In regard to BARF and similar diets - try these sites, which contain scientific evidence rather than hearsay:
http://csuvets.colostate.edu/pain/Articlespdf/Problems%20with%20Raw%20Meat.pdf You will note, particularly, that the sources quoted are authoritative and appear in papers that have been independently reviewed (just to remove any doubts about the idea that these studies may have been funded by the pet food industry - which is the normal 'conspiracy theory' reaction from those who wish to ignore factual evidence).
Fancy a bit of salmonella yourself? "Human Health Implications of Salmonella-Contaminated Natural Pet Treats and Raw Pet Food", Rita Finley, Richard Reid-Smith and J. Scott Weese, 2006, Infectious Diseases Society of America
A snippet from their results: Human salmonellosis occurs mainly as a result of handling or consuming contaminated food products, with a small percentage of cases being related to other, less well-defined exposures, such as contact with companion animals and natural pet treats. The increasing popularity of raw food diets for companion animals is another potential pet-associated source of Salmonella organisms. Pets that consume contaminated pet treats and raw food diets can be colonized with Salmonella organisms without exhibiting clinical signs, making them a possible hidden source of contamination in the household.
Pet owners can reduce their risk of acquiring Salmonella organisms by not feeding natural pet treats and raw food diets to their pets, whereas individuals who investigate cases of salmonellosis or interpret surveillance data should be aware of these possible sources of Salmonella organisms.
In America the largest on-going source of post-qualification veterinary courses is VIN. One of the things VIN does is run a website for pet owners who may have questions that they want answered by experts. Here's a quote from Wendy Brooks, their education director: "There is an important exception to the “Salmonella is rare in adult dogs” rule and that is the case of dogs fed a raw food diet.
It has, unfortunately, become popular to feed raw foods to pets with the idea that a raw food diet more closely approximates the natural diet that the feline or canine body evolved to consume, and thus such a diet should be healthier than commercially prepared foods. In fact, the cooking of food is central to removing parasites, bacteria, and bacterial toxins from food. A recent study evaluating raw food diets found that 80% of food samples contained Salmonella bacteria and that 30% of the dogs in the study were shedding Salmonella bacteria in their stool. Adult dogs are often asymptomatic but any infected animal or person will shed the organism for at least 6 weeks thus acting as a source of exposure to other animals or people. Salmonella organisms are very difficult to remove from the environment and easily survive 3 months in soil. Again, dogs used for therapy around the elderly or children should be cultured for the presence of Salmonella.
There are two syndromes associated with Salmonella: diarrhea and sepsis. Salmonella bacteria, once consumed, attach to the intestine and secrete toxins. The toxins produce diarrhea that can be severe and even life-threatening in the young. If this were not bad enough, some Salmonella can produce an even more serious “part two.” These bacteria are capable of invading the rest of the body through the damaged intestine."
Or how about Dr. Bob Judd, DVM (DVM is the US Vet qualification) "Campylobacter is a bacterial pathogen that causes fever, diarrhea, and abdominal pain. As this bacterium is common in birds, most raw poultry has this organism on it and infection usually develops from eating undercooked chicken."
In June 2006 the following results were found in a study of commercially available raw pet food diets: "Feeding raw meat diets to high performance dogs such as greyhounds and sled dogs has been a common practice for some time. Recently, feeding raw meat diets has become popular with owners of pet dogs. The proponents of these diets believe the dogs feel better, have more energy and less disease.
However, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever to support these claims. The concern about these diets is the bacterial contamination in these foods. Although the people who sell the raw food diets indicate bacterial contamination is not important in most dogs, it is possible it could cause a problem in pets as well as their human owners.
To determine the actual contamination of these raw meat diets, the staff at Colorado State University in conjunction with the USDA evaluated 21 commercially available raw meat diets from three different retail stores. All diets were stored frozen until evaluated. The study revealed 53% of the diets contained e. coli, which can cause severe intestinal problems in dogs and humans. This is the same bacteria that usually cause illness in humans who eat undercooked hamburgers. Salmonella, another bacteria that causes intestinal disease, was also found in 5.9% of the samples."
Want to investigate yourself?
Here's some websites that carry information you may not want to read:
http://www.petdiets.com/ - have a look at 'Myths', specifically Myth No 8
http://www.thepetcenter.com/xra/bonecomp.html - read ALL the article. Note specifically that it says bone content is 2/3 is a mineral compound called hydroxyapatite that is composed of nothing more than Calcium, Phosphorus, Oxygen and Hydrogen. There are no Vitamins, Fatty Acids, enzymes, proteins or carbohydrates in it. Of the other 1/3rd nearly 95 % is a substance called collagen. Collagen is a fibrous protein. It is poorly digested by the dog and cat. But don't stop there - have a look at the splintered bones shown. Would you be happy with your dog eating those? But bones are a major part of BARF and similar diets.
http://www.balanceit.com/ - run by specialist qualified vets who have also gained further specific qualifications in nutrition - yet all their recipes are using
cooked food.
http://www.woodhavenlabs.com/barf-myth.html - explodes all the myths proposed by BARF exponents
Proponents of the BARF (and closely allied diets) are in the same sort of position as people who propose homoeopathy as a serious medical remedy. All the scientific evidence says they are wrong. They don't have a shred of verifiable evidence to prove that they are right. Just because you've been lucky so far doesn't mean you will continue to be lucky.
I've seen countless postings on the web saying things along the lines of "I've always fed my dogs X diet and they are much healthier than other dogs". Really? By what criteria?
It has been pointed out that Billingshurst ('inventor' of BARF) is a vet. It's seldom pointed out that he's a vet with a vested interest (e.g. he sells books). It's also seldom pointed out that some of the things he claims are just plain wrong. For example, he claims that you shouldn't include grain carbohydrate in a dog's food because the dog's digestive system hasn't evolved to cope with it. That's not true - at all. It IS true that too much grain can cause IBS type problems in dogs but it's a matter of quantity and type. Dogs will normally tolerate grain carbohydrate in their diet - but some don't.
I'm continually amazed at the ignorance displayed by some dog owners about feeding. Recently I came across a posting on a "dog lovers" website where someone posted a weekly diet sheet that included garlic as a regular ingredient. What made it so bad was that other dog owners were joining in and saying how great it was. Perhaps they'd like to have included grapes and chocolate too.
I'm sure that none of the foregoing will make the slightest difference to people who will blindly follow these diets irrespective of the evidence. But I'll repeat what I've said before - if these alternative diets are so much better then show me independent evidence that's the case. Don't rely on hearsay.
