Yet another vet Dr. Remillard addresses your above referenced BARF diet. Here is a cut and paste of several of her responses to people that have asked questions.
https://www.petdiets.com/Ask-the-Nutritionist
1. The wolf's diet includes animal flesh, bones, innards, fruits, vegetables and grasses. Do you realize that raw diets include all of these items, as well over the course of several weeks?
Dr. Remillard's response:
Yes, I read the Billinghurst Book of Babble, made myself go around the BARF webring and waded through the BARF FAQ and other "writings". I am very familiar with the concept and the
raging testimonials absent of fact, reason or truth. If one understood intermediary metabolism and employed just some degree of logic, it would become obvious that a sporadic "fest or famine" nutrient intake (over 1-3 weeks) for the adult dog could not be optimum. Most of us are seeking optimal nutrition for our pets. The body runs like an engine. Your car engine needs water, gasoline, air, oil and coolant all at the same time to run optimally. If you provided oil one day, then water another day and finally gasoline next week, you would not win any races or ever make it out of the driveway. Why not allow your dog's engine (intermediary metabolism) the opportunity to run optimally by providing all essential nutrients at the same time?
2. Where did you get your education about Raw Food Diets....not from Dr. Ian Billinghurst, DVM, I'll bet!
Dr. Remilard's response:
We base our recommendations on a sound, scientific evidence, from a wide range of professional resources and experiences. We have to make our professional recommendations based upon seeing the big picture, and cannot be overly persuaded by testimonials and heresay. Yes, I have read Billinghursts writings, and
please note, he does not hold a DVM. Ian Billinghurst is an Australian holding a 1976 BVSc degree which is a Bachelor of Veterinary Science. The Doctorate in Veterinary Medicine (DVM) is the veterinary degree granted in the American system. The interesting point is that he was not trained at a School of Veterinary Medicine in the USA which would indicate that he has very limited first-hand knowledge of how veterinarians in the USA receive their nutritional training and more importantly how the pet food companies may have or are currently influencing that training.
Therefore all reference he makes in that regard should taken in the limited context of his training.
3. Are you trying to say that a dog should not eat as he [they] did for thousands of years? And that the incidences of serious disease have [has] not gone up astronomically in the last fifty or sixty years...oddly, about the time that dogs have been eating cardboard from bags?
Dr. Remillard's response:
Neither you nor anyone else knows the prevalence of dogs eating the BARF-type diets or the true incidence of deaths related to the feeding of bones. However, most responsible people will not deny that there have been problems related to feeding that diet type and call the risks for what they are. Even Dr. Billinghurst (pg 10) agrees that bones can cause GI obstructions. Yes, the incidence of reported diseases might be up but for several reasons totally unrelated to pet foods.
1. Dogs now live in our houses and sleep in bed with us. Most dogs today do not know what is a doghouse. When they get sick, owners recognize disease sooner then previously because of this closer contact.
2. Owners care for pets as family members and are willing to spend much more money on their pets then previously which aids in the actual diagnosis of a disease as oppose to simply 'taking them for a one way trip out back of the barn'.
3. The practice of Veterinary Medicine has improved in the diagnosis and treatment/management of diseases. Just take a glance at the SNOMED system if you are not yet impressed with how far medicine as evolved in just the categorization and defining of disease states.
With the combination of owners willing to paying and DVMs armed with better medicine, the number of reported diagnoses and treatable diseases will appear to rise, but not the true incidence of a disease may not change. Your question implies that you know the true incidence of some diseases in the canine population 50-60 years ago and can therefore make such a comparison. But you do not know this, and you cannot make such comparison. Simply because you hear more about a disease does not mean the incidence or even the prevalence is greater than before.
A romanticized view of evolution cropping up on the web is reversionary "new age" trash and clouds the issue. Evolutionary pressure, contrary to current popular notions, does not indicate the very best or optimal diet but merely indicates a minimal diet for survival. Simply because a species survived long enough to reproduce and propagate is no vindication that their diet was optimal. Look around the world today, many animal species (and people) are living on diets known through scientific investigation to be far less than optimal, but some live just long enough to reproduce once or twice. The mere survival of any species is a poor testimonial to the fitness of their diet.
Not all nutritional imbalances kill, most just impair, mar and maim.
And there you have it from Dr. Remillard DMV who is a nutritionists
