Talk:Raw feeding/archive 1

message: This subtopic is full of alarmist statements and claims ("Frequently, veterinary schools receive nutrition training that is provided to students or sponsored by pet food manufacturers."). Veterinary schools are usually part of university systems, so I would like to see some reliable evidence before we go claiming that vets are part of the "corporate selling machine" or whatever the naturalists are calling it. Additionally, I see some references to vets that aren't in line with mainstream opinion, but they are holistic vets. Are these people certified by a board or something. Sounds like the difference between "doctor" and "homeopathic doctor". OngoingCivilUnrest 19:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although certainly one can read a conspiracy into the article, it is true that pet food companies are major contributers to veterinary schools and veterinary research and the same is true for large agribusiness supporting human nutrition research inside and outside of universities.  A similar situation exists for human medicine and large pharmaceutical companies.    Many people read conspiracy theories into this, some don't and sometimes conflict of interests exists and sometimes they don't.  You could add to the list of "doctor" and homeopathic doctor; chiropractic doctor, psychologist, psychiatrist, accupuncturists and Traditional Chinese medical practicioners, holistic doctors, religious doctors including priests and clergy and secular doctors, etc, etc.  Some work side-by-side, some are strong advocates against other practices. The subject of diet (for pets and humans) is inherently controversial, but specifically I have not seen inflammatory language like "corporate selling machines" in the article.  Cuvtixo 21:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Veterinary Bias Section Reads Like a Conspiracy Theory

message: This article is about raw feeding. It is a controversial topic. The only place in which to address the arguments of the proponents and the opponents is in this article (there are no articles, for example, on raw feeding (opposition) and raw feeding (advocates). In wikipedia, articles on topics that have controversies around them attempt to convey information from both sides without emphasizing a wikipedian or authorial opinion about either side.  If you think that the material is phrased in a manner that isn't like a nonbiased reporter, then it can be rephrased, but the info should remain in the article.  Elf | Talk 18:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Info on raw feeding controversy

message: You know, ideally it would be nice to discuss it without blatantly dividing pros and cons. Not sure whether that's possible. But here's an example of what it might contain (I'm not saying that the content of this paragraph is correct, but that it's an example of how to present info):
:Because raw meat and animal products can contain bacteria and various parasites, food for a raw diet must be selected, handled, and stored carefully.  Some companies that sell prepared raw diets irradiate the food to minimize this risk. (remember i'm just making this up) Those who feed a raw diet must regularly test their animals for infestion by parasite A, parasite B, and z, and use appropriate treatment to eliminate the problem, although (cite reference) research indicates that such infections are no more likely with raw diets than with commercial canned food. (remember I'm just making this up)  In addition, because of the danger of mad cow disease, raw diets must not include sources that include animal's brains. Proponents of raw feeding suggest that it might be easier to avoid such problems than it is with commercial diets, which are also made of animal parts but over which the consumer has no control. The manufacturers of commercial packaged pet food are not regulated in the USA as to what parts of animals can be included in pet food. (cite reference)
Elf | Talk 21:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thoughts on possible rewrite

message: I removed "However, dogs have very acidic saliva and stomach lining. Most of the bacteria will therefore be killed." because of this:
* "dogs have very acidic saliva" - Its states here and here (and just about anywhere you google) dogs have a very high pH. High pH means more basic (alkaline), the exact oppisite of that statement. 
* "and stomach lining" - It states here that "One explanation was that the pH in stomachs of fasted dogs can reach 7 (13)... The pH in fasted human stomachs is approximately 2" (in Discussion section). And here states that dogs have a pH of 3.4 to 5.5. It also states in this article (which you can read from  the abstract) that dogs have a basically neutral pH intestional tract. So basically, dogs have a less acidic digestive system throughout compared to humans.
* "Most of the bacteria will therefore be killed" - Since i've invalidated the premises, the conclusion does not stand.
I removed "But salmonella is also found in kibble-fed dog stools." because if your read the actual cited article it says that no salmonella was found in commericial fed test animals in the study.
I removed "Some of the lower-quality dry foods use infected meat (this can include euthanized, diseased, or disabled animals) that can be dangerous." because it was unsubstantiated, unrelated to the salmonella study, and a strawman attack on commercial foods. I kept it in the article, however, I just moved it to the justification for feed raw food diets under "Benefits of raw feeding."
I reworded some of the content in "Benefits of raw feeding" because it was written in first person ("we have seen") and not NPOV.
I added the bit about Pottenger's experiment not taken account for taurine in a cat's diet because this is a valid critism of the dated study. I took out the "were astounding" because its an opinion.--
Snaxorb 17:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rational for some of my edits 

message: In reading this article, it seemed slightly biased towards the non-raw food diet. However, as an advocate for the raw food diet, I admit my own bias could be showing. Here are my reasons for thinking this way:
#The arguments against raw feeding are simply laid out nicer, visually giving the arguments more credence as they look more organized.
#The arguments for raw feeding include opponents arguments within them, while the arguments against raw feeding do not.
#The arguments against raw feeding are better sourced
Also, I wonder if this article could be split into one for cats and one for dogs. Nutritional needs of each species are very different, and thus the arguments for and against raw feeding are different.
I don't feel comfortable editing this article because of my own bias. (I have a cat with Inflammatory Bowel Disorder whom I thoroughly believe was saved by feeding him a raw diet.) However, I look forward to feedback on these thoughts and suggestions.
Flauty 15:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I swapped them around. But it would be better to ditch the pro and cons sectioning and merge them into sections like Health, Nutriton, Safety etc. --Dodo bird 07:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  neutrality question and a suggestion 

message: Interpretation of information with review of the first reference shows that
This page is written by a veterinarian who has a commercial interest in what he is placing here. The first reference is written by two other veterinarians who took the time and trouble to have the commercial preparation listed here analyzed in comparison to 4 other raw dog foods (nothing about raw foods for cats) the bottom line is that an outside agency evaluated the foods as prepared according to each of the commercial raw food companies guidelines and none of them matched up to the specifications claimed for them. I too am interested in raw food for my animals especially in light of the recent problems with animal foods and melamine etc. however my research is telling me that it will be very difficult to make home made food for my animals without having supplements and then I will not be sure that I have the right balance. Having been involved in human health care I have learned that there is much I do not know. I also have learned that animals are different from humans in their needs etc. I feel that this is only a comercialized page and not in keeping with most of the information of wikepedia. I am dissapointed that they allowed it to be posted here - dpmrph 4 13 2007
:Please do add your specific research to the growing body accumulated here.  No sensible raw food diet denies the importance of judicious supplementation; indeed, it is strongly emphasized. As you note, this is a particularly grave time of crisis in the US and Canada, where nearly all commercial pet foods are under suspicion of containing  grain-related products that can kill or maim our pets.  Many of us have been searching for ways to avoid feeding grains entirely to our carnivores; the raw diets are  simply one approach among many.  Most BARFers I know of (and many Alaskan Malamute breeders are; Northern breeds happen to thrive on a raw diet) would counsel that any diet must be very carefully researched, and tailored to the dog's specific needs, including complete bloodwork and consultation with a veterinarian, breeder, etc.  The ingredients must also come from trusted sources. In any case, you will want to know as much as possible about each one, by using such resources as the NAL, . BARFers ALL say that it is NOT worth doing if you aren't going to spend the time and energy to do thorough research to do it right. There are many groups on the web where people can exchange knowledge and ideas about home-cooked or raw feeding, such as , and others dedicated to pets with specific disorders (e.g., K9KidneyDiet). Home prepared food or raw diets can be used for elimination diets in cases where food allergies are suspected, for example, and of course in such emergent cases as now, where the commercial food supply is simply untenable. It'sWhom 20:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a commercial raw food diet that I give my cats that can also be given to dogs (Though if you have a large or even medium-sized dog, it could get VERY expensive.) The brand is Nature's Variety. Also, if you are looking at raw for cats, (You just said animals, so I'm not sure whether you are talking about cats or dogs) there is a great site about cat nutrition that I believe has some recipes that you can follow to make your own food: catinfo.org. It's written by a vet who is trained in nutrition. I, too, agree that this page has a commercial, non-raw diet slant (see my comments and the one below mine above). However, as I said in my comments, because of my own very strong bias FOR raw food, I feel uncomfortable editing the article, because I think my own bias would show. Flauty 14:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: review of information with interpretation of reference

message: Are these two diets established/popular/well-known in the raw scene? If so, a little info on how they differ from BARF would be appropriate. It looks like self advertisement in its current form.--Dodo bird 14:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Volhard diet and ultimate diet 

message: I tried to fix a line about dogs eating fruit. The way it was sounded bad so I fixed it as best I could. Maybe find a source?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.50.78 (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fruits 

message: They are arguments for homemade food under which raw feeding is a subset. That should be made clear. Or a further argument as to why raw is better than home cooked should be present. 165.21.154.91 (talk) 15:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments against commercial pet foods are not arguments for raw feeding