I have had lots of problems with my two's tummys lately and tried all sorts of commercial foods on Merlin, now i am seriously considering changing them both to barf. I have no idea where to start and the do's and dont's. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks.

http://www.rawdogranch.com :)

It would definitely be worth having a search through here on Barf/Raw feeding as lots to read.  I personally feed my lot Barf much to all of our enjoyment :)  With all of the rubbish that goes into commercial dog foods these days it's hardly suprising that so many dogs have digestive problems to name just one :(

There is also a good Yahoo group called Brit-Barf that has lots of info & some really knowledgeable people on there.  There is lots of info out there & people feed the raw diet to suit their dogs.

I hope that's enough to get you started in your search & I'm sure your dogs will love their new diet should you make the switch :D

I have just started feeding barf and am still finding out loads of information.  My dogs seem so much better now and always eat what they are given.

Just a question for any barfers...do you feed rice/grains etc?? I have read so much conflicting information about whether or not to bother.

I feed rice and/or a good quality, holistic biscuit mixer :) Never had a problem, but my two seem to have a very good digestive system. One is a mongrel and the other is an Aussie - so isn't a breed 'thing' :) I'm not at all scientific with my feeding. I just give them a good mixture of bones, meat, fish, eggs, yoghurt, veggies, mixer - don't weigh or calculate anything :D They have thrived on it - the older, mongrel has been on it for 7 years and the younger dog since she was about 12 weeks (she will be 5 in April). Never have upset stomachs and have excellent coats etc

The big question is whether it's the diet or do they just have, naturally, a good digestive system ?? :D

Daisy

All UK foods are fit for purpose, no "rubbish" is permitted :)  Studies show modern dogs are as healthy and long lived as at any time in the past.  If individual dogs do have digestive problems who is to say if the route course is food anyway there are many other possible factors, environmental factors, hobby breeders tolerating, coping with and ultimately breeding for dogs with troublesome digestions that would not have been bred in the past to name just a couple.
By all means assist people to create their own diets if that is what they wish to do.  I am sure with the appropriate knowledge they can be as nutritious as professionally produced foods but I do not understand why people find it necessary to portray commercial food as the 'bogey' when so many hundreds of thousands thrive on it.

I don't want to criticise commercial diets as, obviously, a lot of people feed their dogs very successfully on them. The thing that convinced me to switch, 7 years ago, was that I wouldn't feed my children on an 'instant, all-in-one' commercial food - so why feed my dogs on it :)

Again, I would repeat that I am not against commercial foods themselves - I have, quite happily fed my two commercial food on holiday/in kennels when 'raw' was not available - I just don't choose them for my dogs day to day :)

Daisy

Not you, obviously ;), but I think it might help the nation if a few mothers did feel their children on a commercially prepared "complete" diet :D  But of course there is no such thing and would not suit the human nature if there was.  No, students, Pot Noodle does not count ;).
As you say if you don't want to and prefer to prepare you own and, presumably, enjoy doing it why not.  But why, then, do some people feel a need to further justify it by painting commercially prepared diet as based on "rubbish" when clearly the evidence is they are not.

> but I think it might help the nation if a few mothers did feel their children on a commercially prepared "complete" diet

What an excellent idea, Isabel :D Some dogs owners are better off feeding their dogs a commercial diet, as, otherwise, their dogs would live on a diet of human left-overs - curry, burgers, cake etc etc etc :D :D :D

Daisy

I suppose it really depends on what you call rubbish :)  For me, meat that isn't fit for sale isn't fit for purpose so is therefore "rubbish"!  If the meat & other food products are fit for purpose then why are they rendered down & then have all vitamins & minerals put back in plus all manner of artificial preservatives & even useless colourings added, finished off with a coating of flavoured oils to tempt eating? 

Although I can't name companies, I know for one (I know there are others!), what meats they can't sell to us raw feeders, goes off to a rendering plant to go into one of the big named commercial food manufacturers pet food :(

I personally don't think that "modern dogs" are as long lived & as healthy as ever before ~ JMHO!!  There are more skin & digestive problems, more behavioural problems & more cancers than ever before.  Yes you could argue that veterinary medicine has moved on so problems are caught sooner but I'm not 100% on that, again JMHO :)

I personally prefer to know where my dogs food comes from & also what they're fed :)   It will always be each to their own but for me & mine, raw or as natural as possible :)

>I personally don't think that "modern dogs" are as long lived & as healthy as ever before ~ JMHO!!  There are more skin & digestive problems, more behavioural problems & more cancers than ever before.

I agree,and i think the generations of dogs fed on poor quality [commercial] foods are passing down dodgy tums,poor/weak immune systems etc etc to their offspring.

I too have nothing against good commercial foods,it's the crap mass produced stuff with barely or no healthy ingredients that i am against :(

>i think the generations of dogs fed on poor quality [commercial] foods are passing down dodgy tums,poor/weak immune systems etc etc to their offspring.

I'm not sure that is genetically possible :)

>I'm not sure that is genetically possible

I reckon it is.

Take a look at Coppingers study.

I have no idea who Coppinger is but I cannot understand how nutrition can alter genes.  Can you explain this in simple terms for a poor layperson :)

Bear in mind this is just my theory,which is based on bits and pieces i have read..

Say a dog was placed on an undesirable food from weaning,by undesirable i mean cereal dominated,lack of meat and the absolute minimum vits/mins and poor sources thereof,preserved with the least healthful of preservatives and perhaps some colours thrown in.This dog could not possibly thrive to it's full potential due to poor nutrition,her immune system would probably not be up to par and as strong as it should/could be.She goes on to have puppies which are also fed comparable foods,they're not as healthy as they could be because mum never was,their immune systems are even less able to cope with lifes stresses than mum was,and on it goes,each generation more poorly then the next....

Coppinger did a study on cats.From what i remember he fed one bunch high quality diet,and the other a low quality one.The former went on to produce strong,fertile offspring,the latter eventually had sterile,sickly offspring that eventually died out.This is the very simplified version :)

Coppinger did a study on cats.From what i remember he fed one bunch high quality diet,and the other a low quality one.The former went on to produce strong,fertile offspring,the latter eventually had sterile,sickly offspring that eventually died out.

Of course, there is no comparison whatsoever between feeding dogs and feeding cats. Dogs can even survive on a vegetarian diet, cats can not. Their dietary requirements are totally different.

>Of course, there is no comparison whatsoever between feeding dogs and feeding cats.

I agree,but i think thats beside the point in this instance.Poorly fed dogs or poorly fed cats would still yield similar outcomes.

Cheryl you're probably right in regards to genetics,that is definitely not my forte',not that i was the one who brought that up ;) . Do you think that poorly dogs over generations can eventually pass on their ailments from poor nutrition to their offspring and when does this become genetic,as in skin conditions,weak immune systems etc?

IMHO when you muck with nutrition and feed cheap garbage you are also messing with your dogs health :( Just like using cheap oil in your car.....

Ktee, I don't think you understand.  You brought up genetics by suggesting it was something passed through the generations. That is what genetics is.  Yes, poorly dogs can pass on their ailments if they have a genetic element.  Malnutritionally causes ailments do not.

This reminds me. My ex husband was very much into the history of showing animals and so he has old copies of very old Fur & Feathers and also other magazines which existed then, 100 years ago and more. I remember one old article from about 100 years ago dealing with an experiment on tails. Baby mice or rats had their tails docked at birth, litter after litter, to see if they would eventually start to give birth to babies born without a tail! Needless to say all were born with tails. :D

:D Why didn't they just ask dog breeders?  :)

>IMHO when you muck with nutrition and feed cheap garbage you are also messing with your dogs health

Maybe, maybe not. But you're not altering their genes.

My opinion is that in an ideal world most people would probably aim to feed raw to their dogs. They would have the time, financial resources and information to do so correctly. In an ideal world all dogs would benefit. Unfortunately we do not live in an ideal world.  Even if everyone was persuaded to feed raw there would still be people that would get it very wrong and do their dog more harm than if they fed a commercial food.  Commercial foods aim to provide complete nutritional requirements that are easy to store and at various prices that all dog owners can afford.

If you didn't have the cheaper complete products there would possibly be people resorting to feeding their dogs the scraps of burger/fish and chips.  The cheaper brands might not be perfect but at least they serve the purpose of providing nutrition suitable for dogs.  Most dogs do very well on most of the brands, some dogs do poorly on some of the brands you can't expect all dogs to do well on all brands.  Horses for courses.  As a dog owner I found the brand that suited my dog, my pocket and my lifestyle and I don't see any reason to change.

As for genetically passed on problems such as skin problems, it's impossible to say why certain breeds have these problems.  One thing is certain though and that is if the problems are genetic it certainly won't be caused by modern feeding because changes in the genes takes a very long time indeed, not just a few generations.  The only way to rid the problems in a breed is to breed from dogs free of this problem in their genes.

Forget Coppinger, read Darwin ;)

I was just browsing but feel I have to jump in here.  Ktee the changes are not genetic.  Genetic is biologically passed on whereas the study you have explained here is environmental. 

>From what i remember he fed one bunch high quality diet,and the other a low quality one.The former went on to produce strong,fertile offspring,the latter eventually had sterile,sickly offspring that eventually died out.This is the very simplified version

From what you have said, if the the poorly fed cat had been fed good quality food and well fed cat had been fed poor quality food the results would have been the same i.e. poorly fed cat produces poorly kittens.  This is not genetics.

That is what I understand too, Cheryl.  It's not genetics but it's also blindingly obvious that poorly fed mothers will fail to produce healthy offspring, not sure why we needed a study to prove it :D 
The health and well being of a litter is a yard stick for many a breeder that they are providing quality nutrition to their broods.
It's largely irrelevent any.  As the studies show we have a nation of healthy dogs, whether it was genetic or environmental, what we do know is our dogs are not producing sickly puppies incapable of reproducing themselves.  I don't think we have too much to fear from the commonly fed foods :)

Isn't it a case of under nourished Mother = undernourished offsprings?  We only have to look at third world countries to see this happening to humans - surely it is simialr for animals too?  Is this not why good breeders health screen before breeding?

We are what we eat and so are our animals IMO :)

And to add to what I've just posted - I 'believe' that  pre packaged pet food for animals is similar to people living on ready meals!

It's convenient, it prevents hunger and OK occasionally, but it's by no means the healthiest option!

Ready meals offer no comparison as they are not designed to be eaten exclusively.

Depends what sort of ready meal surely - wouldn't want to live on cheap pot-noodle type convenience food - but my diet was never better when I lived on my own and worked long hours so came home to microwave something out of my freezer of M&S and waitrose healthy range ready meals!  M&S did some very good fruit salad type puds also....

Having said that my 16yo lab lived her life on basically cheap Dr Johns dog food and kitchen scraps (nothing too tasty or fatty though - usually just the veggie scraps left over in the household i grew up in!)

When I was growing up, our working farm Collies lived on stale mashed white bread and milk, (if there was milk left over from milking the cows that is), if not it was luke-warm water, and left-overs, which would consist of anything from stale biscuits, stale cake to fatty pieces of meat, potatoes peelings and kitchen leftovers.  Cooked bones were a no-no.  There just wasn't the money to buy dog food.  Even so, they never had a day's sickness in their lives and died of old age.

My irish grandmother's farm cats seemed to live into healthy ripe old age on a diet of boiled potato peelings and cold tea - with some sliced 'roll' (the rolls of dog meat you used to get) on special occasions!

Yep, I grew up on an Irish farm.  :-D  :-D Ah...the old days.... As a youngster, I too lived on fresh cow's milk, taken straight from the cow still luke-warm :-D I loved it, much richer than the pasteurised stuff these days

OH's parents live on a farm (no livestock though) and their dogs (generally mongrels with a bit of collie in them) have always reached a ripe old age fed on kitchen leftovers and anything they can scavenge (the odd rabbit and fruit from the orchard etc).  Their current dog is 13 and only starting to show his age with a touch of arthritis and going a tad deaf but otherwise in good shape and has rarely seen a vet in his life.  Their previous 2 dogs died at 15 (old age) and 17 (run over by the milkman in their yard :( ).

>Isn't it a case of under nourished Mother = undernourished offsprings?

Exactly.

>Is this not why good breeders health screen before breeding?

Well, no, screening is generally applied to genetic conditions, although obviously a breeder would not wish to use an animal that was not in good all round health so nutrition is important too.  Fortunately the population at large is shown to be in good health thus demonstrating that the most commonly fed foods must be offering all that is required. 

OK here goes, I know I'm going to get my head bitten off and cause a backlash from those of you that breed and don't feed raw

We will be having another puppy next year, and I wouldn't entertain a breeder that didn't feed raw.

The reason I say this is that I'm comparing Jasper our 10 month old golden, with Spangler (our golden that died :( ) and their health from day one was poles apart.    The difference in energy, muscle tone, strength, coat etc etc is amazing - I wouldn't have believed it possible to have such a huge difference in the same breed - both show lines and not working as I know there is a difference in the overall appearance between the two. 

Jasper's breeder feeds raw, and all her dogs seem really strong, fit and healthy, and long lived.  Whereas Spangler's breeder feeds dried complete, and it's only now that I see a few of her dogs have died under the age of 5!  For me that's all the evidence I need!

Maria
 

That is up to you Maria ).  I would rather be influenced by rather larger studies :) 
Even if I was to go on personal experienced, having bred litters entirely on complete diets and knowing many breeding friends that do the same I am perfectly safisfied it meets all the needs of a healthy litter going on to lead long healthy lives which, I think, we are all agree is not possible when nutrition is inadequate.  There are many factors that may be involved as to why Spanglers breeder is not getting good results.

You've just explained a LOT here -your previous dog's breeder has had several dogs that died under the age of 5, which supports what I have been saying all along that it was not vaccination that caused his death but the line of dogs wasn't good to start with, as a healthy dog should most definitely be able to cope with being vaccinated.......as it should with being fed on dog food.

In my last litter several of the pups went to homes that feed raw, a couple were very experienced people, one for instance that have been in my breed decades longer than I have, and they certainly had no problem with buying a pup that had been reared on a commercial diet nor did they have any complaints whatsoever on the conditions of my pups OR adults -quite the opposite.

No you are wrong about that Goldmali, Spangler's death was definitely caused by the vaccination, his reaction happened a few hours after the jab even the vet and vaccine manufacturer accepted it was the cause of death Goldmali! 

Spangler was by no means a healthy dog (another reason why he should never have been vaccinated) but lets not go off topic here!

It's not an all out disagreement or argument, I'm just stating the difference I've noticed  between raw fed and pet food fed dogs!
I think it's fantastic the people that purchased your pups didn't mind that your pups were fed and reared on pet food.

I'm saying that it wouldn't be my choice :)

Oh and by the way, Spangler's breeder has 'brought in' other dogs which seem to have died quite young too so not the same line :( 

>his reaction happened a few hours after the jab even the vet and vaccine manufacturer accepted it was the cause of death

Going off topic I know, but from the description in your web site it is not my understanding of an event caused by vaccination but rather caused by injection.  But nevertheless, if Spangler had been a healthy dog he might have found that possible to fight off.
I think rather than looking at the feeding method a good look at the stock produced and the quality of the puppies themselves would be a pertinent course of action.

It doesn't chage the fact that a normal, HEALTHY dog from a healthy line would not HAVE such a reaction......

Oh and by the way, Spangler's breeder has 'brought in' other dogs which seem to have died quite young too so not the same line :-(

It's very unlikely a breeder would buy in totally unrelated dogs as total outcrossing is a recipe for disaster when breeding. It is perfectly possible to (inadvertedly) when breeding create a line with a genetic predisposition to particular sensitivities.

A normal healthy dog wouldn't have had a reaction?  The question I've asked all along, Why do vets vaccinate unhealthy dogs?
And, some healthy dogs do have reactions to vaccinations!

It's very unlikely a breeder would buy in totally unrelated dogs as total outcrossing is a recipe for disaster when breeding. It is perfectly possible to (inadvertedly) when breeding create a line with a genetic predisposition to particular sensitivities

Maybe unlikely, but she has actually done this!

>Why do vets vaccinate unhealthy dogs?

Because the balance of gain from having an otherwise health compromised dog immunised against further disease is sometimes greater than the risk from the vaccine.
As Spanglers sad event appears to have been caused by bacteria ingress I am still not understanding this to be what would normally be regarded as a "reaction" though.

It's quite possible that she's bought in pups which were sired by those from her own lines.

I suggest you also make sure when you study the pedigrees of litters you're considering that they have no common ancestors to Spangler.

I suggest you also make sure when you study the pedigrees of litters you're considering that they have no common ancestors to Spangler.

And in Goldens, pedigree research is now EXTREMELY easy. Every single Golden ever registered in the UK with the KC can be found HERE. You do need to register and explain to the website owner what your interest in the breed and pedigrees is, but it is free of charge. It will also give hip scores for those dogs scored and all sorts of other valuable info, all taken from BRS.

Thanks for the link golmali, but I'm already registered - wise after the event if you like!

However, when I was looking for our first dog (Spangler) I hadn't the benefit of hindsight.   l realised we needed a dog that's parents had been hip scored, I looked for a KC registered breeder who was also a member of the specific breed club - I thought that was enough, sadly, when we realised quite early on that Spangler had a problem with his hips and early on being 2 - 3 months old the breeder would not reply to my emails or messages left on the answerpnone - so it's a bit of a lottery for us novices  :(

  

The point being NOW you know what to do and hence there is no reason to look for a breeder that feeds raw as you will only limit yourself further. :) Whatever your feelings on whatever food the breeder uses, being fed something you would not like to feed for 4-5 weeks max isn't going to ruin a puppy.

Look at children -many go through food fads. My oldest daughter lived on nothing but chips and cheese sandwiches for about 2 years when she was under 5. She's almost 15 now and perfectly healthy -and taller than me.

Yes you are right - being fed on a specific diet for 4 or 5 weeks can't  alter the puppy one way or another!  But I believe what the parents are fed must have a bearing on the puppies health. 

Yes you are also right about the children, but when women become pregnant they usually eat far healthier than normal - I know I did!  And 2 years of chips and cheese in our lifetime isn't such a bad thing, significantly longer and I'm sure there could be some deficiencies or digestive problems!

>And 2 years of chips and cheese in our lifetime isn't such a bad thing, significantly longer and I'm sure there could be some deficiencies or digestive problems!

Indeed there would :) and as many breeders have been feeding complete foods for generations over decades and have no problems as indeed does the dog population itself as shown by rather larger ;) studies this serves to demonstrate that there is nothing wrong with the nutrition provided :)
I really think you are focusing on the wrong thing for Spanglers problems.

You misunderstand me again Isabel!

I'm not knocking pet food entirely, in fact it's very convenient - as our convenience foods, and baby convenience foods.  But, and it's a big BUT to feed it all the time is not the best option available IMO.

Yes it's easy, cheap and convenient to use pet food, but not the best option! 

Occasionally I give Jasper pet food - usually when we go away and he stays with friends - but probably more than 90% of the time he is fed raw.

Time consuming to mush the fruit and veg - Yes
Expensive - No

And you misunderstand me :) I am saying that studies show it is perfectly good nutrition to be used exclusively and continuously with an assurance of meeting all needs not simply a matter of convenience.  I have plenty of time, no shortage of money, a modicum of brains and I enjoy spending time preparing food but I feel absolutely no need to prepare my own food for my dogs and I don't know why anyone should feel they need to if they don't want to.
It does not compare to human convenience foods at all as these are not designed to meet all our needs, dog complete foods are. 
I would not say completes were the best option either.  I am sure that with proper knowledge and understanding a layperson can learn enough to devise their own diets that can be every bit as good as those professionally devised but I do not think there is any such thing as a perfectly good and a better option in nutrition. Nutrition does not work like that.  All needs have to be met but getting better met as over and above needs is just wasted, indeed in some instances such as protein, certain vitamins etc it can be detrimental. 

A friend of mine told me the reason she doesn't feed raw to her dogs. She said she felt it was pointless unless she went the whole hog and by doing that she would have to rear and slaughter the animals used for meat herself, as otherwise she'd just be feeding her dogs on meat that had antibiotics and all sorts of stuff in it, from animals that were fed on foods that weren't the best for THEM -and how could then their meat be the best for her dogs? Therefore she decided she might as well feed dog food.