Should my dog eat dog food? Article in Ecologist

[arwenplusone]

Dogs on a raw diet may build up some 'tolerance' in pathogens, but they are in fact rather adept at detecting rancidity (not that you would know it, given some of the things they choose to eat).
Gamey is one thing - rancid id quite another. Interestingly, cats are much worse at detecting spoiled food & as a consequence are more likely to get bacterial poisoning.
I wouldn't have thought Slowing down the movement of the gut would have a strong effect on the pathogens - once they are injested, they WILL replicate. (extreme example but if you ate a raw chicken & then swallowed 8 laxatives, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't bypass the poisioning? )

Stability of food & shelf life isn't necessarily driven by the manufacturers - a lot of this is consumer demand & also supermarket demand (not passing the buck here - just contextualising)

The dog omnivore thing. I say potato, you say potato - ask 2 vets their opinion & you might get different answers. It is a scientific conundrum of sorts. I'm in the omnivore camp, in as much that they CAN survive without meat. Cats are obligate carnivores & can not - hence the difference for me.
Not sure on your panda analogy. I think I see what you are getting at - Pandas are omnivores but they could survive as herbivores although they are still omnivores at heart?
but Humans are omnivores, yet there are many diets that suggest a herbivore style diet would best suit. I think I am winding everything up in knots here - lol.
Anyway - the debate could (and absolutely does!) go on. Perhaps we settle on the fact that dogs should have and do thrive on a diet with as high a meat content as possible. Live & let live

 

[arwenplusone]

In terms of periodontal disease (and sorry if I go on a bit, but this is my area) Commercial pet foods are not responsible.
Here's an example of why I believe this. In 1899 (when there were NO commercially managed petfoods only home prepared meals ) a study was done in the USA (Talbot et al) where 75% of dogs between 4 & 8 were fouind to have periodontal disease. The same figure is true of recent studies. (75% or in the region of).

We know that diet has an effect, but some of this is thought to be due to the consistency of the product, rather than the product itself. So more abrasive foodstuff such as dry food, bones, etc encourages furthur chewing, which dislodges plaque. A 100% meat or a 100% canned diet does not provide this.

Having said that, the best type of oral care product is not a bone or a hard chew that the dog's tooth does not penetrate, the best product is slightly soft whilst also being abrasive so that it does get up to the gum line. Actually - forgive me - the absolute BEST thing you can do is brush your dogs teeth - whatever diet you feed them. (though I have to say, using a hard abrasive toothpaste or anything that includes pumice or any kind of enamel wearing product can be very harmful). Also, please do NOT under any circumstances give your dog human toothpaste that contains fluoride - it is TOXIC.

What is also interesting is that a strong immune system is needed for a dog to fight the bacteria caused by plaque in the mouth & it is possible that inadequate nutrition (whatever the foodstuff) has a part to play in the dogs propensity to develop a problem
Before I go on (and on) and lose you all - Its easy to see why people think that diet has a part to play and we do need to do more research on this - but at present - the importance is definitely overemphasised. And the 'slamming' of manufactured petcare products is innacurate.

Whilst I am here - I also want to mention a couple of other things.
1) dogs rarely get dental caries (holes). Partly because of lack of sugar in the diet (we think) but also because there are very few fissures (grooves) in the surface of the teeth and the teeth are slightly convex rather than concave (so less area for plaque to rot). Also, the acid level in the mouth is very different to humans, and they have very little of the bacteria strep mutans (a cause of dental caries).
2) Abrasion is very common. Tennis balls are a nightmare for this & have been known to cause extensive damage
3)Slab fractures. Frisbees are a common cause of this - so toys that have been developed for dogs are always better) as are some hard nylon type bones.

I really could go on for ever - (would love to do a sticky post on this but don't think I'll be allowed) as there are some really key things that people can do to help stop their dogs from having toothache.

After all - I've had it a few times and it flipping hurts!!

@KarynK specifically - I have some studies you might be interested in, however, I don't have the direct links to where they are published so I either need to find these OR I need to check author's permission before I send to you.
Bear with me and I'll speak to them.

 

[KarynK]

Yes dogs are very good at smelling out decomposition, almost as good as flies! In fact I met a fascinating trainer last year who trains cadaver dogs for the FBI with much success, one of his has under scientific study actually detected the scent of over 100 year old remains on a cloth that was dried out on a radiator!

Mine happily eat food that is decomposing that will have some very nastys at work on it without sickness and those Mals like food that is in a very advanced stage of decomposition literally crawling. I think that a lot of the problem is that we are forgetting what the dog naturally is a survivor who can and will eat carrion.

The length of the gut and speed of passage works well in the bird world as well, I think it is the crow family from memory that have very short guts like dogs to deal with the dangers of pathogens on decomposing remains. What I found even more fascinating is that Starlings actually alter the length of their gut and therefore the speed of passage according to their diet, so when worms and grubs are plentiful they have a short gut like a dog and when relying on seeds and grain it lengthens like a horse, very clever system.

I think that the effects of pathogens are more profound in a lengthy and slower system like our own and even worse for herbivores, I am sure we have all seen the dire effects of something as simple as mouldy grains in a horse’s feed or even too much grain in one go, which can very quickly lead to imbalance and serious complications, especially as they can’t be sick. The extra time allows for more replication but a human even with laxatives does not have the acidity to match a healthy dogs, so if you don’t mind I wont try that experiment myself having just had a bout of norovirus, thanks NHS!!! (ps it’s not a diet I recommend!!). (but another sneaky point for Carnivore with an omnivorous appetite).

Whilst I agree that some diets have affects on periodontal disease my experience of a correct raw diet fed with the right balance of raw meaty bones is that there is no sign of disease and that only in very old age do you see plaque build up. But also what I see with dogs on raw is not chewing, well dogs cant chew like us anyway without sideways jaw movement and like you say they don’t have the flatter molars for chewing, mine rip and tear chunks of meat from bone to swallow and that action must have a beneficial effect on the gums with sinew and muscle fibres acting like floss, they crunch the bone again into chunks to swallow which removes any plaque. (I don’t feed very hard bone for them to gnaw on only lamb ribs, pork legs or chicken/Turkey). It could well be assisted by a good immune system which appears to be very good in raw fed dogs.


On the dentition side the acidity in the mouth reminded me of another plus for carnivore, dogs don’t release enzymes in the mouth for pre digestion of plants like we do.

Ok I’ll stop now I have some reading to do, someone has given me a load of papers to read!!

 

[varkie]

I've been reading this thread with interest. There's a few points I'd like to make, following on from statements made by others. But first, to introduce my own background with raw food.

I am an ex-small animal vet nurse, a breeder of ponies who takes the veterinary health, breeding & colour genetics very seriously - so no stranger to the scientific and/or veterinary side of things. I have been feeding raw for at least 12 years now I think. During that time I have fed five dogs (collie x retriever, collie x gsd, collie x lab, lab, border terrier) and five cats on a raw food diet. My old dog lived to be 17.5 years old, my two old cats lived to 18.5 and 19.5 years old. I came to raw food through one of my old cats, who had been on a commercial pet food diet, and was in the vets every single month with hormonal & skin problems. At this point, diet had not been connected to the problem. Around this time, a friend lent me a book about pet food versus raw food, and it was like a lightbulb came on - all the problems described were what my cat was going through. I changed onto raw food almost immediately, and my cat had an initial period of a few weeks of being worse, but then improved. After that, she saw the vet only twice for her skin - both times following theft of something containing grain! All three of those old animals reached major old age with no dental work required - some teeth had worn away, some had fallen out, and there was minor plaque. In each case, the vets were astonished at the condition of them, considering the lack of dental work. None of my current cats or dogs requires dental care - my oldest cats now are ten, and they look in the prime of life, no signs of aging at all, and they have virtually perfect teeth. The old dog never had to have her anal glands treated either - and nor do my current dogs. All gleam with health & fitness, and my vets are generally very impressed with their condition for their age. We have had only two problems with health in any of them - in both cases, in pedigree animals (siamese with liver issues & labrador with colitis - this is pre change to raw food), which is most likely the cause for their health issues.

Now I'd like to reply to some previous statements:

However, I do work with one such large multinational and I can tell you for an absolute fact that the meat that is used is human grade

That's not really saying much! There is an awful lot of rubbish that goes in human grade food. If people knew what went into many mixed / mince meat products, they'd never eat them!

unless you know what you are doing (or you have help from someone who does) for the majority of owners, commercial petfoods (the reputable ones!) provide a safe way to ensure that pets get all the nutrients they need.

I agree that people should never start feeding raw without knowing what they're doing, but these days, that has never been easier. Not like when I started feeding - tho I was lucky to have a friend to give me advice - but back then it was seriously the exception. These days it is a growing phenomenon. There are many books, websites, loads of sources of data that people can research, to make sure they're getting it right.

It is worth noting though that there is no scientific evidence that shows artificial colours are bad for dogs.

That may be true, but there is plenty to show that there are problems in humans having artificial colours, and while not all effects are going to be the same across species, it's a fair guess that some will be.

Foir example, cats NEED taurine in their diet - if you do not know which foodstuff contains this, you could do the animal damage feeding it a raw diet.

This is an often quoted fact, designed to put people off feeding raw. It is true that cats need taurine in their diet, and that a lack of it can cause serious problems, including blindness. However, since taurine is (I believe - don't utterly quote me on this - end of a long week!) an amino acid found in meat, especially in muscle meat, this really isn't an issue. As long as you're feeding muscle meat regularly, cats will be just fine. I've been feeding cats raw for about 12 years now, and none have asked for a white stick just yet.

Dogs are quite capable of digesting grains just as horses are- despite not having "evolved" to eat these.

I think I might have to argue over this - on both counts! Dogs may well be able to digest them - in that they pass through the digestive system, but I'd have to question what good they do the dog, other than make it feel full. Dogs don't actually do very well getting anything out of the grain - they just aren't set up to do so. And the number of dogs (and cats!) who are proving grain sensitive seems to be on the increase. And the more research that is done to horses diets, the more we learn that it's not actually a great source of nutrition for them either - causing many issues, both behaviourally & physically. Many feeds are moving away from most grains, and using what they do use in very careful ways. My own personal opinion is that grains is probably to blame for many colics, weight issues, behavioural problems & other issues in horses.

There is nothing "harmfull" in processed petfoods,

*snort* Define 'harmful'. I accept that the petfood manufacturers are heavily legislated as to what they can put in. At least I assume this is so - I have a friend who works as a nutritionist making animal feed (farm), and she is certainly heavily controlled by legislation. However. That is like saying there is nothing harmful in processed human foods. In theory, the same things will apply - controls over ingredients, production, etc. However we all know (at least if we have an interest in diet) that these foods are not good for us. They are high in salt, high in sugar, low in fibre, high in saturated fats, etc etc. And I believe petfood is the same. It may not be 'harmful' in that your dog/cat probably won't keel over dead by eating it on the spot, but it doesn't necessarily follow that it is good for them either!

With regard to obesity - we are doing extensive research on this & I have a couple of papers that show links to a few things. The main is lack of exercise (not surprisingly) and overfeeding - paticularly things like table scraps and human food (cheese).

I agree that much of obesity (in animals & people!) will be down to eating too much & doing too little. However, I do believe there is also an issue with some petfoods. Take it back to the human food analogy again - you may live on ready meals, and in theory you may be taking in only the calorific content which is correct for you, and you may do a decent level of exercise. But if those ready meals contain high levels of saturated fat, you may still be overweight, or at the least have to work harder to keep it off. I believe this is the same with pets & petfoods. I saw it in my own cats & dogs prior to going on rawfood - I struggled to keep their weights down. Once on raw food, they ate more quantity, yet remained trimmer, without changing their level of exercise.

humans & cow's milk. Probably we shouldn't have it but most can digest it with no problem at all.

Another thing I'd debate. I remember when I was vet nursing, one of the vets saying to me 'cows milk is only good for cows', and since then I've learnt how true this is. It does not suit many animals or people - but the levels of reaction may vary, and in many people will go unrecognised.

Basically a longer life means that they are more likely to get problems that they wouldn't have got in the wild. Gum disease for example - it is likely that wild dogs would have got this - but their life expectancy means that it would present as less prevalent

Based on my own experiences, I just don't think this is the case, certainly when it comes to gum disease. I have seen for myself that gum disease is incredibly rare in animals fed raw food diets. And when I was vet nursing, one of the most common things we saw animals for was dental work - some breeds were worse than others (poodles were notoriously bad), but on the whole, we'd see the majority of pets for dental work at some point in their lives if they lived to old age. I know full well how rare it is that none of my cats or dogs has required dental work, and has retained pretty good teeth. In those that have had some dental wear & tear by their late teens, the reality is that they'd probably not have lasted until their late teens in the wild, due to other health issues. So I truly think that dental problems in wild dogs & cats would be the exception rather than the rule.

 

[CinnamonChristmasCookie]

Absolutely fascinating thread, just caught up on it and thanks to all the contributors.

I suppose I'm a control case, having fed two dogs commercial crappy for years and then the lightbulb moment after living a dog to cancer. All three are fed raw or Orijen. The puppies' fur is very different to the adults, lots of people have said how soft it is. Their teeth are fabulous, whereas very early on, the adult dog had stained teeth. The puppies are huge, lean, massively energetic.

Only time will tell if there are significant differences for our dogs but it horrifies me that commercial manufacturers sell so much crap and get away with it.

 

[EAST KENT]

Amazing thread; but honestly I find it hard to swallow that Commercial food does`nt cause tartar build up,that those on RMB diet have the same problems.Why? Well, I have ONLY one dog on a commercial diet,and only ONE dog needed her teeth scaled once and my maintenence thereafter..and the rest all have pearly whites with no maintenence whatsoever.Strange that It is amazing how the food chiefs can utilise all the crappy bits from the human food chain, process it to death ,and then flog it out at the biggest price they dare go for..and we stupid fools (most of us) are gullible enough to believe all the hype.

Really it ought to be to be recognised for the fraud that it is.

 

[Brownmare]

Can the powers that be please sticky this thread? It makes for fascinating reading and I for one am learning alot from it, hopefully to the benefit of my dogs.

 

[arwenplusone]

Varkie - good post putting another point of view (though not all the comments you have quoted are mine). Agree on the taurine - was using it as an example though as I do think you need to research & understand raw feeding if that is the route you are going down.

Mind you, I think you should research any route you are going down, commercial, raw or otherwise!

EASTKENT: I get that you have one dog on raw and one on commercial so therefore you assume that gum disease is caused by the diet, but breed, size of dog, type of mouth & history ALL have a part to play. Not saying that diet isn't a factor but it isn't the cause.

The best thing you can do is toothbrushing. If there was a treat or a diet that stopped gum disease, all humans would take it too!

And as for all the hype - there's quite a lot of hype on raw food - and the article that started this post IMO is 'hype' ( and usually I sit on my hands when I read stuff like that).

I realise that I could turn myself inside out trying to present rational, honest views of commercial petfood world, and most of the time, folk won't believe me anyway, lol.
It is an emotional subject and, a lot of the time, the best understanding people have is with their own pets. (which is fair enough!)

What I do object to is people saying sweeping statements such as 'all commerical petfood is cr@p' and 'it all causes diseases etc etc'

Sure, some of it IS crap. The category needs a shake up, and it is coming. All I ask is that you keep an open mind and listen to the facts before making such sweeping judgement.

If you still think it's crap after the facts & proof - then fair enough!

 

[arwenplusone]

Wanted to edit to say Varkie - you are 100% - in that taurine is an amino acid.
And regarding weight & raw diet (dogs feeling full etc) again this is a very accurate observation. Manufactured petfoods are complete and balanced though (so your saturated fat point doesn't stand) - unlike ready meals!

Oh - and congrats on the teeth by the way. I love hearing about dogs & cats who don't have issues!

 

[Taffyhorse]

Wow - I never realised when I posted the article that it would lead to so many interesting and informed posts, it really has been fascinating reading.

Big thanks especially for KarynK and Arwenplusone for their reasoned answers, all of which have been very informative.

Also, how nice to see a thread that can debate the issues like adults without it degenerating into childish mudslinging. That's what I like about AAD

I don't feed Raw - although Freddie does have the occasional raw bone (generally chicken or pork) but I have found the debate very interesting.

On another note - how would you rate organic pet foods? Provenance is important to me as an individual both from an ecological and welfare perspective and I only eat organic, free range, outdoor bred/reared etc. That also holds for Freddie when he has raw.

But, I wonder if organic commercial foods are better than the average? At present Freddie is on Burns generally (although I have just changed to Arden Grange but it doesn't seem to be agreeing with him as well as the Burns) on vet recommendation. He also has eggs, sardines, fish (leftovers or sardines), leftover veg and like I said some raw.

Any thoughts gratefully received.

Cheers,

 

[soloabe]

For me organic is not something I would rate a kibble on. I would rate it on ingredents. If it has no grains and meat is the first ingredent I am ok with it. If its organc and has the right ingredents you are good to go.

 

[Taffyhorse]

Thanks Katielou - well, yes and this is the issue I've had to date (although haven't searched again recently). Most of the organic foods I have looked at still fall down a bit in the ingredients department.

Hmm, might have another look though.

 

[EAST KENT]

Uh Uh ..not basing my theory on ONE dog on each sort of diet,far from it,talking forty years of breeding and showing bull terrier and terrier breeds plus gundogs..a LOT of dogs! Only ONE has ever had a dental..the ONE fed on commercial crap,a bull terrier rescue by the way.
It is poisonous stuff,no dog of mine will ever consume it as a whole diet;it may have a place as an emergency..holidays,broken freezer etc.In that case it would only be Fish4Dogs,which is sort of OK as a stop gap.
Sorry but yes indeed you do realise my opinion of that stuff.Man`s way of using up unmentionable edibles and recycling into loads of filthy lucre.

 

[pillion]

can I add an uneducated but silly point!

If all we could feed were products we had to source, would you source grain, and process it and feed it to your dogs?

because I would not, not because of the pros-cons, but because unless it was pre packed and processed in a feed, could I really be ars@d ? erm...........no lol!

so why is it there, in all of this debate, no one has been able (in my mind) to put across a deffinative ta dah answer.......... this is why we want your dogs to eat grain derivative/product!.......and until then I am sticking to my RMB diet, and its cheaper than processed food, as I pick it up free from my buthcher, and in these financial times.........it counts.

 

[EAST KENT]

can I add an uneducated but silly point!

If all we could feed were products we had to source, would you source grain, and process it and feed it to your dogs?

because I would not, not because of the pros-cons, but because unless it was pre packed and processed in a feed, could I really be ars@d ? erm...........no lol!

so why is it there, in all of this debate, no one has been able (in my mind) to put across a deffinative ta dah answer.......... this is why we want your dogs to eat grain derivative/product!.......and until then I am sticking to my RMB diet, and its cheaper than processed food, as I pick it up free from my buthcher, and in these financial times.........it counts.

Indeed ,money counts too;feeding my multitude means it is not only far cheaper but better too.My breeds ,esp. the bull terriers,show wrong feeding very quickly in their coats and condition.Those fed and exercised properly are muscled ,fit and have beautiful soft coats.The rest,poor things are not so,and their coats are dry and dandruffy.Dried foods can and do also cause behavioural probs in my breed,Lord knows it is a "full on" active breed enough without doing in it`s brain with horrid colours and additives.Every time a new Welfare comes in,that has been fed on commercial crap ,I watch it chill out as the RMB works its magic. Probably for the first time in it`s life it enjoys the experience of slowly chewing down a chook carcase,having a satisfied stomach doing what it is designed to do...break down soft bones and digest slowly.My lovely fresh chook carcases cost me just £5.00 for a 10 kilo box, my blocks of head meat/tripe mince are 70 P a kilo.A typical meal is half a kilo of the meat and half a carcase..so peanuts really for a real nutricious meal.

 

[KarynK]

...

I don't feed Raw - although Freddie does have the occasional raw bone (generally chicken or pork) but I have found the debate very interesting.

On another note - how would you rate organic pet foods? Provenance is important to me as an individual both from an ecological and welfare perspective ...

But, I wonder if organic commercial foods are better than the average? At present Freddie is on Burns generally ... He also has eggs, sardines, fish (leftovers or sardines), leftover veg and like I said some raw.

,

Bearing in mind I am a raw feeder and do not use commercial products for what it's worth in my opinion I think if you are going the commercial route and provenance is important to you then something like Orijen or similar is a very good place to start. Though as you probably know good quality meat protein costs so that sort of food in the organic, provenanced muscle meat bracket is going to cost a lot.

Admittedly Orijen does your air miles no good at all as it is not made from sources local to us in the UK and is itself shipped in as a product!! But though I do not agree with all of their information I do find their product info refreshingly open minded, well informed/informative. The food itself whilst still containing preservatives is not highly cooked and the preservatives are natural and it is grain free and low carb.

One or two people on here have tried it but some feedback was that the smaller quantities fed left a dog quite hungry in one case, though with the way you are feeding that might not be a problem, perhaps it needs adjusting to for some dogs. It would probably be my choice if for any reason I could no longer feed raw, but as everyone has said raw is much cheaper. I would however like to see the UK petfood industry look in the direction of low carb no grains in the future I think it is the best way forward.

It is for that reason and others like misleading product names that I dislike Burn's ethos. The grain contents are in my humble opinion more akin to a guinea-pig, 70 +% maize really speaks for itself I think and suggesting that dogs are near vegetarians and have evolved to be so in less than 100 years makes my teeth itch!!! It also worries me generally that there are now a widening variety of carb sources in commercial foods because of allergies to wheat principally. That this variety is available suggests that creating that alternative is financially viable to big companies, so the numbers of sufferers must be high, which worries me a lot and hence my wish that reliance on grain for feeding dogs should at the very least substantially decreased as soon as possible.

On a lighter note I had a bit of a chuckle the other night watching QI on BBC2, they said that a dog had a bigger carbon footprint than a car!! Mainly because of the energy used to produce the food and the gasses produced after eating it. Well not mine Stephen!!! My dogs must have a negative footprint, not only do they process waste, it's local waste and does not have to be cooked or incinerated!!! Though when they eat pork I suspect they are only just in credit!!!

 

[Taffyhorse]

Thanks KarynK - interestingly food miles *can* be a bit of a red herring from an emissions perspective for food production generally as the emissions (or equivalents) are generally much higher than the emissions from transport - particularly as many products are shipped rather than air freighted. But, its still a consideration.

Stephen Fry has a good point for the reasons outlined above - pet food production is emissions intensive and like you said, an element of the emissions is produced during ahem.. consumption of said product

I haven't been massively keen on Burns for the reasons you stated above - he has suffered from sensitive digestion though and I think this was why the vet recommended it. Having said that he does look well on it (although he's currently on Arden Grange) but as we've said before, just because its 'safe' for your dog to eat doesn't necessarily mean its 'good' for your dog to eat i.e. KFC is technically 'safe' for human consumption but I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole and you ate it all the time, the long term affects would be detrimental.

Back to the drawing board methinks