It is important differentiate the term "BARF" from other raw feeding concepts correctly.
Why? The composition of a "BARF"-ration follows different rules and is therefore a completely different form of raw feeding.
"BARF" is a sub-category of raw feeding. Raw feeding, in turn, is a sub-category of fresh feeding. There are many types of fresh feeding, some with very different concepts (or none). Fresh feeding means any form of ration which the pet owner puts together and in which fresh ingredients are used. However, not everything that is "fresh feeding" is necessarily raw. Fresh feeding also includes home-cooked food and feeding with table scraps as well as raw rations. Raw feeding is therefore a sub-category of fresh feeding. Here, too, the food is put together by the pet owner, but the ingredients are mainly fed raw. In order to be categorized as raw feeding, the feeding in question does not have to follow any special concept. "BARF" is a sub-category of raw feeding - because there is a concept and rules that need to be followed (see my blog article on the BARF concept). If these rules are not taken into account, it is not "BARF", but just some form of raw feeding.
If you look closely at the acronym "BARF", it already implies a definition of the term: In German, "BARF" stands for biologically species-appropriate raw food. This term was shaped and became popular in Germany in the 90´s by Swanie Simon. On this website I use the term "biologically appropriate raw food" so the abbreviation "BARF" makes sense to the reader, but I always mean "biologically species-appropriate raw food".
Species-appropriate husbandry is defined as an orientation towards the original way of life of an animal species. In a biological sense, our domestic dogs are classified as a "wolf" species (canis lupus). As a result, the biologically appropriate diet of domestic dogs is based on that of wolves. Wolves are known to feed on prey. As a result, a diet that includes the word "species-appropriate" must also be based on the structure of a prey animal. Unfortunately, this is often overlooked or the acronym "BARF" is translated differently. But we need an agreement what exactly we mean when we talk about "BARF" so arguments can be made in a correct way.
But what about the statement "BARF does not meet the nutritional needs!" ?
This is a typical and ongoing statement of critics. It is due to the fact that the terms "BARF" and "raw feeding" are used synonymously in practice. Someone who just serves raw beef fillet to their dog is not exercising "BARF" (I will call the action of feeding according to the "BARF"-concept "to barf"), but is simply feeding with raw ingredients – and sickens their dog. And it is precisely such cases that end up on the vet's treatment tables and suffer from nutritional deficiencies, kidney problems and other feeding-related illnesses. But these dogs are not being "barfed", they are fed raw ingredients without any sensible concept.
When the term "BARF" is used on this blog, the statements always refers to a feeding concept that follows the rules defined in the blog article about the "BARF"-concept. All the calculations and statements about meeting nutritional needs etc. only apply to this definition/concept. Other raw feeding concepts are not being assessed.
Comments