Dog nutrition - what is BEST for you and your dog?

[Melcakes]

Originally Posted by Ellie May

For dogs, nutritionist is almost always used instead of dietitian. The only ones that really are going to stand out to vets nation wide as a whole are the board certified veterinary nutritionists (the ones with a doctorate of veterinary medicine and other grad school work...masters, PhD, etc.). These pepole are Diplomates of the American College of Veterinary Nutrition. I wouldn't say they are without a doubt always right and everyone else is wrong, but they are the ones that have put the time in (in school, research) and we can be sure they have a certain level of knowledge on the subject.

There are board certified vet. nutritionists that support a raw diet. To say there are none is absurd. Further, most of those vets do have a doctorate of vet. medicine and/or PhD's (Dr. Alicia McWatters has her Ph.D) and/or soley focus on nutrition. I'll list the board certified vets later. In my previous posts I just quickly listed vets, and I didn't know you ONLY wanted board certified vets who approved raw diets. Here is another well respected DVM from Ohio State who supports a raw diet. All about pets and pet nutrition: Veterinarian on What a vet should recommend: Small Animals Benefit on Whole Foods Diet.

Anyways. I'll post more later when I have time.

[pawever Yorkie]

I have a question. If parasite cysts are present in raw meat (and they can be) and dogs can process this just fine b/c that is how they are made, then why do dogs still get worms? Do you have studies that show that raw fed dogs get worms and more so than different fed dogs? All foods can contain parasite cysts even cooked food! Dogs on kibble and home-cooked get worms... It's my believe that is usually an underlying condition in these dogs and that's why they are more prone to getting worms and/or bacteria.
__________________
I agree. I heard that one of the reason dogs get worms are because they go out and digs the ground wich are expose to other animals like raccoon.
I'll try to find the thread wich had great references...

[pawever Yorkie]

Originally Posted by Ellie May

For dogs, nutritionist is almost always used instead of dietitian. The only ones that really are going to stand out to vets nation wide as a whole are the board certified veterinary nutritionists (the ones with a doctorate of veterinary medicine and other grad school work...masters, PhD, etc.). These pepole are Diplomates of the American College of Veterinary Nutrition. I wouldn't say they are without a doubt always right and everyone else is wrong, but they are the ones that have put the time in (in school, research) and we can be sure they have a certain level of knowledge on the subject.

I understand your point, but I don't believe that being board certified dosen't make one better vet than the other. In a way being certified is like being in Union. Their #1 is not to make the world with healty pets. There are many vet graduated veterinary school, but some graduate with c average, some with A. I rather trust the vet who's not board certified, but has plenty of experience. By the way, the carnegie hill veterinarians(board certified) sees no false with raw diet.
I think, like anything there's pros and cons to everything, so our quest is to find the one with least cons...

[Ellie May]

The reason that I brought up BC vs. not is b/c that I who I trust when talking about serious nutrition issues. They may not be the best source of info, but I know for sure they aren't a bad source either. Hmm, maybe they don't have to be a diplomate to be BC, but they would need more school to be and internships and/or a residency.

Anyway, back to raw. Even if we just give the benefit of the doubt and say risk of contamination is very low if handled properly, there is still more risk than cooked meat. So, I still see no reason to feed or recommend it and I can think of many reasons not to/many things that can't be answered.

[Wylie's Mom]

Originally Posted by Ellie May

Anyway, back to raw. Even if we just give the benefit of the doubt and say risk of contamination is very low if handled properly, there is still more risk than cooked meat. So, I still see no reason to feed or recommend it and I can think of many reasons not to/many things that can't be answered.

Ya know what would be interesting (but I'm too lazy right now, and in the foreseeable future)? It would interesting to contact NV and Primal for some bug level/temp/pasteur. reports and info. Often, the companies will share some of those details w/ customers. (it doesn't answer anything about prey-mod, but still interesting)

I love feeding raw. When I got the Pfeiffer girl, I bought some Orijen (one of the few kibble I'll recommend) to mix in w/ the food her Mama sent with her...bc I didn't want to switch her to raw right away. So, I have this huge bag of Orijen doing nothing in my house. I'll throw some in w/ their raw for a few days once in a while lately, just for variety....and ugh...right back to puffy, smelly, voluminous poops. Like always, it still convinces me that so much stuff is being pooped right out (with kibble). Whereas with raw, so much seems to be absorbed, rather than made into waste. Anyway, just a poop anecdote .

I've been feeding raw almost 3 yrs now, and we haven't had any problems with germs so far. I can't say that feeding raw is the "best" diet...bc I real don't feel qualified to just know that . But, I do think it's one of the choices as an appropriate diet for dogs.

[Melcakes]

Once again there are risks or contamination - parasites and bacteria with both raw and cooked. A reason a dog gets worms or bacteria poising can be do to a number of different things. Think about the amount of bacteria a dog probably comes in contact with every single day. One must ask "Why this dog? Why now? What has made this particular dog susceptible to bacterial overgrowth?" Something is not 'right' regarding the dog's health—a healthy dog does not suffer from bacterial infections or bacterial septicemia. That is just common sense. A dog suffering from "salmonella poisoning" is obviously not healthy, especially when compared to a dog that ate the same food with the same salmonella load but is perfectly healthy and unaffected.

Sure when food is cooked the contamination is lowered. That's true for humans. However, I'm still not seeing ANY studies that show raw food INFECTS dogs with parasites and bacteria and/or more so than those fed home-cooked or kibble. The studies I am seeing show that they just excrete increased levels in comparison to dogs fed kibble and/or home-cooked (even kibble-homecooked dogs do this) and without showing any ill effects as proof that the dog is infected. To me, that is a good sign. They are getting it out of their bodies.

I'm reading more and more that bacteria is much common and found in dog fed kibble. Kibble in the intestine not only irritates the lining of the bowels but also provides the perfect warm, wet environment with plenty of undigested sugars and starches as food for bacteria. This is why thousands of processed food-fed animals suffer from from a condition called Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth…there's obviously a correlation. The rates of contaminated meat per USDA data shows it's VERY low. There is minimal risk of food being contaminated. It really depends on where one gets their meat IMO. I think it's like 2% for Salomenlla and 8% for ground beef. I don't remember the exact amounts, but I'm sure they can be found online.

[Ellie May]

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom

Ya know what would be interesting (but I'm too lazy right now, and in the foreseeable future)? It would interesting to contact NV and Primal for some bug level/temp/pasteur. reports and info. Often, the companies will share some of those details w/ customers. (it doesn't answer anything about prey-mod, but still interesting)

I love feeding raw. When I got the Pfeiffer girl, I bought some Orijen (one of the few kibble I'll recommend) to mix in w/ the food her Mama sent with her...bc I didn't want to switch her to raw right away. So, I have this huge bag of Orijen doing nothing in my house. I'll throw some in w/ their raw for a few days once in a while lately, just for variety....and ugh...right back to puffy, smelly, voluminous poops. Like always, it still convinces me that so much stuff is being pooped right out (with kibble). Whereas with raw, so much seems to be absorbed, rather than made into waste. Anyway, just a poop anecdote .

I've been feeding raw almost 3 yrs now, and we haven't had any problems with germs so far. I can't say that feeding raw is the "best" diet...bc I real don't feel qualified to just know that . But, I do think it's one of the choices as an appropriate diet for dogs.

That would be cool to see, but I'm lazy too.

[Ellie May]

Okay, well, I think everything else would just be a repeat of what already has been said and it will be interesting to see what happens in the next 5-10 years as far as raw and homecooked goes.

I'll post back if I find anything else, but it's kinda hard with just Google.

[Melcakes]

Originally Posted by yorkiepuppie

what are the risks of feeding raw? it seems that most of the sites talking about raw diet for dogs only focus on the benefits, and most of them do not mention the risks that owners should know about.

i think a lot of us who are interested in dog nutrition know about the possible risks/dangers of feeding kibble and home cooking, but we dont' know about raw diet because most just don't talk about the possible risks of feeding raw.

Well here are some things I've across that looks at the "perhaps myths (as they like to call them)" about raw diets or should I saw what raw feeders believe. Some of it is interesting, but I've also read a lot of other things and some additional studies that make you also question what I'm about to post below.

1. Evolution Divergence from Wolves - Some studies that go the "Other Way"

"Robert Wayne PhD, geneticist at the University of California at Los Angeles examined DNA in dogs and wolves. Wayne's recent genetic work suggests dog ancestors of some sort broke away from wolves about 100,000 years ago. Wayne's work included 147 dogs representing 67 breeds and 162 wild canids of all species from around the world. Wolf and human remains have been discovered in early fossils from over 400,000 years ago, but dog and human fossils date back only 14,000 years. Prior to this study, domestic dogs were thought to have originated only 14,000 years ago. In this new study, Wayne and his associates studied patterns in the mitochondrial DNA from dogs, wolves, coyotes and jackals. This type of maternally passed DNA changes at a specific rate. Wayne's study showed so many DNA changes that dogs must have diverged genetically from wolves about 100,000 years ago.

"We expected to find DNA sequences in dogs that were closely related to those in wolves, perhaps even indistinguishable from those in wolves," Wayne said. "We expected to find a few different sequences in dogs; instead, we found 26."

The researchers found four distinct genetic groups in the dog world. This suggests that dog ancestors domesticated several times within the +100,000 year window, or at different places, and that no single wolf ancestor is common to all dogs.

In a similar study conducted by Vila and Maldonado at the Department of Evolutionary Biology, Uppsala University in Sweden, maternal DNA showed a separation of 135,000 years between modern domestic dogs and wolves."

Not sure how true this is but from additional readings and an article:

"One of many good examples of internal changes that natural selection wrought is a significant difference in the eye of modern wolves and modern domestic dogs. The topographical distribution of retinal ganglion cells in seven breeds of dog (Canis lupus f. familiaris) and in the wolf (Canis lupus) was studied (Can't find the study online - need to look more ). A prominent feature of wolf retinae was a pronounced "visual streak" of high ganglion cell density. By contrast, a moderate visual streak was found in dog retinae. The estimated total number of ganglion cells averaged about 200,000 cells in the wolf and 115,000 in the dog.10 Evolutionary natural selection reduced the domestic dogs eyesight to almost half that of the wolf. Yet raw feeders would have you believe there are neither biological nor physiological differences between the two. Still not convinced this alone affects how a wolves and dogs nutrionial needs would differ. Seems a bit irrelevant to nutrition, but does show biological/physiological differences.

Further evidence of evolutionary changes in the dog compared to the wolf abounds in the literature. In a study of 2,959 dogs across 40 different breeds Genetic mtDNA variations in domestic dogs show a much higher level of heterozygosity when compared to wolves. (Can't find this study online, just an article) Differences in musculature, tendon strength, gut wall arterials and many other distinct differences in the internal organs and abilities are described.

2. Increased BUN levels in dogs fed raw.
"A large study conducted by Dr. Joe Bartges, Dr. Jean Dodds and Dr. Susan Wynn, they looked at blood work from over 200 raw fed dogs, and compared it to 75 dogs eating 'normal' diets and used by the lab for reference values. Mean BUN (blood urea nitrogen) was indeed significantly higher in dogs eating the raw diet. Increased BUN is one of the most critical values examined when looking for renal failure. While it is incorrect to state that increased BUN might cause renal failure, it certainly is a significant warning of impending danger in older geriatric dogs with undetected renal failure."

Just little, but of course interesting little tidbits of information since you want to look at "both sides". Will post more later.

[pawever Yorkie]

This is what I wanted to say...

Myths About Raw: Is there scientific research to back raw diets?

This is from yahoo answer: interesting...
And who is going to finance such a trial when there is little to no money to make from it at the end??

It is interesting that dogs, cats and humans are the only animals to commonly suffer from periodontal disease. Something to do with inappropriate and processed diets maybe????

The dog is, by all scientific standards and by evolutionary history, a domesticated wolf
(Feldhamer, G.A. 1999. Mammology: Adaptation, Diversity, and Ecology. McGraw-Hill. pg 472.).
Dogs are so much like wolves physiologically that they are frequently used in wolf studies as a physiological model for wolf body processes
(Mech, L.D. 2003. Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation).
"Dogs have the internal anatomy and physiology of a carnivore"
(Feldhamer, G.A. 1999. Mammology: Adaptation, Diversity, and Ecology. McGraw-Hill. pg 260.).
...the act of cooking alters the proteins, vitamins, fats, and minerals in a food. This alteration can make some nutrients more readily available and others less available. Cooking can alter fats to the point of being toxic and carcinogenic.
(The American Society for Nutritional Sciences. April 2004.
Meat Consumption Patterns and Preparation, Genetic Variants of Metabolic Enzymes, and Their Association with Rectal Cancer in Men and Women.
Journal of Nutrition. 134: 776-784.),
... cooked proteins can be altered to the point where they cause allergic reactions whereas raw proteins do not.
(Clark, W.R. 1995. Hypersensitivity and Allergy, in At War Within: The double edged sword of immunity, Oxford University Press, New York. pg 88.).
According to Encyclopedia Britannica cooking denatures protein. Denaturation alters protein and makes it unusable or less usable and causes the loss of the its biological function. Also in Britannica is the acknowledgement that "cooking destroys protein to make it practically useless" .

** love is - I agree totally - a skewed or creationist view of evolution if I ever read one!!!

[Melcakes]

Originally Posted by Ellie May

So then do raw feeders universally know that the cysts are destroyed at -20F? Normal freezers are about 0F (looked it up). I don't think most people know this. Never seen exact temps mentioned when freezing raw. It looks like toxo is killed in a household freezer after 24 hours. I wonder if freezing does anything for bacteria and what about freeze drying. Hmm. I'm surprised that there aren't more charts about this kind of thing. I still think there are major issues with giving bone and balancing the way it is done for raw diet, but it seems that it would be much safter if everything could be "frozen out." lol

Missed this post above but wanted to provide this information:

FDA says that the following freezing processes are sufficient to kill parasites:
1. Freezing and storing at -4F for 7 days, or
2. Freezing at -31F until solid and storing at -31F for 15 hours, or
3. Freezing at -31F until solid and storing at -4F for 24 hours.

The closest remedy is #1, but home freezers may not be cold enough to reach -4F for 7 days...

I'm pretty sure most raw diet feeders are aware of this. Really though, feeding commercial beef/meat eliminates this because it has been frozen already. That's why IMO it really depends on where one gets their meat (goes for both raw and home-cooked).

[Melcakes]

Just wanted to add this too. I think a link was posted in reference to the parasite argument.

If you READ the content in the link one will see that CATS are carriers more so than meat feeding dogs and Toxoplasmosis from meat would be killed by 24 hours in a typical domestic freezer.

As for Tapeworms ( believe this was brought up as well), dogs typically get them from FLEAS and not meat that's been properly stored and frozen.

I don't know but from all the research I've done my dog belongs to the family Canidae. I guess if people want to think their dog is genetically identical to a PIG, and prefer to feed them as such, that's fine though...

[Ellie May]

Since something new came up:

They are in teh family Canidae (which mostly lives on meat but not exclusively). However, this family and several others are in the order Carnivora (meaning flesh or devour). One of these families contains pandas which are almost entirely herbivores. So you can be in the order carnivora and not be a carnivore. I'm not saying dogs aren't, but that they can and do survive very well being omnivores and most if not all wolves are to a certain extent. They aren't obligate carnivores like cats and their feeding behavior in the wild is somewhat omnivorous...

[Wylie's Mom]

Originally Posted by yorkiepuppie

what are the risks of feeding raw? it seems that most of the sites talking about raw diet for dogs only focus on the benefits, and most of them do not mention the risks that owners should know about.

Yen, I feel like your question is still just hangin' out there, blowin' in the breeze. I don't feed prey model (I feed pre-made raw), but I can try to list some potential risks of raw (and maybe others can add to this) :

-Choking hazard potential w/ Prey-model; despite the fact that dogs should theoretically be able to properly chew raw meaty bones, the fact is that any object whatsoever that could possibly occlude the throat (chewed or whole) is a potential choking hazard

-Intestinal issue/blockage after consumption of bones; while this is rare, it has been reported and is very dangerous if it does happen. In the wild, many wolves consume their bones along with some fur and there is some thought out there that the fur helps protect the digestive tract. IMO, this isn't really the full story though -- the distinct lining of the digestive tract in dogs/wolves is designed to handle raw bones and shouldn't need fur for bones to pass. So anyway, while very rare, it's a potential risk.

-Balanced diet. I don't necessarily agree that a prey model diet is UNbalanced. However, saying it is balanced is really an assumption that is based upon the wolf. While it may indeed be balanced, I'm not sure there is verifiable proof at this time. If there is someday, FABS! This is where I feel more secure feeding pre-made...but you make sacrifices there too, if you believe in raw (in general, that is). I just prefer the sacrifices of pre-made vs the possibility of choking hazard. If my dogs were more similar in size to a wolf or coyote, I may feel differently.

-Germs. An immunosuppressed dog will always be more vulnerable to germs, no matter the food. With raw, there is a potential for more germs. I've been feeding raw for almost 3yrs now, and we've never had any problems w/ germs.

-Feces. From what I understand, all dogs have salmonella in their feces - no matter what the diet. Raw-fed dogs may have a higher concentration of salmonella in their poo. However, no one can tell me if this translates to an increased risk or not. Regardless, I will handle poop the same I've always handled poop .

What else? I really dunno...that is just off the top of my head, but I will keep thinking about it...

[Britster]

Originally Posted by Ellie May

Since something new came up:

They are in teh family Canidae (which mostly lives on meat but not exclusively). However, this family and several others are in the order Carnivora (meaning flesh or devour). One of these families contains pandas which are almost entirely herbivores. So you can be in the order carnivora and not be a carnivore. I'm not saying dogs aren't, but that they can and do survive very well being omnivores and most if not all wolves are to a certain extent. They aren't obligate carnivores like cats and their feeding behavior in the wild is somewhat omnivorous...

Cats don't require animal protein to survive ... what they need is taurine, which is found in meat, to survive. Most animals manufacture taurine internally but not cats. Cats must ingest it in their diet. Just because a dog doesn't require taurine to be ingested doesn't make him any less of a carnivore. A carnivore is a carnivore and they eat meat, bones, and organs. There is no scientific evidence that a dog is not a true carnivore. Dogs will, in times of necessity, eat whatever it has to in order to survive.