it can survive without a farrier or a dentist - but it might be lame and in pain/struggling to eat! And certainly shouldn't be ridden!

I keep my 4 horses on 14 acres of natural land - but they still get a feed balancer feed every day. Since they have been on that (a year) their hooves have toughened, they have gleaming coats, they are healthy, happy and thriving.

You also have to remember differences in breeds. A native pony (welsh. exmoor) may not need any additional feed (ie sugar beet or chaff) but would benefit from a balancer to ensure that the correct level of vitamins and minerals are being received. A thoroughbred will need more - chaff, sugarbeet, balancer, topline conditioner and haylage and be brought in! Horses for courses. It also depends on how the land has been kept - fertilised, rolled, chained and harrowed, topped etc to the level of nutrients.

The latest advice is to feed a balancer.

When I first switched to raw feeding I was a bit wary about feeding it to my male as he has had operations for two impactions (though eating Kongs) and I was concerned that the scar tissue and previous operations etc may cause problems.

Basically my vet told me not to be silly and go ahead and feed him a raw diet :-) - they have fully supported my feeding decision

Jas,

I think that there is a balance that is midway between rubbish commercial food and BARF.   I am only anti-feeding dogs whole bones because of the problems they can and do cause.   I have two friends now whose dogs went through unnecessary surgery because of raw chicken bones.  They now use grinders. 

My personal view is that in this day and age we've learned enough about canine nutrition - in large part thanks to the pet food manufacturers -- to prepare a balanced and healthy diet ourselves, or buy the same already prepared.  The problem with pet food manufacturers is that they are in a business to make a profit and their is a very wide disparity between the nutritional merits of the cheap/cheerful food and higher-priced premium brands.  And the problem with people preparing their own dog foods is that some people come up with their own little "twist" which they are convinced will be better.  For example, the way people used to load up large breed puppies with calcium supplements and extra protein years ago, thinking it would help bone growth.  Now, we do almost the opposite and know that a slower rate of growth is best.  Studies of seen of home-prepared BARF diets show the same - a big disparity in terms of nutritional balance because of personal twists.  

Stacey

Unfortunately "premium" foods, and/or high priced foods  are just as guilty of containing unecessary fillers, preservatives etc.  Price does not necessarily, unfortunately, necessarily reflect quality in all cases.

As we have all seen what suits one dog does not suit another and there are a number of factors to consider when choosing a dog food; unfortunately most people see a) protein level as highly important and b) that meat comes first which again does not mean what the buyer THINKS it means usually!

Tohme,

I know how to read labels, which is the primary reason I do not use dry foods.  You cannot dry, pellet food and store it in a paper bag with a long shelf life if the majority of the mix is meat.  I don't buy canned foods from the big manufacturers because they are not a whole lot better. 

My husband is bad enough re labels - unfortunately he read the label on the Waitrose Cottage Pie I left for him when I was away on business last month.   He refused to eat it because the only place meat appeared was as a small percentage in a subitem list under the heading of "60% @meat gravy."  What a pill.  :-)

Stacey

:D :D :D

Thank you for all your replies and I am sorry to have caused trouble on his topic!  It had just been playing over in my mind. Being a first time dog owner it just upset me when two vets in the space of one weekend tell you that the diet could be making your dog ill, it just upset me!

With regards to researching the diet I spend 6 weeks non-stop looking over the net and reading books that tohme has recommended in other post.  I have so much food delivered that I now take off half day from work once a month to sort it all out.  It is quite sad really that I enjoy measuring out liver & heart chucks, turkey necks, chicken, beef & pork to name but a few :)

I know that my dogs enjoy it because when I had my 2nd pup I stuck to what the breeder recommend feeding, but when I put the BARF diet down for the old dog the pup went loony and finished the older dogs meal before he had time to walk across the kitchen,(after that the pup never touch the complete food again!) Infact I swear that they are teaming up together to work out how to open the fridge :)  I think that in time I will get more confident and next time anyone questions what I feed my dogs I will give them what for :)

Thank you for all your help

<neither the inventor(s) nor the owners who feed it have the facilities for research or the availability of properly trained canine nutritionists that the dog food companies have.>

I just read this thread for the first time, it certainly made me smile!

I like the term 'inventor', but should this not be applied to commercial food manufacturers?
Personally speaking, most raw feeders that I have spoken with over the years count the fact that 'properly trained nutritionists' from dog food companies have not trialled our chosen diet as a plus point!

Some feeders of commercial diets just cannot accept the fact that raw feeders really could not care less about 'clinical trials'. Our chosen form of feeding is a life-time trial with our dogs as the subjects of the study. So far our trials have gone very well, thank-you, but no experts are interested because we just accept that the health and vitality of our dogs is due to the raw diet that we feed and do not care to pay anyone to state the obvious.

We fed our dogs on commercial foods for 13 years and have fed raw for 7 years, so can speak from experience, not internet scare stories and dire warnings from vets without any practical knowledge.

snomaes

>Our chosen form of feeding is a life-time trial with our dogs as the subjects of the study. So far our trials have gone very well, thank-you,

Ditto. But not raw! ;)