Talk:Raw feeding/archive 2

Raw feeding advertisement?

That's the feeling I get from this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.193.77.31 (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pottenger's cats argument

There's conflicting info on the diets that make up Pottenger's cats study. The westonaprice site showed that non of the meat were cooked and that only one diet(the totally raw one) had 2/3 meat while the rest only had 1/3 meat. This book review and the statements in this book seems to indicate that there were at least one diet with cooked meat and that he actually compared diets with equal proportion of meat. Therefore, the block of text below that I had hidden in the main article is probably wrong. --165.21.154.94 (talk) 02:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pottenger's Cat study is also flawed as while the Raw Diet was 2/3 meat and 1/3 milk, the Cooked Diets were 1/3 meat and 2/3 milk. There was a fifth diet of "Raw Metabolized Vitamin D Milk Only." The cats failed to thrive on that diet, also. What this shows is that cats don't thrive on cooked diets with 0-50% as much meat, and 2-3 times as much milk. The study needs to be repeated with 2/3 meat and 1/3 milk across the board, to draw valid conclusions from it. An all-meat diet should've been tested, since cats are carnivores. Also, fish and liver could substitute for cod liver oil.

According to the book review link, he first compared raw meat/raw milk with cooked meat/raw milk, then he compared raw meat/raw milk with raw meat/cooked(pasteurized, evaporated or condensed) milk. In all instances the all raw diet was the only healthy diet. So the "taurine is heat sensitive" argument doesn't account for the milk comparison results. Anyway, the milk comparison portion of the study does not back up the raw feeding argument. Might need to make it clear that we are just comparing one of the many studies in the Pottenger's Cat study. --Dodo bird (talk) 02:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

beyondveg.com

I noticed that one reference for the Pottenger Cat study was from the beyondveg.com site. On the rawe-foodism page, beyondveg.com was listed as being a site conflicting with original research rules.Can I remove it? Loki0115 (talk) 09:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What we are attributing to the site seems pretty straight forward and non controversial, so I don't really see a problem. I'll see if I can find some other source for it.--Dodo bird (talk) 00:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel Words

I have added the weasel tag to this article, the article is rife with this problem. You guys need to get in there and fix it. I have no doubt in many cases you can replace the words with the person or persons making the statement....here a some examples...

Example 1.

Some raw feeders believe that supplements have reduced nutritional value compared to the same nutrients in raw food and that possible nutrients not yet recognized as essential by nutritional science cannot be replaced. The same rationale is used by some to reject supplemented home cooked pet food. Some raw feeders, however, also include supplements such as fish oil, and various vitamins or multivitamins mix

Example 2.

Some proponents of raw diet claim noticeable benefit to the dental hygiene of pets who eat raw bones, while others believe .....

Example 3.

It is believed by many raw feeders.....

I could go on. However the point is, when you use words such as "believe" or "think" you are stating opinion not fact, thus you need to attribute the opinion. You cannot just say many or some, ...which group, or which person. Or is there a survey of raw feeds to support such a statement, in which case state the percentage. Keep in mind wikipedia is a encyclopaedia of fact not original research, anything added must be verifiable with reliable sources and referenced. See the following for clarification

Thanks benjicharlton (talk) 06:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The major problem with sourcing opinions related to raw feeding is that most of them are published relatively anonymously in informational websites and mailing lists and the like. There are books about raw feeding written by proponents, but unless someone wants to drop the cash to buy them it's a mystery as to who says/thinks what. 98.206.136.121 (talk) 04:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added Commercially Available Raw Section

I added in this little section today because the article didn't seem to contain any indication that commercially raw food was available (except monetary statistics) and it didn't explain how it was offered to the consumer. I thought this section would help out if people are reading the article and wondering if there is another way to get a raw diet than prey or BARF.VaydaAngel (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Want to Remove the Picture Displaying the Teeth of the Dog on RAW

Unless someone can make a good argument as to why that picture belongs in an encyclopedia, I am going to remove it. Here are some reasons:

1. I don't know if that dog really is on a RAW diet. It is not like the pic is from a scientific journal or anything. 2. There might be a thousand dogs on RAW with rotten teeth for each one that has teeth like that. How am I to know? Assuming the dog is on RAW, this picture just says that there exists a young dog on RAW that has good teeth. I doubt that qualifies it as informative in this context. 3. If that picture is relevant, then any other dog teeth pic also is. If my 3 year dog on kibbles also has teeth like that, should I post it too? How about the person whose dog on RAW is not doing as dentally well as this one? Delmet (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no good reason to doubt that the dog is on a raw diet. You can argue for the deletion of almost every image on wikipedia with your reasoning. The image does not claim to be representative of all raw fed dogs. Good dental health is a major benefit claimed by proponents of raw,(even some veterinary organizations agree) of course an image of a raw fed dog with good teeth is relevant. The teeth of a dog on kibble is not relevant here. If you have images of raw fed dogs with dental fractures, intestinal perforations etc, you are welcome to post them. --Dodo bird (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no good reason to believe that the dog is on raw diet either. There is no way to confirm at all. This is not a picture of Paris, where there can be independent verification. If any fact or picture cannot be verified at least by a few other people, it doesn't belong in wikipedia. It is somebody's dog. If personal opinions cannot make it to an encyclopedia, personal pictures shouldn't either. This is no different than not allowing original research. And if wikipedia is full of such pictures, then this says more about wikipedia than my reasoning. And this makes the teeth of a dog on kibble certainly relevant as the assertion is not that raw fed dogs have good teeth, but they have better teeth. It could also be that the dog is on RAW but has excellent dental hygiene. There is no way to tell, is there? The inclusion of such pictures is riddled with problems. I am going to include a picture of a dog with rotting teeth, and claim that it is on a RAW diet. This certainly would be relevant, and "there will be no good reason to doubt that dog is on a raw diet." I hope you see my point. Delmet (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the relevant Wikipedia policy: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." And in general http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability . I still think the pic should be removed. Delmet (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a joke?

"Barf" means "to vomit", right? So this whole thing is a mock, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.137.135 (talk) 02:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed

Salmonella in commercial food

Removed the following as OR and not really relevant

However, an outbreak in August, 2007 of Salmonella in dry dog food in Pennsylvania, reported by the CDC^[1], seems to indicate that the potential for bacterial infection is not just restricted to raw food diets.^{[original research?]}

A more effective counter to the "raw has bacteria" argument would be to cite studies showing that post-processing contamination is common in commercial food(if it is so), and not just isolated cases like the above statement shows. One point the above ref can be used to show is that while tons of humans got sick, non of the pets eating the contaminated food got sick. Might be because the strain infects only humans though, not sure how it works. --165.21.155.11 (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added it per the second point I made above.--165.21.155.15 (talk) 02:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BHA/BHT ethoxyquine

Some low cost commercial pet foods contain chemical preservatives (BHA/BHT and ethoxyquin) which opponents of these substances feel may be harmful. BHA and ethoxyquin were found to act carcinogenic in rats^[2], but more recent studies point to a potential anticarcinogenic activity of the BHA/BHT amounts used to preserve food.^[3]

No indication of who makes the claim. Study concerns rats, not dogs and cats. "Low quality food bad" is a reason not to feed low quality food, not switch to raw. The BHA/BHT meme is pretty old and no decent quality food use that stuff anymore. (At least they don't put it on the label anymore.)

Meat and bone meal

Meat and bone meal is frequently used as a cheap protein source for low cost pet food^{[citation needed]}, particularly in the USA. Opponents of meat and bone meals in pet foods believe that this practice harbors the risk of spreading diseases; for example meat and bone meal is thought to have been responsible for the spread of BSE (mad cow disease) in Britain. Frequently, unhealthy tissues such as tumors or parasite-infested organs are included in meat and bone meal production.^[4]^{[dubious – discuss]}

Same as above.

Intensive farmed meat vs "natural meat"

The quality of intensively farmed meat is also a concern. This applies to all birds that are selectively bred and reared to reach slaughter weight within a short period (usually 39 days). The bone within these poultry carcasses is of very low density, due to the high growth rates and inadequate mineral content of poultry feeds. So the calcium content of raw chicken wings is unnaturally low. The fat content of intensively farmed poultry meat is much higher than for extensively reared, slow growing poultry. These, and a number of other factors related to intensive animal rearing, mean that the composition of farmed poultry meat does not reflect that of wild prey, which undermines a central tenet of BARF and other diets, i.e. that the ingredients of the animal's diet are natural and balanced.^{[original research?]}

Uncited. Could re-add as a paragraph on why many raw feeders prefer free range/farmed raised/roadkills as compared to the intensive farmed stuff.

Removed AVA position

The AVA has no policy on Raw Diets see http://www.ava.com.au policy sections - benjicharlton (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Salmonella Schwarzengrund Outbreak Investigation". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved 2007-10-11.
^ Ito, N. (1985). "Carcinogenicity and modification of the carcinogenic response by BHA, BHT, and other antioxidants". Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 15 (2): 109–150. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
^ Williams, G.M. (1999). "Safety Assessment of Butylated Hydroxyanisole and Butylated Hydroxytoluene as Antioxidant Food Additives". Food Chem. Toxicol. 37 (9–10): 1027–1038. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
^ Martin, Ann N. (October 1997). Foods Pets Die For: Shocking Facts About Pet Food. NewSage Press. ISBN 978-0939165315.

[1] "Salmonella Schwarzengrund Outbreak Investigation". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved 2007-10-11.

[2] Ito, N. (1985). "Carcinogenicity and modification of the carcinogenic response by BHA, BHT, and other antioxidants". Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 15 (2): 109–150. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

[3] Williams, G.M. (1999). "Safety Assessment of Butylated Hydroxyanisole and Butylated Hydroxytoluene as Antioxidant Food Additives". Food Chem. Toxicol. 37 (9–10): 1027–1038. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

[4] Martin, Ann N. (October 1997). Foods Pets Die For: Shocking Facts About Pet Food. NewSage Press. ISBN 978-0939165315.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]