Raw Meat, BARF Diets vs Commercial Food
by The K9 Guy, 11-16-09I've been reading some interesting discussion threads recently concerning popular RAW meat / BARF diets. For those unaware, these diets for dogs involve feeding raw foods (meat, vegetables, etc.) or Bones And Raw Food (BARF). I won't go into great detail regarding either diet as you can find countless websites proclaiming their virtues, but both diets are similar. The hypothesis is that since these diets more closely approximate what dogs would be eating in the wild, and the foods are raw with higher nutritional value, they result in better health for dogs. Their popularity grew tremendously during the dog food recalls of the past years.
Almost 2 years ago I wrote a post regarding dog nutrition. As the RAW and BARF diets continue to grow in popularity, I thought it would be a good time to revisit the topic and offer some contrasting viewpoints that aren't always made clear on advocacy sites for these diets. Because I believe good nutrition is vital to the health of any living organism, I enjoy reviewing information regarding these diets. However, I do not currently use them with my own dogs due to a lack of any scientific studies, and clear statistical data that leaves me skeptical. Although I am not a nutritionist (and neither are most of the advocates on those websites), I thought I'd share some of my concerns regarding these diets.
RAW / BARK advocates offer thousands of anecdotal testaments to the benefits of their diets. While these testimonials may seem compelling, they are only anecdotal. In fact, many of these advocates and websites provide the same dogmatic information while cross linking and referencing each other. This, in my mind, is rather disconcerting if you're looking for objective, balanced information.
Statistically, if RAW/BARF diets were so beneficial, you would expect to see some data indicating wild animals live healthier lives than their domestic or captive brethren. In fact, feral and wild animals living on natural diets live shorter lives with more disease (which IS scientifically documented). While I understand that living in the wild exposes an animal to a multitude of other variables, many of their problems are directly attributed to higher incidences of food borne disease and malnutrition.
The "B" in BARF means making sure dogs are eating bone. Advocates promote the benefits of natural cleaning for teeth that may be lacking in dogs fed a dry or canned formulations. While this seems to be a major selling point of BARF, eating bone can and does result in intestinal injury to dogs. Since there are methods to maintain dental hygiene for dogs (safer chew choices and/or brushing) that do not pose the same risk, why would an owner put their dog at risk? Also, the amount of dental plaque and tarter accumulation varies in dogs on the same diet, so there are most certainly other variables at work here.
About 1% of human grade meat will be contaminated with parasites, and a much higher percentage is contaminated with various bacteria. RAW / BARF advocates will advise that a dog's digestive system can handle these pathogens without problem, but I disagree. Many dogs likely do suffer illness, but because testing would be the financial responsibility of an owner, it is most often not performed and it certainly isn't tracked by any central agency. Some of these food borne pathogens can be fatal, and others can be shed in a dog's stool placing other family members at risk.
For the majority of owners using a RAW of BARF diet, I also worry whether they are spending the requisite time researching balanced diets, mixing protein sources, other nutritional components, etc. How many know, for example, that raw vegetables are actually less easily assimilated as lightly cooked vegetables, and therefore less nutritious? While I'm sure owners could develop and feed their own well balanced diet to their dog, this is very time consuming if done properly. Seeing the limited time available for many families I visit, the average dog owner should think long and hard about the level of commitment this diet will entail.
IN CONCLUSION
RAW and BARF diets have only recently grown in popularity, so there are relatively few dogs being fed these diets. Because of this it's far too soon IMO to assess any strong correlations between these diets and health. Many owners using these diets don't even have elderly dogs as of yet. Conversely, the vast majority of domestic dogs are eating commercial dog food and living to longer, healthier lives than even 2-3 decades ago. This seems a much stronger correlation IMO, although advances in Veterinarian care are likely playing a role as well.
No diet is perfect for every dog (RAW or commercial). I've seen dogs on higher protein diets that simply can't process the food well, resulting in loose stools or diarrhea. The net result is poor nutrition regardless of the quality of the food going in. As nutritional deficiencies can take months or years to manifest themselves, these considerations need to be weighed carefully. IMO different dogs will need various diets for optimum nutrition, and some variation is likely beneficial.
The arguments and anecdotes offered by RAW / BARF advocates are interesting and seem to follow logic, but their whole premise is based on the hypothesis that a natural diet is best. Humans have a long history of making assumptions that don't always pan out. During the middle of the 20th century a lot of folks were recommending radiation exposure as healthful. We now know that was far from the truth.
One interesting page I ran across while researching this post: