Dog Food Chat banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,128 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hey all,

I know that there are a lot of acronyms and descriptive words that are used to discuss and describe a raw diet.

PMR= Prey Model Raw

RMB= Raw Meaty Bones

BARF= Bones And Raw Foods

SARF= Species Appropriate Raw Foods

Jon and I have come to learn that "prey model raw" is rather inappropriate in the eyes of some, including Dr. Tom Lonsdale himself. I find this rather interesting and couldn't quite understand his logic behind it. Here is a Q/A session with someone a while ago, about 4 years behind his ways of reasoning:

Question 14
Subject: Hi Tom! Question regarding "jargon"
Wonderful to hear from you again! And of course you're still fighting the good fight, as ever :)

This particular forum is such a great opportunity for folks to bounce ideas off you, hear your thoughts, and for all of us to be able to have the chance to read and take part. I really appreciate the time you take for these kinds of list discussion, Tom.

So before I ramble on any more, I best get to my question. I noticed in your reply to XXXXX that you spoke of not being too enthused about "prey model jargon" - that it "over-promises and under-delivers". Could you expand on that more for us, Tom?

I guess I'm just curious if it's the slick tidiness of any kind of such label/catch phrase (that seems to sum things up a little too tritely perhaps?), or if its something else about it that bothers you. I know you said you'd speak on this more when time allowed, but of course, I'm a busybody, who's curious about your thoughts on this particular subject, so thought I'd toss out my query right away.

Cheers,


From: Tom Lonsdale
Subject: Re: [CSDogBookReview] Hi Tom! Question regarding "jargon"

Hi .... and all,

Busybody or not, I think you are wonderful and it's wonderful to hear from you.

Thanks also for your thanks and for being a committed worker for the cause.

Whilst you did not say it was your view, I agree the marketing term 'prey model' is slick, tidy and trite. To my mind it's a term that does not communicate with the masses and does not advance the interests of animals or the community.

Recently I attempted to get this matter aired on the rawvet list. The moderators permitted two posts but banned the third post. Discussions with the moderation team have so far drawn blank.

Below is the full text of the March 18 post on RawVet entitled: Jargon, was Feeding Philosophies

Do we now anticipate the 'Jargon wars' or can we hope that this difference of opinion will be amicably resolved? I don't know, but I do know that this is something that should not be hidden under the carpet.

Keep well.

Regards to all,

Tom


--------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 18:04:44 +1100
Subject: [RawVet] Jargon, was Feeding philosophies
--------------------------------------------------------
Hi [name withheld] and all,

The emergence of the hybrid term 'prey model' seems to me to be a retrograde step -- jargon that neither enhances our understanding nor increases our store of knowledge. Or am I mistaken?

It seems to me the term, as I've seen it defined, fails on several counts.

Scientific:
'Parts of animals in which they are found' usually turns out to be an arbitrary and ill-defined set of numbers.

The hide, hair and guts are not included in the 'model'. From the point of view of being tough and chewy the hide and hair has it. But doesn't get a run.

The guts, complete with chyme are the genuinely different part of the prey with distinct nutrient makeup. They never get included in the 'parts list' due to bacterial contamination, putrefaction, storage, smell, health regulations and aesthetic concerns. As a result the chyme of part digested vegetable matter, digestive enzymes and the bodies and breakdown products of the biofilm 'whole prey' don't appear on the menu.

Apart from liver, the 'parts of animals' that are included in this 'model' comprise heart, tongue, kidney, maybe lung and sometimes tripe. Brain that might contribute different fatty acid profiles and pancreas that might include enzymes don't appear to feature much.

But in any case, from a scientific point of view, why would anyone spend much time and effort mixing and matching according to a formula or model (supposing that was an accurate formula or model) if there is no scientific rationale?

Liver apart, can someone tell me what is the nutrient profile difference between the items on a list of 'prey model' offal and say tripe which might form the basis of a diet. Similarly what is the nutrient profile difference between 'prey model' offal compared with the muscle, marrow, collagen framework, vasculature, osteoblasts/clasts and assorted cells in say a chicken backs and frames based diet? What are these 'prey model' offal parts supposed to add that is not in a predominantly raw meaty bones and table scrap diet with the haphazard addition of liver?

Isn't the calciumhydroxyapatite of bone, apart from where chemical gradients appear, largely an inert substance as far as the carnivore is concerned and excreted accordingly?

It seems to be me that these 'scientific' questions need answers backed up with substantial evidence.

Economy:
Of course whole prey are easily the number one food (and medicine) source for carnivores. But when it comes to the economics it's often, for most folks, hard to feed the optimum diet and a second best needs to be found. How do the dictates of the 'prey model' assist with economy when compared with, say, a raw meaty bones based diet or a tripe and raw meaty bones based diet?

Practicality:
Practicalities perforce prevail. If you can't get it you can't feed it. What does the elaborate, and rather arbitrary offal list offer that should persuade us to battle impracticalities to find, for instance, heart or kidney? For those who find chicken backs and frames an easy practical option with sometimes a pig's head thrown in or for those who can access ruminant stomachs by the barrow load, why should they worry there's no tongue or trachea in the mix? (Of course I assume the tripe/omasum fed animals also get some large pieces of raw meaty bones for variety and tooth cleaning.)

Do those who have hit on economic, practical options need to feel embarrassed or that they are in some way inadequate?

Jargon:
We've seen the discredited barf, vomit, puke, technicolour yawn jargon spew forth. Do we really need more jargon which according to the dictionary is:
>1 a : confused unintelligible language b : a strange, outlandish, or barbarous language or dialect c : a hybrid language or dialect
>simplified in vocabulary and grammar and used for communication between peoples of different speech
>2 : the technical terminology or characteristic idiom of a special activity or group
>3 : obscure and often pretentious language marked by circumlocutions and long words

Early and mid game:
To my mind anything we do now should be coherent, internally consistent and anticipate the end game.
Right now in the early stages of the raw feeding revolution we need to deal simultaneously with what I believe to be the five facets of the junk (cooked or barf) pet-food fraud:
* Cruelty, ill health and suffering of pets 10%
* Misused and abused 'science' 20%
* Blocking of significant scientific breakthroughs 30%
* Economic, human health and natural environmental consequences 20%
* Failure of the democratic, administrative and legal systems to deal with a cashed-up cabal 20%
The percentages are admittedly approximations, however I reckon they give an indication of the importance of each facet.

'Cruelty, ill health and suffering of pets' is listed at 10% because that's the easy bit to understand and is the most easily fixed. It comprises about 5% dietary information and 5% understanding of disease processes.

The 5% dietary information needs to be unadulterated and clearly articulated. Language and concepts should not create stumbling blocks that impede our attempts to deal with the 95% of issues deserving the bulk of our attention.

End game:
If we anticipate taking this all to a conclusion then we will need to get serious. And that means fighting the political fight and mixing it in the legal arena too. 'Barfmania' has done untold harm to our prospects of fixing things for pets, people and the wider community. If we burden ourselves and dependent public with a further hybrid and misleading term we shall live to rue the day.

The politicians, media and judiciary only need half an excuse to dismiss us as members of an obsessive sect.

To my mind the raw diet revolution is too important to become weighed down with more unwelcome baggage -- or am I mistaken?

Best wishes,

Tom
Quote taken from:

United Kingdom Raw Meaty Bones Support & Action Group

I have to say that I don't agree with Tom on this point. I am wondering how all of your input compares and whether or not you like the term PMR or not. I find it to be the most accurate and descriptive phrase to describe the methods we use when feeding a raw diet. Thanks for the input.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,068 Posts
I get the feeling Dr. L is backtracking for getting bashed or something similar...
Or perhaps he doesn't want to be married to one acronym. Who knows?

I think PMR sums it up perfectly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
718 Posts
I do agree with Dr. Lonsdale to a degree. The problem is that no solution, or alternative terminology is offered. He does make some valid points though.

First, to say "whole prey model" or "prey model raw" does imply that the diet is an accurate model of a dog's natural, found-in-the-wild food. This would especially be true among the scientific community where the term "model" is used very specifically and taken very seriously. As he says though, not all the components of a natural diet are in the raw, meaty bone diet we feed our dogs. Therefore it can easily be dismissed within the scientific community based on that alone. It isn't a model of anything according to scientific standards.

Second, he is right that the B.A.R.F. acronym has done a disservice to the BARF community. Whether they are right or wrong, they are easily dismissed by casual observers (read: recruits) for having such an offensive name.

I think the term "prey" has the same affect on many dog owners, at least from my experience. As does "raw". Face it, most people can't deal with the fact that their little "Fluffy" is a meat-eating, bone-crunching carnivore. Go ahead, try tell some Maltese or Pomeranian owner that their little "angel" is biologically a wolf. Ha! They live in denial and using these kinds of terms does not help to infiltrate their minds with the PMR concept. Most people are "put off" by it as soon as they hear the name. That is no way to penetrate a prospect's mind. First impressions are lasting impressions and if the terms "prey" and "raw" are the first things people see or hear in association with this diet, they will immediately and automatically reject it. It may be a subconscious and totally emotional response, and there may be no rational thought whatsoever, but once it happens, it is impossible to undo.

We like to sit here and make fun of the commercial dog food companies for all their patently ridiculous marketing tricks. But they know how to make utter garbage appeal to unwitting people who really do love their pets and, not knowing any different, really want to do what is best for them. A bag or can of commercial pet food is like staring at a parallel universe, where up is down and left is right because the worse the food, the slicker the marketing.

Look at a bag of Beneful. It has pictures of fresh meat that look like something I'd eat, but also fresh corn, carrots, and peas, and other junk plastered right on the bag as though they are proud of it. And don't forget the beautiful, healthy dog romping across the picture on the bag. Then there is the name itself, "Beneful". Sounds pretty good, right? The innuendo is that it's "full" of "benefits", or "beneficial ingredients"...whatever. It's all positive imagery. They take crap and paint it into a beautiful picture. It's brilliant really!

The raw folks need to get organized and do something along these lines although given that there is no money in this for anyone, that seems very unlikely. Personally I'm proud to feed my dogs raw meat and bones and I get a kick out of people squirming about it when I tell them. I love it when my shopping cart has two or three things in it for me and 30 or 40 lbs. of meat for my dogs. I get some strange, and amusing, looks from cashiers and other customers alike. It's all good fun but if I was really trying to convert a fellow dog owner, I would never do stuff like this and try to get a rise out of them. It just turns them off. Instead, the FIRST thing I would want them to see is how beautiful and healthy my dogs are. Or show them a before and after comparing my poor little shelter puppy that was almost dead when I got him to now after being on PMR for awhile and being the picture of health.

People are interested in results. How to achieve them isn't all that interesting. It's like motor oil campaigns. Showing motor oil, no matter how pretty the color is, doesn't sell it. Showing fast cars, or smooth running engines, or the supposed results you will get from a particular motor oil is what sells oil. And if it isn't results that sell, it's feel-good emotions. Most automobiles are sold this way. There is no meritocracy in the automotive manufacturing world. People will fall in love with utter crap cars and dismiss engineering marvels simply based on which one provoked some emotional response in them.

To the average person, or worse, the average dolt, all this raw meat and bones stuff is nasty and disgusting. You should have heard the howls of protest from my wife in the beginning (for the record, she's an average PERSON with regards to her knowledge of dogs, not an average dolt). She came up with every cliche' excuse as to why this was bad and why I was crazy. Everything from the expense to sanitation issues. People are programmed to fear raw meat. It's dirty, it's expensive, it can make you sick, and now (my personal favorite), it's bad for the environment.

If you want PMR to be more widely accepted, you need to wrap it up in a pretty box with a pretty bow and make people FEEL GOOD about it. Forget about making them feel good about making their dogs life better, they need to feel good about it themselves. This is the "feel-good" generation and if PMR can't make them feel that way, it's doomed to live in obscurity forever.

All that being said, I don't have a better idea for a name or acronym. That is a tall task and would require a very carefully crafted and coordinated marketing campaign where the name alone is only part (albeit a central part) of the entire movement.

Jay
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,419 Posts
I have had several conversations with Tom on this subject and it took me a while to understand what he is saying. Technically he is correct. The diet most of us feed our dogs is not a prey model diet. There are many parts of the prey we rarely if ever feed out dogs. It has been several years since I have talked to you about this subject but if my memory serves me correctly, I think he is upset with many of the prey model feeders and their strict adherance to certain rules such as the 80-10-10 model of feeding and their insistance that no vegatation be fed ever.

Tom is just a little more realistic in his feeding recommendations. He likes to call the diet he expouses a raw meaty bones diet or RMB diet or RMB and table scraps diet. As I remember, there are no special rules ... just feed RMB's and if you wish throw in some table scraps. Percentages of meat, bone, and organ aren't real important. Mostly meat, some bone, and some organs. I paraphrase him: Table scraps won't hurt your dog and MAY do him some good. He has also said that when he was a practicing vet, he had clients that fed only chicken backs and frames and their dogs were healthy.

So basically his only problem with what we fed would be the terminology we use to describe it, PMR or Prey Model Raw. He is correct. We do not technically feed anything close to a prey model. I think most of us feed an RMB diet. I use different names for the diet I feed. Sometimes I call it PMR, some times RMB, some times simply RAW. I don't nit-pick the small differences between the diets. I honestly don't care. I feeds what I feeds. :smile:

I want to stress, the conversations I had with Tom were several years ago and my memory may not be 100% accurate about what was said and my interpretation of what he says may not be accurate either. Sometimes it isn't easy following his thought train. :smile:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,128 Posts
Discussion Starter #6 (Edited)
I undertand that part of it, but what I don't get is that we feed raw to our dogs as a model of what they would eat in the wild. Right? That does not consist of JUST raw meaty bones and table scraps.

RMB diet describes a diet that consists of raw meaty bones....even further from the whole prey idea that we base the reason why we feed raw. We can all agree tat organs are a necessary part of the diet. So to me saying RMB diet is LESS accurate than PMR because even indicate any reference to feeding anything other than raw meaty bones. PMR at least indicates what we are trying to mimick. For me, the picture of a ham soup bone pops into my head when I hear the phrase "raw meaty bone" which I now know is not accurate. But if we are worried about using different or conflicting terms to describe what we do and why...to me RMB is a more confusing phrase. I personally think that Tom is wrong here, although I can see what he is saying...just don't agree with it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,419 Posts
I undertand that part of it, but what I don't get is that we feed raw to our dogs as a model of what they would eat in the wild. Right? That does not consist of JUST raw meaty bones and table scraps.
This is one of those areas that IMO Tom gets too wrapped up and and I think you are too. We don't feed a model of what they would eat in the wild. We generally don't feed fur, feathers, brains, eyeballs, pancreas, lung, tongue, etc. I don't even feed kidney except what is in the chicken quarters and backs. There are many parts of the animal we don't feed. Does that make a difference nutritionally? I doubt it very seriously.

I think most of us feed raw meaty bones and organs. Some feed table scraps or raw veggies which, in my mind, don't make a nutritional difference either. As far as I know there is no prohibition against feeding organs in an RMB diet.

My knowledge says there is not a dime worth of difference between what some people call a prey model diet including fur, brains, etc and what some call a raw meaty bones diet. I use the terms interchangably althought there are small differences in the two diets. I think nutritionally they are the same.

I think there are more important things to get hung up on than this termanology. :smile:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,128 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
I personally am not hung up on it at all. The whole reason why I posted this to get other's opinions on it because the UKRMB's yahoo group denied a response that Jon made to someone asking a question on prices of things. The moderator there said that they do not support the "prey model raw" terminology and couldn't respond to any questions/posts there if he used those specific words. I just found this REALLY weird and VERY disappointing. Because to me, its more about WHAT we do, not what we call it. And seriously, if people get confused or scared over the initial thought of raw feeding just because of a few simple words...then a raw diet is probably not for them. Raw feeding is certainly NOT for the faint of heart and is not practical for everyone! LOL :biggrin:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,419 Posts
I personally am not hung up on it at all. The whole reason why I posted this to get other's opinions on it because the UKRMB's yahoo group denied a response that Jon made to someone asking a question on prices of things.
Yeah, the UKRMB group is VERY closely tied to Tom and his philosophy. They strictly adhere to his writings. They also seem to have a lot of arguments Jane Anderson's group, the ones at the yahoo group, rawfeeding. There is a lot of bickering back and forth between those two groups. Thats probably the reason for the response that Jon got. Sometimes members from one group with intentionally start a controversial thread on the other group's board. It's really comical when you watch it from a distance but they take it real serious. And the funny thing is there is so little difference in the way the two groups feed.

One group says table scraps are ok, the other group says no veggies ever. One group says 80-10-10 and the other says it doesn't matter. Other than that, they are exactly the same. :smile: I think some of it has to do with "this is my turf and you stay away." :smile:

Thats the background between the two groups. I am a member of both groups and used to be real active on both but haven't been for the last year or two. I know the main players from both groups and I know the instigators. Believe it or not, I get along with both sides and have friends on both sides. :smile:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
52 Posts
Only humans get caught up with what to call something. Even before we started a number weeks ago, the name of Prey Model seemed a bit odd for the feeding process except that the word MODEL suggested an approximation process. I looked at it as feeding raw MEAT and bones etc.,and is where we are trending to.

Wolfie has had a self-directed Prey Model diet from the "stuff" we found in his BMs after his meals of squirel, possum, ground hog, moles and who knows what else. He just doesn't like critters getting in his yard.:biggrin:

I guess I would just call it a darn good diet based on the improvements in Wolfie(the old guy). It is hard to qualify benefits to the youngster as he is still in the growing up stage. Only time will tell, which is really true whether kibble fed, BARF, RPM, Raw whatever you would call your feeding type. Agree with RFD when he said its too easy to get hung up on terminology.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,128 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
It's seems a bit contrary to the movement for people to bring so much politics into the matter. The abruptness and sterness that the UKRMB group showed Jon that their group was not where he wanted to be...I don't see the point in having policies that would actually drive people away. It comes down to "Why can't we all just get along?!?"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,419 Posts
It's seems a bit contrary to the movement for people to bring so much politics into the matter. The abruptness and sterness that the UKRMB group showed Jon that their group was not where he wanted to be...I don't see the point in having policies that would actually drive people away. It comes down to "Why can't we all just get along?!?"
Back when I use to frequent both groups regularly, the Yahoo rawfeeding group was MUCH more militant than the UKRMB group. They were very quick to strongly critisize and chastize anyone not strictly ahearing to their mantras on raw feeding as well as homeopathy, vaccines, heartworms, and fleas. I haven't visited either place in the last couple of years so I don't know if that has changed or not.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top