Talk:Raw feeding

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pelletil, Fvialard, Eve Robinson, Kirby.96.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Another Reason
to raw feed is the fact that processed dog food is utterly disgusting to me as a dog owner. I simply don't want to have to handle that - it stinks! I rather have raw animal products in my home. Is that something that could or should be added to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.12.159.236 (talk) 10:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

This can be a good article (Oct. 2012)
I made a large set of edits to reduce the POV and lend a little more neutrality. This article was heavy on the marketing even after some other editors had gotten to it before me (if you don't want to see the diffs, just read the comment archives to get a sense of how bad it was). In any case, if raw feeding is an arguable case (and there are arguments for it), those arguments should be able to be made with substantiated evidence, and to be able to stand up (from a reader's perspective, not just the writer's) when juxtaposed with strong arguments against it. I don't think it's a matter of "right or wrong" though, I think you could also have a situation where there are good reasons to support raw feeding, and good reasons to not do it as well. So I don't think the purpose of this article is to examine two sides and find out which is "right." Only to observe a social phenomena from a distance, as much of wikipedia covering human cultural behavior is intended to do.

There's only so much I could do, and this article still focuses I think, a bit much on:
 * 1) raw feeding of domestic animals. There's a whole parallel system of animals in captivity, and the feeding of them, that exists in zoos and wildlife sanctuaries. Human cultural practices, beliefs, and health knowledge about feeding carnivores and omnivores in these contexts (which, if even they don't compete in commonality, certainly compete in breadth of subject matter and commonality of raw feeding), go largely unexamined in this article. Others have mentioned this. Raw feeding in those circles is a fertile area for expansion in this article which I encourage any ambitious contributor to take on.
 * 2) This article also focuses a bit too much on, I think, what a vocal minority says is good or bad about raw feeding. Don't misinterpret this as an argument for this article to be all "science facts." It's important to discuss the ideas present in the intellectual subculture that constitutes the proponents and highest concentration of practictioners of raw feeding. This is as much an article about a human cultural phenomena as it is an article about measuring health effects. We want to understand what people are doing, and why they are doing the things they do. And this article covers that well. However, it is also an article about measuring health effects, and it seems that sometimes the need for a clear description of (limited as it is) scholarly literature reviews about raw meat diets, anywhere in the carnivore or omnivore sections of the animal kingdom, (in comparison to cooked meat) gets lost in the foam of the "debate style" format of this article. We don't want research synthesis, but we do want to find and post any relevant literature reviews.
 * 3) Finally, I think this article does (like much of the articles on the English wikipedia about pets quite understandably and reasonably do) get stuck sometimes in modern, Western, and pet-owner perspectives. I think a lot of people would find it really interesting to look at an article like this and get a sense of raw feeding's place in the large and varied history of how humans in different societies over time have taken care and fed omnivores and carnivores that they keep in captivity. On the opposite side of that spectrum, to get a full sense of modern raw feeding, I think it would be interesting to understand how much raw feeding is practiced in other cultures in the present day, and why or why not. For example, I'd imagine that in agricultural communities where rabbits represent a threat to crop output, farm dogs are regularly taken in to subsist primarily on a diet of rabbits. This is an example of the way raw feeding exists as a component of the relationship between humans and the omnivores and carnivores they keep in captivity.

Perhaps the sociologist in me is getting a little too excited about a subject which, before thorough consideration while editing, seriously bored me (and even though I still after weighing the arguments elect to feed my cat chicken off my plate after its been thrown in the oven). But I think through little pieces of effort here and there, this could grow from merely a "arguments some people have made for or against" (which is nice to have at least) to a well-rounded scholarly article on a civilization-spanning subject. -- Monk of the highest order (t) 02:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

NPOV
This article is clearly written by (a) raw feeding supporter(s). I am a dog owner and an animal lover and I would like to receive objective information on the subject based on scientific data. I am not a native speaker of English therefore I would not like to edit the article myself. Thank you.--Abuk SABUK (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Only for domestic dogs and cats?
I think raw feeding is applied for other animals in zoos or aquariums. --Otterlover (talk) 03:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Dreadful
I agree with the earlier commenter, this reads like a raw food advert. It appears that someone has attempted to answer every comment that they perceive as anti-raw food, in some kind of point-scoring argument. I feel like I've been faced with a load of propaganda. There are PLENTY of raw food diet proponent sites on the internet. I would like this to be a genuinely balanced article by neutral contributors. Back off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.245.99 (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Possibly useful links

 * A Comparison of the Nutritional Adequacy of Home-Prepared and Commercial Diets for Dogs - one month study of 79 dogs fed a home prepared diet in Austria. Not clear if the home prepared food is raw or cooked
 * Food Habits of Feral Carnivores: A Review of Stomach Content Analysis As the title says, an analysis of what animals eat in the wild. Expect raw food advocates to start adding carrion into their animal's diet soon.
 * Use of a raw meat-based diet or a dry kibble diet for sand cats On the digestibility of raw vs kibble
 * Barfworld and Barf Australia - Ian Billinghurst's sites on the BARF diet
 * Raw Meaty Bones Tom Lonsdale's site on a Raw Meaty Bones Diet
 * The Volhard Diet Wendy Volhard's site on the Volhard diet and recipes.
 * drpitcairn.comThoughts On Feeding Raw Meat Diets by Richard Pitcairn
 * "Why A Raw Food Diet IS NOT The Answer" Dog food and nutrition site's page critical of raw feeding.
 * "The Carnivore Connection to Nutrition in Cats" Journal of the American Veterinary Association
 * Nutrient composition of whole vertebrate pry fed in zoos
 * Diffuse osteopenia and myelopathy in a puppy fed a diet composed of an organic premix and raw ground beef.

Attribution
Certain sections of this article fall close to the wiki guidelines regarding weasal words...could you guys clean up those sections, where terms such as "many feeders" "some feeders" you need to cite the "some" or the "many" rather than generally alluding.see WP:WEASEL At this point I added one inline citation to the text indicating an area I definitely think needs tidying... benjicharlton (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Sources
If you are not sure if a source is considered reliable try here..Reliable sources/Noticeboard benjicharlton (talk) 14:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that there are no scientific studies listed which prove the point that raw meats are better/more easily digested by animals than cooked- or processed meats. Is this acceptable?:-

http://jas.fass.org/cgi/reprint/1939/1/400.pdf

At the moment, I do think more needs to be done to give the article more info re the benefits of raw feeding.Loki0115 (talk) 11:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be fine to start the points this research concluded regarding mink digestion but don't draw broad conclusions regarding all carnivores. benjicharlton (talk) 14:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you heard the BARF news from Krautland?
you will NOT believe this.

there is a user in the german wiki who is actually a genetics scientist and presents himself as a "veterinarian". he has a quick secretary, his name is "Cu aus der Chweiz". you will find the goof page here: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Barf - the guy is unbelievable... he is seriously expecting me to give him free nachhilfe recording WHY EXACTLY that 4-30 to 2-21 story is more relevant than he ever. ever. could imagine in his hardest nightmares. (nightmares he has definitely. look how he writes his "Gruss". with the sentences he writes (you will find that also on his user page) you know that he "deletes" at least one mouse with every "Gruss". (the discussion of his user page. just that. and you will understand why I wish not to be asked by anyone why I had no real time for sleeping or had issues with falling asleep last night.) -- ZweiterSternVonLinks (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Domestic dogs genetically adapted to food from humans
If I recall, there's strong science supporting the view that domestic dogs show genetic adaptions over wolves to digest human food and food waste, especially plant-based food. --Ronz (talk) 18:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

That's the biggest load of **** I've ever heard. The pet food industries have invented this argument to explain why so much grain is used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.254.51.225 (talk) 04:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Vegetables and fruit
Hi. Has this edit been vetted? To lump such starkly differning types of foods — "veggies, offal, meat, eggs, grains or dairy foods" — in one percentage is rather meaningless, especially with reference to "veggies", which deserves separate treatment. How much of it would be plant-derived or for that matter non-protein? After this edit, someone came alond and added fruit to this grouping. None of these edits presented any sources. Regards, Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe just revert the second one? The first one looks verifiable and you can probably find a source to back it up. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 21:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Raw diets types
There should be some kind of scientific relevance added to the type of diets. So instead of just talking about what the diet is, also include if how those diets are prepared have any kind of scientific background to them or nutritional value Fvialard (talk) 23:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

nutritional balance
There is something said about using cronometer.com to formulate a diet but this does not apply to dogs and cats so I am going to take it off. I will also add some references to what nutrient imbalances can cause. Everything is on my sandbox for now. Fvialard (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC) Here are a few references for the nutrient imbalances risks:
 * "rawdiet.html". 2007-09-30. Retrieved 2017-11-11
 * Axelsson, Erik; Ratnakumar, Abhirami; Arendt, Maja-Louise; Maqbool, Khurram; Webster, Matthew T.; Perloski, Michele; Liberg, Olof; Arnemo, Jon M.; Hedhammar, Åke (2013-01-23). "The genomic signature of dog domestication reveals adaptation to a starch-rich diet". Nature. 495 (7441): 360–364. doi:10.1038/nature11837. ISSN 1476-4687
 * Eakin, MacKinley, Williams (September 6, 1940). "Egg-White Injury in Chicks and Its Relationship to a Deficiency of Vitamin H (Biotin)". Science. 92: 224–225 – via JSTOR.
 * Dewailly, Rouja, Schultz, Julien, Tucker (September 2011). "Vitamin A Intoxication from Reef Fish Liver Consumption in Bermuda". Journal of Food Protection. 74: 1581 – 1583 – via Pro Quest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fvialard (talk • contribs) 02:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Changing a section title
The section titled "Bacteria, viruses and parasites" should be changed to "Food Safety". The current title has a negative connotation, and is too specific as it doesn't include all the topics that are discussed in the section such as zoonotic risk.Eve Robinson (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I would support changing it to either food safety or something like, "potential health risks". I'll give others time to comment, but it should be broader and preferably shorter. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 23:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Dog odor?
Can someone tell me why this article is linked to the dog odor article at the end of the page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fvialard (talk • contribs) 20:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Veterinary position
I am going to edit the vet position section so it is more neutral. It should include more peer reviewed references and less obscure blog posts. I have a recent article from the British Veterinary Association discussing raw food: (2016) Raw food diets for dogs and cats: do we know enough? Veterinary Record 178, 549-550. Fvialard (talk) 21:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Dog-Focused
Despite being an article that is supposed to be about raw feeding for dogs and cats, almost every section is about dog health or dog nutrition as opposed to dog and cat health. Perhaps it needs to be renamed as "Raw Feeding for Dogs"? Annieca2016 (talk) 13:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)