The Dubious Benefit Of Feeding Raw Bones

[cactus]

I stopped feeding raw meaty bones a few months ago, because my girl broke them into shards, and I worried that she'd puncture her innards or break a tooth. (I was a bit late- today she had a broken tooth removed because it had gone bad).

I give her fresh chicken frames and necks and frozen turkey necks- I freeze them to stop her swallowing them whole but have often wondered if she is missing out on anything important by no longer having those meaty bones. Well tonight I found this article which dissects the nutritional content of a raw bone.... http://www.thepetcenter.com/xra/bonecomp.html

its interesting reading

[pampa]

Well, well, well...

That is DEFINATLY food for thought, or a bone to knaw on if you'll pardon my pun

Great articles

[dogbesotted]

Interesting.

I will make a comment tho. I feed my dogs raw bones but I do not feed big bones like the one illustrated. Always brisket bones ( lamb or beef) they are soft bones. If they are crushed with a hammer they do not tend to splinter into shards.

Occasionally my guys will get a joint with bone in it so that they have to spend a deal of time gnawing the huge amount of meat off. They really enjoy thses feedds. The bone tends to get ignored after the meat has been gnawed oof..unless I leave them in the paddock.

For my dogs behaviours with meals they have to gnaw and tear at...it is mentally and physically pleasant for them. It also works well for the couple of "fatties" i have. Takes them ages to finish a meal instead of opening the mouth and breathing the tucker in. LOL

[Hazz]

The only bones dogs should be allowed to eat fully are soft non weightbearing bones. Heavy weightbearing bones like those pictured in the article (which I don't give) should only be given under supervision and taken aways when they get down to the bone itself - not really cost effective anyway.

They say the thigh bones on humans are as strong/hard as concrete - so you have to wonder how dense these bones are in larger animals.

[poodlefan]

Feeding large not readily disgestable bones is not part of BARF feeding - those bones are termed 'recreational' and Billinghurst advises they be feed only in moderation.

The only bones my dogs are fed are ones that they can eat entirely such as chicken wings/thighs and lamb flaps.

If your dog is losing teeth eating bones I suggest you are feeding the wrong ones. Fresh turkey necks etc are still raw meaty bones.

Just goes to show how readily some vets are prepared to condemn a raw diet when they haven't even understood what type of bone feeding is advocated.

Edited March 1, 2006 by poodlefan

[~Anne~]

Just goes to show how readily some vets are prepared to condemn a raw diet when they haven't even understood what type of bone feeding is advocated.

I don't believe this vet was condemning a raw diet poodlefan. I feel he was just merely trying to be factual and to uncover and expose a few mistakes that are being made.

If you read what is thrown around on this site and what I myself have heard many, many people say is simply "feed raw meaty bones" and in my mind this can be and would be construed as 'any' bones. My first insticnt when I heard it was to feed raw beef bones, not chicken or turkey.... I, along with millions of others, had grown up with the chant of 'never feed chicken bones - they are too small and pose a choking risk'.

[Guest magnum]

We always give our dog large beef or lamb brisket & they just love them. The only problem is they carry a high price tage these days!!!

[poodlefan]

Cactus:

If you read what is thrown around on this site and what I myself have heard many, many people say is simply "feed raw meaty bones"

And if you read a little more on this site you will see the experienced BARFers say "buy the books and do your homework" before attempting to raw feed. "Raw meaty bones" are defined quite narrowly in Dr B's books. Dr B says that the kinds of "dinosaur" bones depicted in that article are bad for a number of reasons - they tend to be from older animals, they are too big and too hard, and they also tend to be the repository for chemicals used in agriculture.

My beef with vets and BARF is that most quite rightly condemn half-a%$sed diets used by some people attempts to raw feed. However the concept of raw feeding should not be judged by some of the ridiculous diets people concoct without doing their homework. Feeding raw mince and pureed vegetables is not BARF feeding anymore than feeding "dinosaur bones" is.

The USA is the birthplace of "feed kibble only" advocacy and not surprisingly canine dental work is the fastest growing area of many American veterinary practices.

The upshot to any successful home made diet is research and effort. I just hate seeing BARF condemned by vets and others who judge it based on misinformation as to what is actually involved.

Edited March 1, 2006 by poodlefan

[~Anne~]

Cactus:

And if you read a little more on this site you will see the experienced BARFers say "buy the books and do your homework" before attempting to raw feed.

But this site is a mere miniscule drop in the ocean compared to the dog world in general. The catch cry in general is 'feed raw meaty bones' and that barf stands for bones and raw food - is it any wonder people are getting it wrong?

Feeding raw mince and pureed vegetables is not BARF feeding anymore than feeding "dinosaur bones" is.

Two things - I feed fresh meat and vegetables but I don't claim to feed 'barf'.... I term it 'raw' feeding but what I term it is not really relevant. My dogs are getting no less of their nutritional requirements then any other dog feed this way or on any commercial 'barf' product or home made barf product.

Secondly - the article does not say don't feed barf.... or this is what barf is.... or this is what raw is for that matter. It is now you, instead of the un-educated, that is confusing the different styles in the minds of those uneducated feeders by misinterpreting what is being said. The article, from my perspective at any rate, simple discusses the pros and cons of feeding raw meaty bones.

The upshot to any successful home made diet is research and effort. I just hate seeing BARF condemned by vets and others who judge it based on misinformation as to what is actually involved.

Again, I don't believe the vet was condemning barf or raw - he was just stating facts about feeding bones *shrugs*

[Hazz]

BARF also means Biologically Appropriate Raw Food

[~Anne~]

BARF also means Biologically Appropriate Raw Food

Yes and I believe this was what the acronym did actually stand for originally.

[poodlefan]

Puggles:

It is now you, instead of the un-educated, that is confusing the different styles in the minds of those uneducated feeders by misinterpreting what is being said.

Really? You don't think the following excerpts from the article are questioning the appropriateness of raw diets involving bones?

Proponents of feeding whole bones to dogs (the contention is that COOKED bones are a safety hazard, RAW bones are not) state that there are great nutritional benefits derived from consuming raw bones. These nutritional benefits can actually be seen in the greatly enhanced health status of the dog when the dog is switched away from processed, dry food diets. Raw bones, some contend, are an absolute necessity; dogs will not live a long and healthy life unless their diet contains RAW BONES. But is this contention based on facts?

Rather than feeding whole raw bones to dogs based on the erroneous notion that those whole bones provide outstanding nutritional benefits, we are much more accurate in asserting that whole raw bones provide a good balance of Calcium and Phosphorus for dogs... and that's about it! (For chewing exercise why not use a hard Rawhide Bone that softens if ingested?)

The "uneducated" don't need my help to be confused. This article discussed the wrong type of bone and analyses its nutritional value in the absence of any attached meat, marrow, tendon etc. If you read this article you'd easily come to the conclusion that finely ground bone meal (known to come from the oldest animals) is the only appropriate bone material for a dogs diet and that rawhide chews (God help me) are far safer appropriate ways of keeping dogs teeth clean.

And yet Puggles you don't view the article as "anti-BARF". Its conclusion is raw bones are BAD for dogs. I agree with specific type of bone he looks at but his conclusion is a GENERAL one.

Edited March 2, 2006 by poodlefan

[~Anne~]

And yet Cactus you don't view the article as "anti-BARF".

Um no I still don't..... feeding raw bones and barf are two different things.......... oh.... and for thr record - where do you keep geeting 'cactus' from? Is this perhaps a freudian slip?

[poodlefan]

Sorry Puggles.

If two thirds of a BARF diet is RMBs and this article says don't feed RMBs, how can it NOT be anti-BARF?

I completely understand why many people choose not to feed a raw diet. However, articles like this don't assist people to reach an informed decision IMHO.

Edited March 2, 2006 by poodlefan

[~Anne~]

Sorry Puggles.

I thought perhpas you were inferring I was prick or was being prickly

[Fastgals]

I think this article is discussing the pros and cons of feeding raw meatless bones and may be relevant only to people who feed these as recreational treats (or include them in their dog's diet). It doesn't surprise me at all that the author thinks that feeding whole meatless bones (particularly large beef bones), as opposed to ground, seems a pointless risk. The author has deliberately stayed away from discussing the (very) meaty bone as a nutritional "package", noting more than once that he is referring only to bare bones. So, not relevant to people who do feed meaty bones, which have extra benefits, such as the tremendous enjoyment dogs get out of all that ripping, tearing and crunching, the associated increased dental benefits, and the health benefit from consuming cartilage (ie. the author does not note this source of chondroitin) and tendons, etc along with the muscle meat. But, it is a straight forward, interesting article and these are always helpful for further info.

Regards,

Fastgals.

[poodlefan]

I thought perhpas you were inferring I was prick or was being prickly

Nah, nothing that sinister - just thought you were the OP. (Brain meltdown)

Edited March 2, 2006 by poodlefan

[ravensmyst00]

I stopped feeding raw meaty bones a few months ago, because my girl broke them into shards, and I worried that she'd puncture her innards or break a tooth. (I was a bit late- today she had a broken tooth removed because it had gone bad).

I give her fresh chicken frames and necks and frozen turkey necks- I freeze them to stop her swallowing them whole but have often wondered if she is missing out on anything important by no longer having those meaty bones. Well tonight I found this article which dissects the nutritional content of a raw bone.... http://www.thepetcenter.com/xra/bonecomp.html

its interesting reading

I have to say I am lucky enough to have a vet the actually supports and has pushed me to ensure that I put my bullmastiff on the BARF diet. Unfortunately because it maintains such a lean dog I am not able to feed him totally on BARF and I have to add kibble.

I read over this article when I was researching the BARF diet. I dont totally agree with what this guy is saying as it appears to be out of the US and I believe someone else pointed out it is the birth place of "man made processed food only for your pets". This has only guaranteed that the vets in the US end up with very thick wallets and you end up with very sick dogs and very large debt in the end.

There is always a risk with feeding bones as with any food. Hence the reason why I ensure that I am there with my bullie from the moment he is given the bone till the moment he is finished. Marrow bones (aka dinosaur bones) are only given cut in quarters so my boy can gain access to the marrow once that is eaten the bone is removed. Too many dogs choke on the knuckles off the marrow bones because they fracture and get stuck in the dogs throat. Something my in laws dont understand as its their thought that a dog should be tossed outside with a marrow bone and allowed to do what they want with it. The other bones my boy gets are lamb flaps. I have been lucky enough to find a butcher that will leave all the meat on the lamb flaps as it saves him close to an hours worth of work if I call him first thing in the morning on delivery days. Chicken carcasses are given as well but I find they tend to go off really quickly so I dont give them all that often.

In the end if you wish to feed your dogs bones - Go for it!. Just supervise them at all times. Make sure you have pliers on hand incase one gets stuck and remove any bones that are either too small or are showing signs of chipping.

You are going to find all sorts of articles stating the pros and cons of bones etc. In the end its up to you the owner to decide what is best. In the end it is best to go in with all knowledge so you can make the best decision.

Just my opinion.

[cactus]

I dont accept the assertion that this article is anti raw food feeding.

It states that the nutritional content of a bone is calcium and phosphorus. There is nothing more magical about bones than that. The bulk of the nutritional value of "raw meaty bones" comes from the *raw meat* and other soft tissues attached. You can serve that up without serving up bones.

There *are* risks associated with eating bones, and dog owners must decide whether its appropriate for *their* dog given the available information.

I feed my girls NOTHING but raw food.

But my naughty girl swallowed small (by her standards) bones whole. She snapped medium sized bones in half and swallowed them. She gnawed and crushed large bones. She didnt care how big or jagged the pieces were- and I know she swallowed shards because I would find little pools of bile with bone fragments in it. She is not like most dogs when it comes to bones. I haven't heard anybody else complain that their dog swallows large turkey necks whole. Thats why I have to give them frozen.

My understanding of this article is that she is missing out on exactly NOTHING as a result of not eating bones- meaty or otherwise.

So that one more thing I can strike off my list of concerns....

[cactus]

I think this article is discussing the pros and cons of feeding raw meatless bones

<snip>

not relevant to people who do feed meaty bones, which have extra benefits, such as the tremendous enjoyment dogs get out of all that ripping, tearing and crunching, the associated increased dental benefits, and the health benefit from consuming cartilage (ie. the author does not note this source of chondroitin) and tendons, etc along with the muscle meat.

Fastgals, he does acknowledge the benefit of whats attached to the bone- he pretty much says its *that* which is of benefit and not the actual bone itself. In my case there were no dental benefits to feeding bones. She had been fed kibble for around 5 years of her life and had near perfect teeth. After a year of bones, she has undergone a tooth extraction (dont know the name of the tooth but its one of those big suckers on the side that are used for crunching the bones). I'm not saying WoW! Bones are bad! Dont feed them!

But according to this guy's analysis of bone content they are not necessary, so that leaves us with the free choice to give them to our dogs purely because they enjoy them, if they are suitable. Those who cant or dont want to feed bones need not feel bad about not feeding them.