Content uploaded by Marko Samardžija
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Marko Samardžija on May 06, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Marko Samardžija
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Marko Samardžija on May 06, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
–
314
Original scientific paper
1Department of Nutrition and Dietetics in Animals, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Zagreb, Croatia
2Clinics of Obstetrics and Reproduction, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Zagreb, Croatia
3Veterinary Station Croatia
*Corresponding author-mail:
Diet based on raw meat or more popularly called BARF (Biologically Appropriate
Raw Food) is defined as pet food diet that is composed of thermally untreated animal products that
is used as a pet food diet for pets in households.
Raw meat-based diet finished pro-
ducts and diet prepared by pet owner (called homemade BARF). Homemade diets are based on
recipes that are enabling the owner to self prepare the diet.
s that could potentially result in the
The lack of good quality studies has
resulted in a general discussion on the subject of the potential risks and benefits that arise from this
feeding prac
of choice for certain pathologies are lacking. The proponents of BARF diets base their
of infectious disease risks when feeding a BARF diet, is of the better quantity and quality. Namely,
microbiological safety of BARF diets is a crucial segment that manufacturers are obligated to control
with the additional control of all other production procedures (cold chain in all phases of production
and storage) to minimize the contamination with zoonotic pathogens.
: BARF, pets, nutrition, guidelines
–
315
In recent years, the trend of feeding dogs and
cats with BARF (Biologicaly appropriate raw
food) diet has become increasingly popular, be-
diet. It is estimated that the number of pet own-
ers who feed their dogs wholly or partly on raw
meet diet in some European countries reaches up
to 51 % (Corbee et al., 2013). Products contain-
ing animal by-products and not subjected to heat
called chews (), raw
meat based homemade diets (so called
homemade BARF) and commercial BARF
preparations that include muscle tissue, internal
organs and bones and sometimes unpasteurized
dairy products and eggs (Freeman et al., 2013).
Additionally,
cluded in BARF diet. Pet owners who choose the
BARF feeding regimen often do so because they
consider it to be a natural product without added
ilizers and without added
the pet (Morgan et al., 2017).
choice to feed a BARF diet is often based in the
facturer (Freeman et al., 2013, Morgan et al.,
2017).
sion is the result of the lack of research that
would answer the
of potential risk or, on the other hand, confirm
indication of its use in diseased animals. Re-
search that indicates on public health risks when
feeding pets with a raw diet is more numerous,
emphasizing the need for responsible
as a result of using a raw diet in householders.
The consequence of the inconsistency in atti-
tudes related to benefits and risks of pet feeding
with raw diets is a larger amount of unclear and
own-
The most widespread concept of raw meat-
based diet is BARF (Bones and Raw Food) diet
concept, whose acronym is now more commonly
translated as Biologically Appropriate Raw
Food. BARF diet for dogs is based on a preda-
tor-prey feeding pattern, whereby only non-heat-
treated foods that are naturally in the predator i.e.
wolf feeding regime are included in the diet
(Stahler et al., 2006). The diet is formulated to
reflect the composition of the prey caught and is
usually composed of muscle, internal organs,
cartilage, bones and a source of fiber in the forms
or fruits. Usually the ratio of indi-
of 80% of muscles, 10% bones, 5% and 5%
other secretory organs. Through the BARF con-
cept of diet, dogs are, like cats, included as ob-
roponents of
BARF diet, the carbohydrate component in the
diet is considered undesirable and harmful
(Billinghurst, 2003).
Raw meat-based diets are defined as pet food
containing thermally untreated products of either
domestic or wild animals’ origin (Freeman et al.,
2013).
into two basic categories: commercially prep-
ared and prepared by pet owner (so called
homemade). Diets made at home are based on
recipes and allow the owner to prepare them by
–
316
himself
be in coordinance with official recomm-
endations related to prescribed nutrient intake
recommendations (Streiff et al., 2002, Dillitzer
et al., 2011). Nutritionally unbalanced diets can
-ologi-
cal states caused by feeding disturbances (Taylor
et al. 2009, Heinze et al., 2012, Larsen et al.,
2012, Stockman et al., 2013).
Commercial frozen BARF diets, which are
usually declared as balanced and complete pet
diets, are most commonly chosen by pet owners
(NRC, 2006). Balanced formulations that are de-
clared as complete diets for all ages and breeds,
must be balanced and in accordance with the nu-
trient requirements of large and giant dog breeds
(Hazewinkel et
al., 1991, FEDIAF, 2018). This will lead to the
addition of calcium and phosphorous, usually in-
cluded in the form of ground bones in the ratio
of 1.1-1.6
macro-minerals and trace elements at higher
concentrations than prescribed for adult dog di-
ets (FEDIAF, 2018). The composition of com-
to manufacturer`s basic recipe, used raw mate-
rial and production process (Freeman et al.,
2013). Commercially prepared BARF diets for
other hand, formulations of the same concept for
ed
products, so cat owners who want to feed cats
with BARF diet
.
digestibility
of crude protein in raw diet compared to heat
a BARF diet compared to foods undergoing a
(Crissey et al., 1997, Vester et al., 2010, Kerr et
al., 2012). Digestibility is influenced by many
factors that are present in the pet food production
process: composition, processing temperature
trusion. Namely, by thermal treatment, as well as
pressure), proteins and amino acids undergo
structural changes that affect the digestibility of
or may result in Maillard reaction, which will re-
sult in a reaction of free amino groups and the
carbonyl compound (Friedman, 1996, Hendriks
et al., 1999, Rutherfurd et al., 2007). Better di-
gestibility of BARF formulations will result in
less feces production (Vester et al., 2010).
Po
immune response, the coat and skin health, re-
duction of dental plaque and tartar,
ity and general condition of animal (Morgan et
al., 2017). BARF diet feeding has not been mon-
itored through long-term scientific research, so
should be considered with caution (Schlesinger
and Joffe, 2011).
digestibility and simple composition of BARF
diet, often with only one source of protein, as a
potential allergen, can result in a good therapeu-
tic response due to the skin or gastrointestinal
manifestation of the
is not allergic to the protein from the composi-
tion ( et al., 2017). The BARF feeding
concept is based in the incorporation of raw
bones into the diet and these are often added in
the form of ground bones to commercial prepa-
rations. Feeding dogs and cats with thermally
untreated whole bones cannot be considered
–
317
completely risk free, since they can be a poten-
tially dangerous due to constipation and perfora-
as well as teeth and
injuries (Thompson et al., 2012).
When making a BARF diet, it is crucial that no
hazardous raw materials, such as thyroid tissue,
are included in the composition, if the manufac-
turer uses muscle of head and neck. Eating a
BARF diet with thyroid tissue can result in the
(Kohler et al., 2012).
The research conducted so far has identified
a significant risk of microbial malfunction in
commercial and home prepared BARF diets
(Lejeune and Hancock 2001, Joffe and
Schlesinger, 2002, Weese et al., 2005). How-
source of pathogen with zoonotic potential and
thus be a risk for human infection ( et
al., 2010, Nemser et al., 2014). Particularly dan-
gerous is the claim, often promoted by BARF
diet proponents, that pathogenic in raw meat are
not a risk to pets, dogs and cats, since their di-
Namely, numerous studies confirming the clini-
ported in dogs that were fed with raw meat
(Chengappa et al., 1993, et al., 2003,
Morley et al., 2006, Leonard et al., 2011). As
with humans, the transmission and manifestation
of the clinical signs will be influenced by many
factors including breeding of animals in group,
age and immune status of animal (Hellgren et al.,
2019). Additionally, the incidence of Salmonella
spp. is associated with meat type which is signif-
icantly higher in chicken meat than beef and
pork meat (Zhao et al., 2002, Bohaychuk et al.,
2006, Mollenkopf et al., 2011, Cook et al.,
2012). BSalmonella spp.,
pathogens that are important in controlling the
microbiological safety of BARS rations are:
Escherichia coli O157:H7, Clostridium spp.,
Campylobacter jejuni and Listeria spp.
(Freeman and Michel, 2001, Weese et al., 2005,
Strohmeyer et al, 2006, Bohaychuk et al., 2006,
Lenz et al., 2009). Parasite contamination in
meat and fish can be controlled by the freezing
process. The time and temperature at which the
procedure can be performed depends on the type
of parasite and of the meat used in the formula-
tions (Kotula et al, 1991, Huss et al., 2000). Due
to the risk of microbial contamination of animal
by-products, producers of BARF diet may use
high hydrostatic pressure treatment in the pro-
duction process, which may reduce, although not
completely, the number of pathogens in meat
(Aymerich et al., 2008, Baert et al., 2009).
Public health risk, as a result of a BARF diet
use, is present for owners and other household
mission of raw meat pathogenic microorganisms
on daily basis (Lejeune and Hancock, 2001). En-
host organism whereby the pet may be an
asymptomatic carriers (Finley et al., 2006). It is
of particular importance for immunocompro-
mised persons, children and the elderly, as well
as pregnant women pets
(Finley et al., 2006, Kukanich, 2011). It is there-
fore of crucial importance to alert owners to the
risk related to feeding dogs and cats with BARF
them safely. It is crucial to emphasize the im-
for household members who are in contact with
–
318
BARF diet and pet, the conduct of personal hy-
giene (hand washing), and the washing and dis-
infection of water and food bowls as well as
household. Particular emphases are on disabling
fecal-oral contact, or contact immediately after
feeding, when there is the greatest risk of contact
transmission of the pathogen. The owner should
be warned to regularly control parasitic diseases
of the dog and/or cat by a
tion. It is important to warn the owner to pur-
c
tered manufacturer, whose products comply
with the prescribed nutrient content of the pet
food (NRC, 2006, FEDIAF, 2018). Furthermore,
if pet owner chooses to feed pet according to the
recipe (so called homemade BARF) with self-
prepared diet, it is important to take care that bal-
anced diet based on recipe is made by qualified
s in nutrition such as surplus
and/or nutrient deficiency, in particular macro-
It is also
important to warn them of the potential health
risks
which animals are not candidates for BARF for-
mulations: animals with renal and hepatic pa-
thology, history of pancreatitis, giant dog breeds
in early stage of growth, patients with impaired
immune status, animals with
system function caused by addition of ground
bones to the formulation ( et al., 2017).
During the stay of people with impaired immune
status, children, the elderly, pregnant women
and women who are breastfeeding in the house-
hold, it is necessary to warn them about the high
risk of spread and transmission of microorgan-
isms and parasites with zoonotic potential. In ad-
dition to that, manufacturers should indicate in
the instructions for use of their products the
proper procedure for handling and preparing the
meal which would include: a defrosting proce-
dure on temperature of 10°C, and a preparation
procedure for defrosting a portion of the diet to
be used immediately after defrosting. It is im-
portant to warn them that once a defrosted pack-
age of BARF diet is not frozen again. When
feeding, the diet in the feeding bowl should be
as short as possible and, if the animal refuses to
(Hellgren et al.,
2018).
1. Aymerich T., Picouet P. A., Monfort J. M. (2008): Decontamination technologies for meat
products. Meat. Sci. 78, 114–129.
2. J., Uyttendaele M. (2009): The efficacy of preservation methods to
inactivate foodborne viruses. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 131, 83–94.
3. A., Deasy M., Dato V., Moll M., Sandt C., Rea N. K., Rickert R.,
Marriott C., Warren K., Urdaneta V., Salehi E., Villamil E., Ayers T., Hoekstra R. M., Austin
J. L., Ostroff S., Williams I. T. (2010): Human Salmonella infections linked to contaminated
dry dog and cat food, 2006-2008. Pediatrics 126, 477–483.
4. Billinghurst I. (1993): Give your dog a bone: the practical commonsense way to feed dogs for
a long healthy lifendria, NSW.
5. Bohaychuk V. M., Gensler G. E., King R. K., Manninen K. I., Sorensen O., Wu J. T., Stiles
M. E., Mcmullen L. M. (2006): Occurrence of pathogens in raw and ready-to-eat meat and
poultry products collected from the retail marketplace in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. J. Food
Prot. 69, 2176–2182.
6. H. (2017):
sirovog mesa: prednosti i rizici. –48.
–
319
7. Chengappa M. M., Staats J., Oberst R. D., Gabbert (1993): Prevalence of
Salmonella in raw meat used in diets of racing greyhounds–377.
8. Cook A., Odumeru J., Lee S., Pollari F. (2012): Campylobacter, Salmonella, Listeria
monocytogenes, verotoxigenic Escherichia coli, and Escherichia coli prevalence,
enumeration, and subtypes on retail chicken breasts with and without skin. J. Food Prot. 75,
34–40.
9. Corbee R.J., Breed R.D., Hazewinkel H.A.W.
on internet forums. 17th European Society of Veterinary and Comparative Nutrition Congress,
Sep 19–21. Ghent, Belgium.
10. Crissey S. D., Swanson J. A., Lintzenich B. A., Brewer B. A., Slifka K. A. (1997): Use of a
raw meat-based diet or a dry kibble diet for sand cats (Felis margarita). J. Anim. Sci. 75,
2154–2160.
11. Dillitzer N., Becker N., Kienzle E. (2011): Intake of minerals, trace elements and vitamins in
bone and raw food rations in adult dogs. Br. J. Nutr. 106, 53–56.
12. European Pet Food Industry Federation (FEDIAF) (2018): Nutritional Guidelines for complete
and complementary pet food for cats and dogs. FEDIAF, Brussels, Belgija.
13. Finley R., Reid-Smith R., Weese J. S., Angulo F. J. (2006): Human health implications of
Salmonella-contaminated natural pet treats and raw pet food. Clin. Infect. Dis. 42, 686–691.
14. Freeman L. M., Chandler M. L., Hamper B. A., Weeth L. P. (2013): Current knowledge about
the risks and benefits of raw meat-based diets for dogs and cats. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 243,
1549–1558.
15. Freeman L. M., Michel K. E. (2001): Evaluation of raw food diets for dogs. J. Am. Vet. Med.
Assoc. 218, 705-709.
16. Friedman M. (1996): . J. Agric. Food Chem.
44, 631–653.
17. Hazewinkel H. A., Van Den Brom W. E., Van T. K. A. T., Voorhout G., Van Wees A. (1991):
Calcium metabolism in Great Dane dogs fed diets with various calcium and phosphorus levels.
J. Nutr. 121, 99–106.
18. Heinze C. R., Gomez F. C., Freeman L. M. (2012): Assessment of commercial diets and recipes
for home-prepared diets recommended for dogs with cancer. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 241,
1453–1460.
19. Hellgren J., Hästö L. S., Wikström C., Fernström L., Hansson I. (2019): Occurrence of
Salmonella, Campylobacter, Clostridium and Enterobacteriaceae in raw meat-based diets for
dogs. Veterinary Record, Vet. Rec.
20. Hendriks W., Emmens M., Trass B., Pluske J. (1999): Heat processing changes the protein
quality of canned cat foods as measured with a rat bioassay. J. Anim. Sci. 77, 669.
21. Huss H. H., Reilly A., Ben Embarek K. (2000): Prevention and control of hazards in seafood.
Food control 11, 149–156.
22. Joffe D. J., Schlesinger D. P. (2002): Preliminary assessment of the risk of Salmonella infection
in dogs fed raw chicken diets. Can. Vet. J. 43, 441–442.
23. Kerr K. R., Vester Boler B. M., Morris C. L., Liu K. J., Swanson K. S. (2012): Apparent total
tract energy and macronutrient digestibility and fecal fermentative end-product concentrations
of domestic cats fed extruded, raw beef-based, and cooked beef-based diets. J. Anim. Sci. 90,
515–522.
–
320
24. Kohler B., Stengel C., Neiger R. (2012): Dietary hyperthyroidism in dogs. J. Small. Anim.
Pract. 53, 182–184.
25. Kotula A. W., Dubey J. P., Sharar A. K., Andrews C. D., Shen S. K., Lindsay D. S. (1991):
Effect of freezing on infectivity of Toxoplasma gondii tissue cysts in pork. Journal of Food
Protection, 54, 687–690.
26. Kukanich K. S. (2011): Update on Salmonella spp contamination of pet food, treats, and
nutritional products and safe feeding recommendations. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 238, 1430–
1434.
27. Larsen J. A., Parks E. M., Heinze C. R., Fascetti A. J. (2012): Evaluation of recipes for home-
prepared diets for dogs and cats with chronic kidney disease. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 240,
532–538.
28. Lejeune J. T., Hancock D. D. (2001): Public health concerns associated with feeding raw meat
diets to dogs. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 219, 1222–1225.
29. Lenz J., Joffe D., Kauffman M., Zhang Y., Lejeune J. (2009): Perceptions, practices, and
consequences associated with foodborne pathogens and the feeding of raw meat to dogs. Can.
Vet. J. 50, 637–643.
30. Leonard E. K., Pearl D. L., Finley R. L., Janecko N., Peregrine A. S., Reid-Smith R. J., Weese
J. S. (2011): Evaluation of pet-related management factors and the risk of Salmonella spp.
carriage in pet dogs from volunteer households in Ontario (2005-2006). Zoonoses Public
Health 58, 140–149.
31. Mollenkopf D. F., Kleinhenz K. E., Funk J. A., Gebreyes W. A., Wittum T. E. (2011):
Salmonella enterica and Escherichia coli harboring blaCMY in retail beef and pork products.
Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 8, 333–336.
32. Morgan S.K., Willis S., Shepherd M. L. (2017): Survey of owner motivations and veterinary
input of owners feeding diets containing raw animal products. Peer J. 5, 303
33. Morley P. S., Strohmeyer R. A., Tankson J. D., Hyatt D. R., Dargatz D. A., Fedorka-Cray P.
J. (2006): Evaluation of the association between feeding raw meat and Salmonella enterica
infections at a Greyhound breeding facility. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 228, 1524–1532.
34. National Research Council (2006): Nutrient requirements of dogs and cats. National
Academies Press. Washington, DC.
35. Nemser S. M., Doran T., Grabenstein M., Mcconnell T., Mcgrath T., Pamboukian R., Smith
A. C., Achen M., Danzeisen G., Kim S., Liu Y., Robeson S., Rosario G., Mcwilliams Wilson
K., Reimschuessel R. (2014): Investigation of Listeria, Salmonella, and toxigenic Escherichia
coli in various pet foods. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 11, 706–709.
36. Rutherfurd S. M., Rutherfurd-Markwick K. J., Moughan P. J. (2007): Available (ileal
digestible reactive) lysine in selected pet foods. J. Agric. Food Chem. Discipline 55,
3517–3522.
37. Schlesinger D. P., Joffe D. J. (2011): Raw food diets in companion animals: a critical review.
Can. Vet. J. 52, 50–54.
38. Stahler D. R., Smith D. W., Guernsey D. S. (2006): Foraging and feeding ecology of the gray
wolf (Canis lupus): lessons from Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, USA. J. Nutr. 136,
1923–1926.
39. K. S., Mauel M. J., Styer E. L. (2003): Septicemic salmonellosis in two
cats fed a raw-meat diet. J. Am. Anim. Hosp. Assoc. 39, 538–542.
–
321
40. Stockman J., Fascetti A. J., Kass P. H., Larsen J. A. (2013): Evaluation of recipes of home-
prepared maintenance diets for dogs. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 242, 1500–1505.
41. Streiff E., Zwischenberger L. B., Butterwick R. F., Wagner E., Iben C., Bauer J. E. (2002): A
comparison of the nutritional adequacy of home-prepared and commercial diets for dogs. J.
Nutr. 132, 1698–1700.
42. Strohmeyer R. A., Morley P. S., Hyatt D. R., Dargatz D. A., Scorza A. V., Lappin M. R. (2006):
Evaluation of bacterial and protozoal contamination of commercially available raw meat diets
for dogs. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 228, 537–542.
43. Taylor M. B., Geiger D. A., Saker K. E., Larson M. M. (2009): Diffuse osteopenia and
myelopathy in a puppy fed a diet composed of an organic premix and raw ground beef. J. Am.
Vet. Med. Assoc. 234, 1041–1048.
44. Thompson H. C., Cortes Y., Gannon K., Bailey D., Freer S. (2012): Esophageal foreign bodies
in dogs: 34 cases (2004-2009). J. Vet. Emerg. Crit. Care. (San Antonio) 22, 253–261.
45. Vester B. M., Burke S. L., Liu K. J., Dikeman C. L., Simmons L. G., Swanson K. S. (2010):
Influence of feeding raw or extruded feline diets on nutrient digestibility and nitrogen
metabolism of African wildcats (Felis lybica). Zoo. Biol. 29, 676–686.
46. Weese J. S., Rousseau J., Arroyo L. (2005): Bacteriological evaluation of commercial canine
and feline raw diets. Can. Vet. J. 46, 513–516.
47. Zhao T., Doyle M. P., Fedorka-Cray P. J., Zhao P., Ladely S. (2002): Occurrence of Salmonella
enterica serotype typhimurium DT104A in retail ground beef. J. Food Prot. 65, 403–407.
Article receied: 08.10.2019.
Article accepted: 01.12.2019.
