# Article on puppies and BARF



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

What do you guys think of this article?

Nutritional Osteodystrophy in puppies fed a BARF diet:
http://ahl.uoguelph.ca/News6-2/ANwsl6-2.pdf (scroll down to page 23 for article)
and the results of the Ca analysis of the diet fed:
http://www.labservices.uoguelph.ca/units/ahl/files/ANwsl6-3.pdf (scroll to page 36 for the results)

Wonder what they were specifically feeding these pups.

I also noticed in this same artice that the CVMA supposedly has an information sheet on BARF diets. I couldn't find it on their website though. Maybe somebody else would have better luck. www.canadianveterinarians.net


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Konnie Hein said:


> What do you guys think of this article?
> 
> Nutritional Osteodystrophy in puppies fed a BARF diet:
> http://ahl.uoguelph.ca/News6-2/ANwsl6-2.pdf (scroll down to page 23 for article)
> ...


Nutritional analysis had not been done before or during the feeding of the pups ...... but was "in process" when the 2002 article was printed. ](*,) 

QUOTE: Nutritional analysis .... identified inappropriate calcium to phosphorous ratio ... in addition, the diet contained deficient levels of calcium. END

They go on to recommend the Billinghurst book for further information about canine raw food diets.

They used a diet high in muscle meat and low in bone. The calcium-phosphorous ratio is THE crucial point in raw feeding, and it is THE point brought up again and again in books and on web sites (including this one) that give information on raw feeding. A diet with the ratios they revealed (long after the fact, and long after the pups were fed what they called a "b.a.r.f." diet) is not even close to either a b.a.r.f. (Billinghurst) diet OR a prey-model diet, both of which stress above all else the importance of NOT feeding a diet that's heavier in muscle meat than the way prey animals "come."

The biggest mistake novice raw feeders make, and one that's pretty much impossible to make if any research at all is done, either on a raw feeding site or in any of the many raw-feeding books available, is to feed meat with either no bones, very little bone, or recreational bones only.

The fact that this group did this and called it a b.a.r.f. diet is a huge disservice to fresh-food-feeding dog-owners, but not as profound a disservice as it was to those puppies.

Maybe they were trying to back-pedal a bit when they showed by the analysis (again, MUCH later) that the diet had been very badly designed and then offered the Billinghurst* book "to learn more about the issues involved in canine raw food diets," but it's too bad they didn't read it before they did this to those puppies.

Even in 2002, there was no dearth of information about the importance of the calcium-phosphorous (meat to bone) ratio.  


*the b.a.r.f. pioneer


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

OK, I was just disgusted at such cavalier treatment of those litters of puppies and of the "scientific findings" published from it, but now I'm furious. Guess who the number one "Platinum Sponsor" in the "CVMA Corporate Partnership Program" is?

Hill's. ("Global Leader in Pet Nutrition," and the manufacturer of the Science Diet crap in the vet-office waiting rooms.)

Numbers two through four are pharmaceutical houses.


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

Yah, that's pretty much how I felt about the whole thing too. Another frustrating thing is that I found the link to that "study" on an anti-raw website. Apparently the article is being used to scare people into not feeding raw.

Go figure - Hill's is a platinum sponser. No wonder.


----------

