Delta Society Policy On Raw Feeding

[Teebs]

This is going a little bit OT but

I know this food thing is really ridiculous but is there other reasons people are against Delta, I always thought they did good things??

yep, they are very closed minded when it comes any training methods that are not theirs and they infer their method is the only correct method

I have a personal gripe with them and the way i was treated when i was going to do their course, as well as the way i was treated when i did pets as therapy, I have had a few run ins with some of the people here who do Delta and whos training ways are the right way and who know everything there is to know about dogs.

[Kavik]

What about the therapy dog side of things, apart from the food thing there doesn't seem to be anything else that I have come across that has made me think twice. I know they don't like the dogs in head harnesses (haltis, gentle leaders etc) which doesn't affect me as I don't use them. They do allow easy walk harnesses, and you can use treats.

Actually I thought they liked head collars? I know they are totally against check chains and any physical corrections.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

What about the therapy dog side of things, apart from the food thing there doesn't seem to be anything else that I have come across that has made me think twice. I know they don't like the dogs in head harnesses (haltis, gentle leaders etc) which doesn't affect me as I don't use them. They do allow easy walk harnesses, and you can use treats.

Actually I thought they liked head collars? I know they are totally against check chains and any physical corrections.

yeah they like halti's because they are not aversive....go figure

Edited May 19, 2010 by Jaxx'sBuddy

[Clyde]

Actually I thought they liked head collars?

Yep they love 'em and are quick to put them on peoples dogs before even trying to train them on a flat collar.

[Guest DBT]

Actually I thought they liked head collars?

Yep they love 'em and are quick to put them on peoples dogs before even trying to train them on a flat collar.

This makes for interesting reading for me. I did the live in intensive training block in preparation for the study program, going back about 10 yrs or so. I decided to forfeit my money and not go ahead with the study program, because i was getting quite negative vibes and could see it was 'their way or the highway' . As a raw feeder even back then, i was also very put off when a rep from a dog food company waltzed in to take us through the nutrition component of the course.

I'm sure they are doing some good things, but this little gem confirms my original feelings anyway! I felt like a complete failure at the time when i didnt go ahead with the course , but now i don't feel so bad

[stormie]

It has been proven that dogs can shed bacteria, such as salmonella and e.coli, without showing symptoms. Raw poultry is the most common source of such bacteria. So looking at this rationally, it would be irresponsible to allow dogs, who may be shedding such bacteria, into hospitals where for example there are people with cancer undergoing chemo, at this risk of making them ill.

I'm not saying I agree with it at all, but I'm just saying, that it is true that they can shed the bacteria and for the common healthy person, its not really a problem - we get sick and get over it. But for people who's health is already quite compromised, it could be potentially very dangerous.

I don't know much about the Delta Pet Partners and whether the dogs only do hospital work, but just saying, I can see where they are coming from and it does make sense.

eta: here's the results of a study done (found HERE) to determine whether they can shed the bacteria after ingesting it.

Of the 16 dogs exposed to Salmonella-contaminated commercial raw food diets, 7 (44% with 95% CI: 21%–69%) shed salmonellae in their feces. None (0/12) of the control dogs shed salmonellae. The exposed group’s shedding rate (44%) was significantly different (RR ≥ 11.4; P = 0.01) from the zero shedding rate found in the unexposed group. The dogs in the exposed group started to shed salmonellae 1 to 7 d after consuming Salmonella-positive raw food diets. Total days shedding ranged from 1 to 11 d, with a mean of 3.9 d. Five of 7 dogs had more than 1 d of shedding and days between shedding ranged from 1 to 9 d (Table 1). None of the 7 dogs that shed salmonellae had any prior antimicrobial treatment. None of the exposed dogs developed diarrhea or showed any clinical signs.

Edited May 20, 2010 by stormie

[megan_]

Can you spell S-E-L-L-O-U-T!!!? It is outrageous to believe that feeding raw is more dangerous than a dog engaging in normal 'dog' activities. You would need to keep a dog in a bubble to ensure they don't carry bacteria, there are alot worse things dogs do than eat raw food.

Exactly. How ridiculous. It would never have entered my mind that my dog was any more unhygenic because of the RMBs she eats on a regular basis.

the possum ppo mine feast on during our nightly walks might be a tad worse than the human grade lamb neck....

[SkySoaringMagpie]

I'm not saying I agree with it at all, but I'm just saying, that it is true that they can shed the bacteria and for the common healthy person, its not really a problem - we get sick and get over it. But for people who's health is already quite compromised, it could be potentially very dangerous.

I don't know much about the Delta Pet Partners and whether the dogs only do hospital work, but just saying, I can see where they are coming from and it does make sense.

Perhaps there are some places dogs can't go just as there are some places humans can't or shouldn't go when dealing with an immune compromised person. Most therapy dogs aren't working with seriously immune compromised people tho' which is the the puzzle for me with this ruling - as you mention it's unclear if this just applies to acute hospital work. For example, my grandmother's nursing home is quite happy to have well behaved dogs inside visiting with the semi-independent residents. Last time I visited I bought one of my dogs with their (arranged before hand) blessing. There is also a nursing home cat. Never occurred to me that my raw fed dog could present a risk.

I know dogs can do great therapy work, but if the price on that is them eating manufactured food and nothing else, and not being allowed anywhere unsupervised ever (even suburban backyards are full of birds pooping in dog water bowls, cat "truffles" from the neighbours cat, etc) then I'm not in favour for my dogs. I mean, only a month or so ago I thought one of mine was munching on a bogong and it turned out to be a small bird. I only saw it because I was hanging out washing. I could so easily have missed it.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

It has been proven that dogs can shed bacteria, such as salmonella and e.coli, without showing symptoms. Raw poultry is the most common source of such bacteria. So looking at this rationally, it would be irresponsible to allow dogs, who may be shedding such bacteria, into hospitals where for example there are people with cancer undergoing chemo, at this risk of making them ill.

I'm not saying I agree with it at all, but I'm just saying, that it is true that they can shed the bacteria and for the common healthy person, its not really a problem - we get sick and get over it. But for people who's health is already quite compromised, it could be potentially very dangerous.

I don't know much about the Delta Pet Partners and whether the dogs only do hospital work, but just saying, I can see where they are coming from and it does make sense.

eta: here's the results of a study done (found HERE) to determine whether they can shed the bacteria after ingesting it.

Of the 16 dogs exposed to Salmonella-contaminated commercial raw food diets, 7 (44% with 95% CI: 21%–69%) shed salmonellae in their feces. None (0/12) of the control dogs shed salmonellae. The exposed group's shedding rate (44%) was significantly different (RR ≥ 11.4; P = 0.01) from the zero shedding rate found in the unexposed group. The dogs in the exposed group started to shed salmonellae 1 to 7 d after consuming Salmonella-positive raw food diets. Total days shedding ranged from 1 to 11 d, with a mean of 3.9 d. Five of 7 dogs had more than 1 d of shedding and days between shedding ranged from 1 to 9 d (Table 1). None of the 7 dogs that shed salmonellae had any prior antimicrobial treatment. None of the exposed dogs developed diarrhea or showed any clinical signs.

this may be true but if i knew someone who was having chemo i would take NO dogs near them no matter whether they were fed raw or cooked food. just saying.

[stormie]

I totally agree with you, guess what I'm trying to say is that if they scientifically know that dogs who eat raw can and do shed the bacteria, it would be irresponsible of them to allow the dogs into an environment where this could post a risk. As to how they can police it, and be sure that the dog hasn't a dead bird in the backyard the day before, who knows. But if something went wrong and someone in a hospital situation became ill with a bacteria and it was known that the dog had eaten raw, the Delta society could have the pants sued off them. Sounds like they're just trying to cover their arses.

I just used the chemo case as an example. I was under the impression that Delta dogs visited hospitals and nursing homes etc, but as I said I don't really know much about the program. So with that in mind, it can be assumed that the dogs would be coming into contact with people who's health may also be compromised, so coming into contact with the bacteria may be quite harmful.

Edited May 20, 2010 by stormie

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

I totally agree with you, guess what I'm trying to say is that if they scientifically know that dogs who eat raw can and do shed the bacteria, it would be irresponsible of them to allow the dogs into an environment where this could post a risk. As to how they can police it, and be sure that the dog hasn't a dead bird in the backyard the day before, who knows. But if something went wrong and someone in a hospital situation became ill with a bacteria and it was known that the dog had eaten raw, the Delta society could have the pants sued off them. Sounds like they're just trying to cover their arses.

I just used the chemo case as an example. I was under the impression that Delta dogs visited hospitals and nursing homes etc, but as I said I don't really know much about the program. So with that in mind, it can be assumed that the dogs would be coming into contact with people who's health may also be compromised, so coming into contact with the bacteria may be quite harmful.

i see what you are saying. i suppose i have a cynical mind and if i tie this new policy with their big sponsor being a dog food company i start to smell a rat

[stormie]

for sure - that was the first thing I thought of too! And makes you think, if they know they can shed bacteria, why not just stop the whole program altogether? Because how can they be sure something wasn't consumed from the park or the backyard. Atleast they are ok with cooked food, but yeah, I think it's weird they're partnered with Purina.

[poodlefan]

Did everyone pick up on the fact that contaminated commercial food can cause dogs to shed pathogens?

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

for sure - that was the first thing I thought of too! And makes you think, if they know they can shed bacteria, why not just stop the whole program altogether? Because how can they be sure something wasn't consumed from the park or the backyard. Atleast they are ok with cooked food, but yeah, I think it's weird they're partnered with Purina.

that is exactly what i was thinking...take my little Boston Terrier...lets say this, bred to be a companion animal, was fed dry dog food....would anyone expect that this dog has such a high prey drive that yesterday i found .......feathers and bones all over the yard....poor birdie.

now say she was in this program...i could honestly say she was fed dry food but could anyone say they knew for sure their dog didnt eat raw meat when they were scavanging?

[stormie]

Poodlefan I'd say they just used a commercial food in the study to try and keep it constant. They would have contaminated the food with the bacteria themselves, for the study.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

Did everyone pick up on the fact that contaminated commercial food can cause dogs to shed pathogens?

well spotted PF, i didnt know this. well lets just have dogs in this program who dont eat...at all!!!!

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

Poodlefan I'd say they just used a commercial food in the study to try and keep it constant. They would have contaminated the food with the bacteria themselves, for the study.

agreed. but the problem is we have all witnessed the lack of quality control with commercial dog food.....so who is to say it couldnt be contaminated again?

[stormie]

Poodlefan I'd say they just used a commercial food in the study to try and keep it constant. They would have contaminated the food with the bacteria themselves, for the study.

agreed. but the problem is we have all witnessed the lack of quality control with commercial dog food.....so who is to say it couldnt be contaminated again?

in commercial raw? I'm sure it's possible, but it could just as easily become contaminated at home due to incorrect handling. I really wouldn't read much into the fact it was a commercial raw that they contaminated themselves because I really don't think its relevant whether they used a commercial product or made up a mix themselves and contaminated it - the outcome was still the same.

[Erny]

in commercial raw? I'm sure it's possible, but it could just as easily become contaminated at home due to incorrect handling. I really wouldn't read much into the fact it was a commercial raw that they contaminated themselves because I really don't think its relevant whether they used a commercial product or made up a mix themselves and contaminated it - the outcome was still the same.

So, what Delta is really saying is that dogs aren't safe for therapy purposes because of the germs they carry? And yet it's Delta that offers the course.

[Tilly]

I was trying to find out some more information on this as I feed my boys raw ... since I couldn't find anything significant I decided to email DELTA to ask them a few questions...

I read with interest the “Raw Protein Diet Policy” on your website so decided to find out more about the “scientific facts” and “studies” used as a basis for the decision.

I am having difficulty find any information on what studies were conducted to form the basis that dogs feed a raw diet shed “significant amounts of pathogenic bacteria”.

Having not found any real information on this study, I am hoping your organisation will be able to answer some questions for me.

1. What brand “commercial foods” were fed to the dogs who undertook this study?

2. What grade was the “raw food" fed to the dogs who undertook this study? Was it “pet food” grade or “human” grade as many dog owners who feed raw actually feed?

3. Was each dog first fed raw and then commercial (or were they fed commercial and the raw) in order to determine if the particular dog was shedding “significant amounts of pathogenic bacteria” regardless of what it was actually being fed? And if so – how long was the dog fed the particular diet before they were tested?

4. Where the individual dogs tested a number of times to determine the average level of shedding or where they test just one or two times?

5. Where the tests undertaken in a “sterile” or “controlled” environment to rule out environmental contributions to the “pathogenic bacteria” detected?

6. What was the difference in readings between “commercial fed” and “raw fed” dogs? Was this reading different between individual breeds?

7. Your site also states “Since many studies have shown pets fed such diets shed a significantly higher number of pathogenic bacteria, the risk is too great for inadvertent, but avoidable infection” – can you also provide some information on what studies these were?

I look forward to your response.

I got an automatic response as an acknowledgement which implies responses to questions will be provided on the website (under FAQ's) but I can't imagine they will do that ...