# Why does poop smell?



## armatis68 (Aug 20, 2011)

I know this probably sounds like a stupid question, but can someone tell me why dog poop smells? I know all poop smells (including human's), but I've noticed that the intensity of my pug's poop varies greatly from day to day,and even poop to poop. 
I get the feeling that certain treats contribute to the smell, but I have still failed to recognize a pattern.
One that I am certain of, however, is that the softer his poop is, the more it sticks. 
OK poop experts, here's your opportunity to shine


----------



## Firem4nJoe (Oct 10, 2011)

My dogs' poop doesn't smell. Well, it doesn't smell anywhere near as bad as it used to since I stopped feeding them factory processed pet food and adopted the raw meaty bones diet. Basically the crap that's in the pet food is what's making the poop (and the dog's breath) smell rotten. A dog fed properly on meat and bone should not have "doggy breath" http://www.rawmeatybones.com for more info. I push that link a lot when questions like this come up, because that's the website of the vet who basically saved my dogs lives by opening my eyes up to the horrors of pet food.

Hope that helps.


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

It is all about what is in the food. Not to be too graphic, but think about it as similar to a human that eats chili and beer compared to someone that eats baked chicken and potatos. The low quality dog foods and many treats are filled with artificial colors, fillers like corn that dogs don't process well, and basically a lot of unneeded ingredients that are just going to come out the other end. A high quality food has less fillers and thus less waste. Look for treats that are strictly meat or make your own baked and dried treats, avoiding treats like Milkbones and avoiding unhealthy table scraps will help a lot. Healthy table scraps like a small amount of plain chicken or plain beef can make high value treats for training. 

Raw feeding can be good, but a good quality dry dog food is also plenty good and for many people, much easier to deal with (for example, I can travel easily by tossing a bag of food in the car and I don't need the freezer space in my little kitchen)


----------



## ADalla (Oct 1, 2011)

Poop basically smells because of bacteria. Lots of little microorganisims reside in everybody's intestines, they help break down food and produce gases like hydrogen sulfide. 

It could be a dietary intolerance that causes the softer poops. Poops that are softer have a higher water content generally because the body hasn't had a chance to reabsorb moisture, and I'm guessing that in that process alot of microorganisims are flushed out as well, making poop stinkier.


----------



## beverley (Oct 7, 2010)

i have to say, we are what we eat, dogs included. by no means am i a 'healthy' eater i enjoy cake too much 
but if ive eaten a Mcdonalds, you dont want to be in the bathroom after me!!!!


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

The sulfur compounds come from breakdown of protein. Nearly all sulfur compounds smell bad. Bile also smells bad. Diarrhea usually occurs b/c of an irritation that can also damage the villi which contain enzymes that help digestion. Incompletely enzyme-processed food smells bad. Irritated intestines (dog intestines are shorter and faster than human intestines) usually move food more quickly, and bacteria don't process completely, resulting in stink.

Not scientifically precise, but probably more than you want.... but don't ask me why it always sticks to your shoe 

BTW, my dog eats carrots, so his poop has an orange glow to it, and little orange jewels mixed in


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Why does poop smell?


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

I'm just content assuming any thing coming out of a hole in one's body is going to smell.


----------



## The_Monstors (Oct 1, 2010)

My dogs compared to my MILs are night and day. Yes, we all have bacterias from the tract that make smell, but the diet matters much too. They eat 1star foods and lots of treats and table foods. They fart all the time and its so effing disgustingly intense. I'm there maybe a few hours a week and had to clear a room several times. If I'm sitting out on their patio and the dogs poop in the grass, I can smell it even though it's quite a ways. I have yet to even smell a fart from my dogs and though their poop smells like poop, I would have to stand over it. They get the best possible food and I removed their food sensitivities out of their diet and it makes a load of difference. When I got them, their old owner was feeding them Pedigree. 

What are you feeding bunk for food and what type of treats is he getting? If he's getting constantly soft and very stinky poops maybe his food doesn't completely agree with him?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Firem4nJoe said:


> My dogs' poop doesn't smell. Well, it doesn't smell anywhere near as bad as it used to since I stopped feeding them factory processed pet food and adopted the raw meaty bones diet. Basically the crap that's in the pet food is what's making the poop (and the dog's breath) smell rotten. A dog fed properly on meat and bone should not have "doggy breath" http://www.rawmeatybones.com for more info. I push that link a lot when questions like this come up, because that's the website of the vet who basically saved my dogs lives by opening my eyes up to the horrors of pet food.
> 
> Hope that helps.


Some pet foods are horrible. Some are very good. There is no "horror" of pet food. My dogs eat a high quality grain free. Their poop doesn't smell more awful than any other poop and their breath does not smell "rotten." What a load of (if you'll excuse the term) crap.


----------



## Firem4nJoe (Oct 10, 2011)

RaeganW said:


> Why does poop smell?


That's awesome. I love it!

People will disagree, but there is really no such thing as a "high quality" factory processed pet food, only more expensive and successfully marketed.
Most pet foods are heavily grain based and really not digestible for a dog, this is why there is such a volume of poo from pet food fed canines. Some claim to not use grain, and some of these ones are even being honest in that regard. Some do use real meat in their brand of pet food, but this is always meat that has not been passed for human consumption because the animal was either diseased, dying, dead, or even decomposing.
The nutritional values listed on a can of pet food can just as easily be derived from a leather boot, can of motor oil, and various other bits of rubbish you'd never knowingly or willingly feed your self, your family, or your dog. Some countries, not all, even use ground up deceased pets from animal mortuaries and vets' offices in pet foods that are fed to the same kind of animal, but now I'm getting off track so let's get back to the poo we all love so much - lol.

Sloppy dog turds are generally always a the result of a pet food diet, a raw meat and bone diet mostly results in firm and drier droppings that turn chalky white in the sun far before the pet food variety, and even better, they simply crumble under foot so you don't have to worry about the turd you just stepped in.
The slight aroma of _Natural Diet Doggy Doodoo_, even when fresh out of Rover's back side, is nowhere near enough of a stench to clear a crowded elevator.
A _Pet Food Poo_ on the other hand, even when disturbed after a week out in the whether, could empty a sports stadium (slight exaggeration but you get my drift). 
People will state quite adamantly and at times accurately that their pet food fed dog's leave quite acceptable bodily excretions. This is generally because that pet food fed dog also has a good supply of raw meaty bones to clean the teeth and gums. What we have then is a dog with strong pearly white teeth, a hybrid mix of deceptive defecations, and still suffering internally from the indigestibles in all brands of factory processed pet food which our pet food company founded vets constantly recommend so the vicious cycle of Periodontal Disease and organ failure that stems from it, keeps the veterinary wallet over flowing and the same in turn for the pet food companies. 

I'm making no effort to guilt-trip fellow dog owners/dog lovers, but I do make an effort to raise awareness and guilt-trip pet food companies and veterinarians.
Granted, the question was merely "Why does dog poo smell?" but why give a half informative un-researched answer when a little digging gets you a long way?

Now I am sure, here come the disagreements...


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

There are strict rules in the U.S. (not that I'm saying that USDA inspectors are that great, but they do check in now and then) about product labeling, and I don't think any company is going to risk a lawsuit from mislabeling their product (say, if someone with a bad allergy handles (or eats. . .kids do it a lot) their pet food and dies or has a terrible reaction, and the allergen wasn't listed). So the ingredient list is truthful. Now, some ingredients in cheap foods are NASTY, but then most people don't bother to read the label.

And I would say that my dogs have "quite acceptable bodily excretions". And they don't have a steady supply of raw meaty bones either. It's been at least 6 months since they've had anything raw. I don't think you can make blanket statements about dog foods. The variation in quality makes any generalization untrue.


----------



## kafkabeetle (Dec 4, 2009)

Firem4nJoe said:


> That's awesome. I love it!
> 
> People will disagree, but there is really no such thing as a "high quality" factory processed pet food, only more expensive and successfully marketed.
> Most pet foods are heavily grain based and really not digestible for a dog, this is why there is such a volume of poo from pet food fed canines. Some claim to not use grain, and some of these ones are even being honest in that regard. Some do use real meat in their brand of pet food, but this is always meat that has not been passed for human consumption because the animal was either diseased, dying, dead, or even decomposing.
> ...


Of course you're going to get disagreements, because what you're saying is kind of absurd. No way can you lump all commercial foods together, nor can you state with any accuracy how a given diet is going to affect all dog's poop. I mean, why even claim that? It's so silly.

For example, here are the ingredients in Ol' Roy dog food. Pretty crappy: 

Ground yellow corn, meat and bone meal, soybean meal, chicken by-product meal, wheat middlings, animal fat [preserved with BHA and citric acid], natural flavor, brewers rice, salt, calcium carbonate, potassium chloride, choline chloride, color added [red #40, yellow #5, blue #2], zinc sulfate, vitamin E supplement, ferrous sulfate, zinc oxide, niacin, copper sulfate, vitamin A supplement, biotin, manganous oxide, calcium pantothenate, vitamin B12 supplement, thiamine mononitrate, pyridoxine hydrochloride, menadione sodium bisulfite complex [source of vitamin K activity], riboflavin supplement, sodium selenite, calcium iodate, folic acid, vitamin D3 supplement, cobalt carbonate

ON THE OTHER HAND, here are the ingredients in Orijen dog food. Pretty freakin' good:

Fresh boneless salmon, salmon meal, herring meal, fresh boneless herring, fresh boneless walleye, russet potato, sweet potato, peas, salmon oil (preserved with mixed tocopherols), fresh boneless lake whitefish, sun-cured alfalfa, fresh boneless flounder, fresh boneless northern pike, pea fiber, organic kelp, pumpkin, carrots, spinach, turnip greens, apples, cranberries, blueberries, licorice root, angelica root, fenugreek, marigold flowers, sweet fennel, peppermint leaf, chamomile, dandelion, summer savory, rosemary, vitamin A, vitamin D3, vitamin E, niacin, thiamine mononitrate, riboflavin, calcium pantothenate, pyridoxine, folic acid, biotin, vitamin B12, zinc proteinate, iron proteinate, manganese proteinate, copper proteinate, selenium yeast, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Enterococcus faecium

You can continue treating pet foods like they're all comparable if you want, but you're just going to make yourself look foolish. People here aren't stupid. The facts are easy to find and they just don't add up with what you are claiming.

Obviously people should feed the best they can BUT that doesn't ALWAYS mean raw and IME it hardly ever excludes high-end commercial pet foods. How is it not obvious to raw food groupies and anti-pet food zealots that this sort of talk is HURTING your message and certainly not helping any dogs.


----------



## Firem4nJoe (Oct 10, 2011)

Well they are comparable, you just touched on comparing two of them and now the Ol' Roy feeders are going to disagree with you, and the Orijen feeders will support you. But at any rate every pet food company is now catching on to the slowly but surely growing number of raw feeders... 

(some of which are far too caught up in nutrient levels and meat to bone percentages and need to calm down because dietary supplements are starting to creep in and it's all unfortunately heading back to pet food) 

...and as a result are all pointing out the same things that raw feeders are identifying that shouldn't be in pet foods and claiming their own to be the best as it has none of these evil things and when the confidence trick has people sucked in they then reveal their own ingredients, talk them up to the crowd and in most cases do a decent job of making it semi believable. Here is a good example: 





The end of this advertisement is near the end of Part 2 (big over lap)

I've just put forward conclusions based on personal experience and independent scientific research (not funded by pet food companies, etc)
I could put up a load of links such as http://rawmeatybones.com but only the few truly interested or open minded will bother reading up and the rest for differing reasons will never be convinced so there's not a lot more I can do.

Except answer the original question with "all of this is the reason I believe, for the vast majority of smelly dog poo."
I do accept that there is an exception to every rule, but If I am to truly find a dog food, that meets a dog's dietary requirements, and is a) not raw meat and bone, and b) hasn't had all the nutrients destroyed in the process of processing the pet food, I'm going to need a time machine or a space ship.


----------



## kafkabeetle (Dec 4, 2009)

Firem4nJoe said:


> Well they are comparable, you just touched on comparing two of them and now the Ol' Roy feeders are going to disagree with you, and the Orijen feeders will support you. But at any rate every pet food company is now catching on to the slowly but surely growing number of raw feeders...
> 
> (some of which are far too caught up in nutrient levels and meat to bone percentages and need to calm down because dietary supplements are starting to creep in and it's all unfortunately heading back to pet food)
> 
> ...


You're not really making any sense. Why does it matter what Ol' Roy feeders think here? Obviously there are differences and your research should tell you that Orijen is closer to a natural diet. YOU, if YOU were forced to feed one of the above foods and had absolutely NO ABILITY to feed raw, would you feed Ol' Roy or Orijen, based on the ingredients? You can't just dismiss that there are differences if you're going to go back to lumping all pet foods together. 

I always get a good laugh out of people who can't provide sufficient evidence to support their point claiming that people who disagree with them aren't "open minded" enough. I'm plenty open minded and if you can provide me with concrete evidence demonstrating that all pet foods are equally bad for dogs I will gladly change my opinion on the matter. But the link you just posted screams propaganda and I cannot find anything scientific about it. Please point me towards the scientific research which claims not that raw is the most appropriate diet, but that ALL PET FOODS ARE HARMFUL. Not just a few specific ones.

There is a lot more more you could do, but I understand that it's easier to just claim everyone ELSE is the problem. Unfortunately for you, the person making the claim always bears the burden of proof and I've yet to see any.


----------



## Firem4nJoe (Oct 10, 2011)

Yes that was "sensationalised" because it is an advertisement. The most effective advertising is sensationalised.



> ...people who can't provide sufficient evidence to support their point claiming that people who disagree with them aren't "open minded" enough.


Well let's not get started on religion here but that's where I might use such an argument, in this case however you're twisting my words considering



> truly interested or open minded


is not in reference to a singular person or party. You will notice I also used the words



> for differing reasons


in reference to the fact that not everyone has the one uniform reason for not believing raw is best, or, believing there are some truly beneficial pet foods out there.

Proof? Proof you want? Unadulterated indisputable proof? 
There's the studies that found flame retardant chemicals in pet food http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110426071021.htm and no they didn't test every pet food under the sun and don't mention any ill effects but they do state more research is needed, that said are you comfortable ingesting flame retardants or giving them to your dog? You can find plenty of scientific articles regarding pet food for both sides of the argument although I use the term "scientific" loosely in regard to pet food supporting, so called experiments. 
There's a rather interesting library out there such as Tom Lonsdale's books _Work Wonders_ and _Raw Meaty Bones_, and Ann Martin's _Food Pet's Die For_. Here's an excerpt http://www.homevet.com/petcare/foodbook.html
Of course you are correct that no individual or group has analysed and tested every single pet food under the sun, and here's a question; have you? 
And they do need truly independent researchers to undertake them. Are either if us truly independent and unbiased?

Maybe it isn't as bad as others, but can you prove beyond a doubt, scientifically and anatomically, that your pet's food is truly beneficial? 



> if YOU were forced to feed one of the above foods and had absolutely NO ABILITY to feed raw, would you feed Ol' Roy or Orijen, based on the ingredients?


Where to start... both brands contain ingredients that dogs either shouldn't or don't need to have floating around their digestive systems. Are you aware that legally no one has to list every single ingredient on a label? What else are they hiding?
So do I attempt to opt for what is in my opinion the lesser or two evils that I now know will slowly poison the dog? Raw meat's out of the question hey? There are certain ripe fruits dogs can eat, but not solely fruit for a long periods of time. Dogs can have the occasional table scraps but even that's not a long term solution. This situation would become a decision between releasing the dog to hunt, scavenge and fend for itself, or perhaps the eternal sleep would be kindest. Luckily I have a good supply of fresh, human grade raw meat and bone and my dogs are so much healthier for it so I don't have to worry about this ridiculous scenario.


----------



## ADalla (Oct 1, 2011)

Firem4nJoe said:


> So do I attempt to opt for what is in my opinion the lesser or two evils that I now know will slowly poison the dog? Raw meat's out of the question hey? There are certain ripe fruits dogs can eat, but not solely fruit for a long periods of time. Dogs can have the occasional table scraps but even that's not a long term solution. This situation would become a decision between releasing the dog to hunt, scavenge and fend for itself, or perhaps the eternal sleep would be kindest. Luckily I have a good supply of fresh, human grade raw meat and bone and my dogs are so much healthier for it so I don't have to worry about this ridiculous scenario.


Ok.. Am I the only one confused here? Did I read this right? On the off chance that you could not feed raw, you'd just not feed your dogs at all and hope they will probably scavenge their own dead, dying and diseased animals? Cause let me tell you, there's a percentage of dogs that will actually hunt, but most all will scavenge if they aren't being fed by someone. Things they will scavenge could be rats who have previously been poisoned etc. Or guess what plenty of animal welfare groups give dogs out scavenging.... Puppy Chow! Your worst nightmare! 

Or you'd just put them to sleep rather than feeding them a diet that hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dogs thrive on? 

You know how I know for absolutely sure there are no grains in Orijen? I have severe Celiac disease. I feed the dogs. I am so prone to reactions that if I fed them, and touched my face or ate breakfast afterwards I would have a reaction. People think I'm a nutcase because I don't eat out, the fact of the matter is contamination is ridiculously easy and considering the fact that I have impaired nutrition absorption factors I'd rather not risk it. Let alone dealing with the pain. I wash my hands constantly while out in public, especially in places such as malls with food courts. I would constantly be exposing myself if I fed grain inclusive, every time my puppies licked my face (especially when you get that nasty slip of the tongue) I would be exposed and that would have a negative effect on my health and I feel it. So that's how I know. Infact I realised I was getting "glutened" by what we previously fed, Blue which contained barley, which I actually think is also a pretty good food. It took me a heck of a long time to realise what was making me sick as dog food never occured to me. It was my best friend who used to work at a pet store that pointed out the irony of my "gluten free house" and my grain inclusive pet food. 

FWIW I tried feeding raw once, I did everything by the book and my dog had near constant diarrhea.


----------



## kafkabeetle (Dec 4, 2009)

Firem4nJoe said:


> Yes that was "sensationalised" because it is an advertisement. The most effective advertising is sensationalised.


No idea what point you're making here. Who are you marketing to, and why don't you use logic instead on sensationalism? If you admit something is sensationalized then you admit that it can't be trusted. lol



Firem4nJoe said:


> Well let's not get started on religion here but that's where I might use such an argument, in this case however you're twisting my words considering


wtf, I never once mentioned religion.



Firem4nJoe said:


> Proof? Proof you want? Unadulterated indisputable proof?
> There's the studies that found flame retardant chemicals in pet food http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110426071021.htm and *no they didn't test every pet food under the sun and don't mention any ill effects* but they do state more research is needed, that said are you comfortable ingesting flame retardants or giving them to your dog? You can find plenty of scientific articles regarding pet food for both sides of the argument although *I use the term "scientific" loosely* in regard to pet food supporting, so called experiments.


LOL, yep that's what I thought.



Firem4nJoe said:


> There's a rather interesting library out there such as Tom Lonsdale's books _Work Wonders_ and _Raw Meaty Bones_, and Ann Martin's _Food Pet's Die For_. Here's an excerpt http://www.homevet.com/petcare/foodbook.html
> *Of course you are correct that no individual or group has analysed and tested every single pet food under the sun, and here's a question; have you? *
> And they do need truly independent researchers to undertake them. Are either if us truly independent and unbiased?


That's what I thought, and nope, because I'm already convinced that many premium grain-free foods are healthy enough for my dog. The proof is in her body condition, energy level and stools. If she did poorly on every dog food I might be inclined to take your very radical viewpoint into more serious consideration, but no, I'm not going to "take your word for it" that all pet foods are bad. And no I'm not going to do the research FOR YOU to support the claim YOU are making. Because my research already tells me otherwise.



Firem4nJoe said:


> Maybe it isn't as bad as others, but can you prove beyond a doubt, scientifically and anatomically, that your pet's food is truly beneficial?


What evidence would actually do this, and do you have the same evidence proving that your raw diet is 'truly beneficial'? Aside from your own dog's body condition and blogs supporting the raw diet for animals?



Firem4nJoe said:


> Where to start... both brands contain ingredients that dogs either shouldn't or don't need to have floating around their digestive systems. Are you aware that legally no one has to list every single ingredient on a label? What else are they hiding?


This reads like a conspiracy theory to me. What reason have you to believe dog food labels are untruthful? Pretty sure they legally DO need to disclose their ingredients by law. I'd be interested to hear more about this. Links please.



Firem4nJoe said:


> So do I attempt to opt for what is in my opinion the lesser or two evils that I now know will slowly poison the dog? Raw meat's out of the question hey? There are certain ripe fruits dogs can eat, but not solely fruit for a long periods of time. Dogs can have the occasional table scraps but even that's not a long term solution. This situation would become a decision between releasing the dog to hunt, scavenge and fend for itself, or perhaps the eternal sleep would be kindest. Luckily I have a good supply of fresh, human grade raw meat and bone and my dogs are so much healthier for it so I don't have to worry about this ridiculous scenario.


You would rather release your dog into the wild or kill it than feed the dog commercial pet food. Excuse me if I find that idea slightly effing insane. OMG. What a dog lover.


----------



## DustyCrockett (Sep 24, 2011)

Excuse me while I interrupt your dog food debate.

Why does dog food smell? So you'll be able to tell if your dog has been eating crap.
Hey it's just a theory.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I am going to point out that they've found flame-retardant chemicals in nearly everything. . .that stuff gets around. It was found in human breast milk and cow's milk (which also has hormones in it), and of course there's pesticide residue in soy products. So I guess babies are out of luck, better let them starve. I would expect that those chemicals are in dog food. . .AND raw meat. 

And seriously? Releasing domestic animals into the wild or killing them instead of feeding them processed food? Yeah, I'm sure they'd rather die than eat kibble . I hope you eat as well as they do. Are you willing to kill yourself rather than eat processed food?


----------



## Charis (Jul 12, 2009)

Firem4nJoe said:


> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110426071021.htm and no they didn't test
> There's a rather interesting library out there such as Tom Lonsdale's books _Work Wonders_ and _Raw Meaty Bones_, and Ann Martin's _Food Pet's Die For_. Here's an excerpt http://www.homevet.com/petcare/foodbook.html


I am not trying to pick on anyone (I quoted the websites posted) however a few points to consider about scientific studies and research -
(as I do perform research and write academic papers concerning research done by others)

- Actual research/studies are conducted in a methodical way to prevent bias, skewing of the results, accidental misrepresentation regardless of the subject matter
- Few websites reporting on a study (unfortunately both mentioned above) do not accurately represent any study. Merely mentioning percentages and a study proved "X" does not accurately present the study
- Unless you are proving public opinion in a vague manner a news website does not represent an accurate source to the scientific community (and even then it is pushing it) 
- Anything that can be edited by the general public (sorry wiki) is not a credible source
- Anything that cannot be duplicated by unrelated parties is not adequate research
- Depending on the subject matter anything over 5-10 years old is no longer credible (there are exceptions to this and this rule requires a certain amount of experience to not follow - similar to judging how much salt to put in a dish when cooking - you develop a "knack" for it - but that takes time and practice)

There are more general rules of thumb to follow concerning research and you develop an eye for adequate, correctly performed research.

An example:
http://ezproxy.ttuhsc.edu/login?url...ect=true&db=rzh&AN=2002110578&site=ehost-live (this link may or may not work as I have to be logged in to search for articles through our database) - I use this article citation ONLY to illustrate my point and not relating to the current debate. I have attached the abstract to the article and my comments in parenthesis on various points to consider when determining research.

Authors: Smeets-Peeters M ; Watson T ; Minekus M ; Havenaar R (You know exactly who wrote the article)

Affiliation: TNO Food and Nutrition Research Institute, Utrechtseweg 48, P.O. Box 360, 3700 AJ Zeist, the Netherlands (What institute performed the research. This important as articles from countries outside of the U.S. may be credible however may not be applicable to U.S. population due to differences in the two countries. Caution is taken when considering an articles from outside a population applied to a population it was not researched in)

Source: Nutrition Research Reviews (NUTR RES REV), 1998 Jun; 11(1): 45-69 (86 ref) (The date it was published is applicable as the research may be outdated, you can determine if there is newer research, cite older research - sometimes applicable - and the exact publication and exact page the articles was published in)

Publication Type:journal article - review, tables/charts (just because something is a journal does not make it credible but does increase the likelihood it is)

Language: English (important to consider if the research is done in a different language as important points may be lost in translation)

Major Subjects: Digestive System Physiology (main point of the research. some articles do not list this and it may be gathered from the title.)

Minor Subjects: Dogs ; Mouth Physiology ; Gastric Juice ; Hydrogen-Ion Concentration ; Gastrointestinal Motility -- Physiology ; Pancreas -- Physiology ; Intestinal Absorption (think of these like "tags")

Abstract: (the following is shortened overview of what the article is about and hit some of the "high points" of the article. It is not the article in its entirety and abstracts should be quoted with caution so as not to misrepresent the article research)
Food and nutrition studies in animals and human beings often meet with technical difficulties and sometimes with ethical questions. An alternative to research in living animals is the dynamic multicompartmental in vitro model for the gastrointestinal tract described by Minekus et al. (1995) and Havenaar & Minekus (1996). The dynamic conditions that are simulated in this model are peristaltic movements, transit times, pH responses, secretion of enzymes and electrolytes and absorption of nutrients and water. To obtain data for an in vitro model of the dog gastrointestinal tract, the literature was surveyed for physiological responses to different types of dog food. These included: values of enzyme activities, electrolyte concentrations, gastric emptying and intestinal transit times, pH values, secretion and composition of bile and absorption rates in different parts of the dog gastrointestinal tract. The review focuses on research carried out on healthy, adult dogs of 10-20 kg and on parameters related to the oral cavity, stomach and small intestine. This literature research gives sufficient data on the physiology of the canine digestive tract for the development of an in vitro dynamic model that adequately simulates the functions of the stomach and small intestine of the dog.

Journal Subset: Allied Health; Double Blind Peer Reviewed; Editorial Board Reviewed; Europe; Expert Peer Reviewed; Peer Reviewed; UK & Ireland (this reviews what about the article makes it credible. Peer reviewed is a very good sign - meaning other scientists of the same specialty reviewed the research prior. Double blind is also a very good sign - meaning the research was double blind. The research was also reviewed by an editorial board prior which is another good sign for credibility)

Special Interest: Nutrition

ISSN:0954-4224 (more information on exactly where to locate the article written on the research)

MEDLINE Info:
PMID: 19087459 NLM UID: 9113797

Publisher Info:
URL: www.cinahl.com/cgi-bin/refsvc?jid=1958&accno=2002110578

Entry Date:20020906

Revision Date: 20090306 

Accession Number: 2002110578 (more on where to find the exact article)

Database: CINAHL Plus with Full Text (Various databases exist to look-up research. NOt all are complete/adequate and so this is important to credit the source i.e. the article itself as well as evaluate how the article was located. CINAHL is considered a very good database.) 


This a very general overview on quoting research. I have a 2 inch thick book on proper quotations and writing style on my shelf (it takes practice/studying), along with multiple books on determining research adequacy in a couple others. I have performed research and written academic papers for the past 6 years (in case anyone wonders on my credibility). 

As for why dog poop stinks - I think there are a wide number of reasons why - and not adequate research for to say one way or another scientifically (it takes more than a few minutes on the computer to adequately research what research has been done on certain subject matter) however I think it is due greatly to an individual animal's native bacterial flora, normal diet, stress related factors (thus increasing or decreasing peristalsis) and environmental factors such as exposure to disease and a new water source


----------



## dagwall (Mar 17, 2011)

*cheer* Charis and proper understanding of a true scientifc study and the resulting article. ALMOST makes me miss school (Biology major).


----------



## Charis (Jul 12, 2009)

dagwall said:


> *cheer* Charis and proper understanding of a true scientifc study and the resulting article. ALMOST makes me miss school (Biology major).


Thank you! I don't mind being open minded and hearing what people have to say but I am sick and tired of people trying to prove their point with poor sources. 

Biology major - I considered this. My entire (and I mean entire) time earning my bachelors I had four tests. Every other location a quiz, test, etc demonstration of knowing what you were talking about etc was a paper instead. Not an essay, not an overview - full APA academic/scholastic writing. I'm with you - I almost miss it - although it does come in handy to know about. I don't regret learning it but I'm not sure I want to go back (and yet I am to get my doctorate )


----------



## Firem4nJoe (Oct 10, 2011)

ADalla said:


> You know how I know for absolutely sure there are no grains in Orijen? I have severe Celiac disease. I feed the dogs. I am so prone to reactions that if I fed them, and touched my face or ate breakfast afterwards I would have a reaction. People think I'm a nutcase because I don't eat out, the fact of the matter is contamination is ridiculously easy and considering the fact that I have impaired nutrition absorption factors I'd rather not risk it. Let alone dealing with the pain. I wash my hands constantly while out in public, especially in places such as malls with food courts. I would constantly be exposing myself if I fed grain inclusive, every time my puppies licked my face (especially when you get that nasty slip of the tongue) I would be exposed and that would have a negative effect on my health and I feel it. So that's how I know. Infact I realised I was getting "glutened" by what we previously fed, Blue which contained barley, which I actually think is also a pretty good food. It took me a heck of a long time to realise what was making me sick as dog food never occured to me. It was my best friend who used to work at a pet store that pointed out the irony of my "gluten free house" and my grain inclusive pet food.
> 
> FWIW I tried feeding raw once, I did everything by the book and my dog had near constant diarrhea.


Argument aside, because it's getting old (you counter, I counter, blah blah blah).
You have brought two interesting points though.
Luckily I seem to have grown out of my gluten allergy. As you would know, Celiac disease is a condition that damages the lining of the small intestine and prevents it from absorbing parts of food that are important for staying healthy. The damage is due to a reaction to eating gluten, which is found in wheat, barley (as you pointed out, rye, and possibly oats. NOT every single grain under the sun.

"Very few celiacs are likely to have any reaction to topical gluten contact. In order for a gut reaction to occur, it is likely that direct contact with the gut lumen is required. Many people with celiac disease have everyday contact with gluten (for instance, bakers with celiac disease who have contact everyday with wheat flour), and do not have any reaction to it. However, there are, on rare occasion, people who have had an anaphylactoid response to gluten, and these people should avoid gluten in all forms. Also, topical gluten breathed into the upper airways may cause symptoms of allergic rhetinitis in rare instances. If there is a simple alternative to a shampoo, cosmetic, etc., you may want to use the non gluten containing product."
---Taken from Celiac.com---

So you must be one epically extreme case, and if you are it's an eye opener for me but that doesn't mean your dog food brand doesn't have other grains.

As for the for the constant diarrhoea, how little bone compared to meat were you feeding? And what "book" were you following? Because the BARF movement of the RMB diet is _seriously out there man!_


----------



## kafkabeetle (Dec 4, 2009)

Firem4nJoe said:


> Argument aside, because it's getting old (you counter, I counter, blah blah blah).
> You have brought two interesting points though.
> Luckily I seem to have grown out of my gluten allergy. As you would know, Celiac disease is a condition that damages the lining of the small intestine and prevents it from absorbing parts of food that are important for staying healthy. The damage is due to a reaction to eating gluten, which is found in wheat, barley (as you pointed out, rye, and possibly oats. NOT every single grain under the sun.
> 
> ...


You know, it's ok for other people to feed different food than you. And it doesn't necessarily mean dogs that don't do well on RAW have owners who are "doing it wrong" as all the raw food groupies like to spout. How about you step back for a second and think about the fact that you are BY FAR not the only one with knowledge on this board.

Personally, I think most of your ideas are "seriously out there, man."

I'm pretty curious about what YOUR diet is like.


----------



## ADalla (Oct 1, 2011)

Firem4nJoe said:


> Argument aside, because it's getting old (you counter, I counter, blah blah blah).
> You have brought two interesting points though.
> Luckily I seem to have grown out of my gluten allergy. As you would know, Celiac disease is a condition that damages the lining of the small intestine and prevents it from absorbing parts of food that are important for staying healthy. The damage is due to a reaction to eating gluten, which is found in wheat, barley (as you pointed out, rye, and possibly oats. NOT every single grain under the sun.
> 
> ...


I never said I had topical reactions.. Didn't I mention that if I handled their food and ate afterwards, therefore ingesting trace gluten.. which if I'm ingesting it.. yeah. Trace amounts of gluten do cause reactions in Celiacs, not all Celiacs feel it but there is a reaction, which is why cross-contamination is such a huge issue for Celiacs who would like to eat out. Most restuarant facilities do not understand they need to use dedicated fryers etc, something as simple as passing a bun over that fryer is likely going to contaminate it. Going back to my point about washing my hands consistantly because I tend to be a mouth toucher. If you actually were a Celiac you'd understand "being glutened" by your partner who may have just gone out for lunch and had a sandwich for example, coming home and giving you a kiss on the mouth (I call it 'The Kiss of Villi Death') A ton of Celiacs get glutened in cases like that, hence my reference to my dogs eating glutenous material and kissing my face and lips. 



Firem4nJoe said:


> ..and if you are it's an eye opener for me but that doesn't mean your dog food brand doesn't have other grains.


Since grains in dog foods are often used as fillers and binding agents and Orijen doesn't list it at all in their ingredients.. umm yeah pretty sure its not in there, what would be the point? I would have felt it by now. Since Orijen is a grain-free product I'm pretty sure you aren't going to find any grains in their food. For them to market as a grain-free products and then include grains in said product.. I'm pretty sure that would be false advertising not to mention a labelling discrepancy for which they would be liable under the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act and the Competition Act in Canada. 

Straight from their website - "..Free of wheat, rye, corn and gluten ingredients that are often associated with digestive disorders.." I'd say that's grounds for a serious legal debacle, wouldn't you?

BTW...


Firem4nJoe said:


> Luckily I seem to have grown out of my gluten allergy.


 Celiac disease is an autoimmune disorder, not an allergy. You can be asymptomatic and still have it.. just thought you should know.


----------



## ADalla (Oct 1, 2011)

kafkabeetle said:


> Personally, I think most of your ideas are "seriously out there, man."


Amen to that! I seriously wish this forum had a "Like" button!


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Firem4nJoe said:


> My dogs' poop doesn't smell. Well, it doesn't smell anywhere near as bad as it used to since I stopped feeding them factory processed pet food and adopted the raw meaty bones diet. Basically the crap that's in the pet food is what's making the poop (and the dog's breath) smell rotten. A dog fed properly on meat and bone should not have "doggy breath" http://www.rawmeatybones.com for more info. I push that link a lot when questions like this come up, because that's the website of the vet who basically saved my dogs lives by opening my eyes up to the horrors of pet food.
> 
> Hope that helps.


Ok... Its a pet peeve of mine when ppl say that any kibble is bad & basically hint that anyone who feeds their dogs kibble is bad

I feed my dogs high quality kibble & there is NP with kibble that is high quality, my dogs poop doesn't "stink" (well not any more then any other animals poop anyway lol). Doesn't it have something to do with their anal glands?


----------



## Mr. V (Jan 28, 2010)

I don't think I'd hang my hat on the link to the article on Flame retardants. They used "blood from 17 pet dogs" and their food - not what I'd call a huge sample size. Of course this article and likely that "study" neglect to mention what the dogs' environments were. A lot of pet dogs are indoors, but, they're not staying there to do their business so where are they and what are they exposed to when they go outside? My dog is primarily indoors but hell I take him all sorts of crazy places. They also mention that "A 2010 article by Venier, Hites and two Clemson University researchers also reported high levels of PBDEs in nesting bald eagles." Without knowing anything about PBDE or even what that stands for you can quickly figure out that it can be commonly found in the environment... Unless our bald eagles are now targeting dogs on commercial pet food that is contaminated with PBDEs.


----------



## Mr. V (Jan 28, 2010)

ADalla said:


> autoimmune disorder, not an allergy. You can be asymptomatic and still have it.. just thought you should know.


Most allergies are hypersensitivity reactions which can be auto-immune mediated.


----------



## Mr. V (Jan 28, 2010)

Firem4nJoe said:


> but If I am to truly find a dog food, that meets a dog's dietary requirements, and is a) not raw meat and bone, and b) hasn't had all the nutrients destroyed in the process of processing the pet food, I'm going to need a time machine or a space ship.


Well Doc Brown, you better get the DeLorean ready and get her up to 88 mph.


----------



## Firem4nJoe (Oct 10, 2011)

kafkabeetle said:


> I'm pretty curious about what YOUR diet is like.


My diet is nothing wonderful. I've partaken in more fast fast food take-aways than I probably should have and have the gut to show for it. I'm not obese or even plump, but I could be fitter. But I do go out of my way to get organic fresh meats, fruits and vegetables to fill up most of my diet which I think we all agree go towards making up a well balanced diet for an omnivorous human being. Dogs however are not omnivores. Are they?! Yes they eat omnivores and various types of vegetation make up a very small amount of their diet, e.g. grass. But that doesn't change the fact, as much as people like to argue the point, that the majority of a canine's diet of choice is a freshly killed carcass. So why the need for such a large amount of non meat products in pet food? Could it be the vast amounts of grains stock piled up in WW2 got turned into a new fangle dangle thing called dog food and the profits have been rolling in ever since and like all "good" industries they're not about to put their hands up and say "Hey, we were wrong, sorry about that." and then go bust having to pay the billions of dollars in compensation to all the irate pet owners from then to now? 

You've reinvigorated me with that. Back to the discussion.

Earlier I posted a few links which were disputed as qualifying as scientific proof. Fair enough. What they were intended as are mere examples of 

A) Some of the nasty things in pet food.
and 
B) Someone's findings from there own investigation into pet foods.

As for real science, it does not require a laboratory or chemistry set to qualify. Just consider the amount of dogs & cats that come in and out of a vet's office over 20 years. Consider the amount of animals a vet follows from puppy hood to the grave in that time. Consider the amount of notes and files a vet keeps for research, training, etc. Now consider the patterns the vet picks up on over that time. Consider the sheer amount of pets fed on all different brands of pet food. So when the vast majority of these pets come in with problems such as allergies, hot spots, periodontal disease, renal failure, kidney & liver diseases, dull coats, bad breath & sloppy smelly turds and the _up 'til then pet food supporting_ vet asks the question "What are you feeding?" and receives are vast array of brand names, and thinks to himself 'Hang on a minute, I'll double check the books but I'm sure wolves in the zoo don't get anywhere near these problems. What do they get fed?" Answer: Much the same as the lions, tigers, crocodiles and other carnivores - big fresh chunks of unprocessed dead animal.
With this in mind he changes the diet of his own dogs and sees encouraging results to support his idea that perhaps this natural as possible diet is the best thing for them. He then suggests a diet change to his clients, of course some say "no" outright, some consider it and don't change, and others do change over. There's a few mishaps such as choking on inappropriately sides bones, a broken tooth here or there due to bones that were far too hard for the type of dog chewing them, short term diarrhoea or constipation due to the new diet, but on the whole the vast majority of reports are favourable. Ranging from "The dog is so much calmer" to "The dog is like a puppy again" and most of the allergies and organ diseases disappear entirely or at least greatly improve. The vet records all of this over a 10 year period, writes two books on the subject relying on the results and conclusions of his work and research, and then continues his work treating dogs, cats, ferrets etc right up to today, still logging records of both the many successes and the very few failures.

Is that scientific enough or does he need a lab coat and safety goggles?

His conclusions: Dogs are first and foremost carnivores and as such require a diet of fresh raw meat and bone whether in large pieces or whole carcasses. Dogs fed on the appropriate raw meat and bone diet are constantly cleaning their teeth on the bones warding off periodontal disease and the diseases that stem from it. The vast majority of dogs changed over from pet food to RMB greatly improve in health and fitness.

Also from the many reports from clients in regards to dog breath and dog excrement; The smell of a dog's breath greatly improves quite quickly after cutting pet food out of the dog's diet and the droppings greatly reduce in volume, weight, and odour. 

Wow, I've come full circle again.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Well, what I find curious is how posters get drawn into this stuff/debates etc. After reading "the dog is not a dog, the dog is a wolf thread/debate. I'm mind boggled that it's happening again. Of course, I suppose nonsensical debates pass the time of day. Kind of a self fulfilling hobby thing. 

Some kibble good, some raw good, it's another one of those personal dog owner choices.

Oh, also what the owner can afford. I'm in, I'm out, everybody play nice and have fun.


----------



## dagwall (Mar 17, 2011)

Firem4Joe you are getting so much resistance because you are insisting on over generalizing BOTH sides of the issue. Yes some kibble is horrible, this does NOT equal all kibble is horrible. Yes a RMB diet is good for most dogs, that does not mean a high quality kibble diet is bad.

Even before I switched my dog from a low quailty kibble to a high quality kibble he had zero issues with 'allergies, hot spots, periodontal disease, renal failure, kidney & liver diseases, dull coats, bad breath & sloppy smelly turds.' The major difference I've noticed since switching to a high quality kibble is smaller poops, a slightly nicer coat (wasn't poor before but has improved), and generally healther. He was prone to infections which he hasn't had one since the swap. Here's the rub, antecdotal evidence is antecdotal.

The vet you talk about shows the advantages that CAN be had with a RMB diet, it does NOT show that all kibble is horrible and dogs will suffer from eating kibble. It is not the black and white issuse you are trying to make it out to be. Yes raw bones will help dental hygenie, no it is not the only way to clean healthy teeth. 

To be considered a true scientific study you need to be able to control all the variables, have a sufficent sample size, and the study needs to be repeatable. What the vet you mention did is more of a loose case study, many outside factors effected his client's dogs health that are unaccounted for in his 'study.' That doesn't completely nulify his findings but you can't make absolute statements that A caused B in such cases.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Wolves in the zoo (or in the wild) do not escape those kinds of problems. Not at all. Ask a zoo vet. If they live long enough (they don't in the wild), they end up with all the same problems that pet canids have. And raw-fed dogs do eventually feel the ravages of old age, and sometimes get cancer, and they all die eventually.

Aslo, nobody is arguing that cheap kibble isn't a dumping place for all kinds of nasty by-products. It definitely is, just read the ingredient list. But higher-quality kibble has higher-quality ingredients. And the labeling laws in this country are stringent, if a company put something in there without labeling it accurately they'd have Trouble. You're saying that they're lying about their ingredient list. There are testing procedures in place to prevent that.

And saying you rather kill your dogs than feed them species-inappropriate processed food (which, what, might kill them? Great way to prevent that!), while gladly munching on species-inappropriate processed food yourself, is pretty hypocritical. Have you asked your dogs what they think of that?


----------



## Charis (Jul 12, 2009)

Firem4nJoe said:


> You've reinvigorated me with that. Back to the discussion.
> 
> Earlier I posted a few links which were disputed as qualifying as scientific proof. Fair enough. What they were intended as are mere examples of
> 
> ...


I needed a good laugh after a horrible night at work. Your definition of science is a mockery of science. You have hardly made it halfway through the scientific method (and a ton of over issues with the scenario related to science). In your scenario the vet has observed a phenomenon (things changing in the animals) and formed a hypothesis. There is absolutely nothing scientific about looking back through records and assuming it was diet because that is where the "good reports" came from. Science must be reproducible by an another party, it must be controlled (how long did the dogs walk, where did they live, medication, health issues, age, etc must be accounted for). You cannot merely assume it was a factor or it wasn't without completing accurate research.

So no - you don't need a lab coat or a chemistry set - but you do need to do it right for it to count for something. I'm aware it was an example but pick a better (i.e. real research) one. Saying "he" did something is pointless. The paragraph was not even an abstract of whatever "science" you were attempting to cite. It is missing almost all (if not all) integral parts of research and a research article.

The science you posted is written very, very incorrectly to be actual research/science - I'll pick out only two to show -
"I'll double check the books" - would have been written "in verifying previous findings" and the studies researched to verify the previous findings would be listed.
"whole the vast majority of reports are favourable." - would have been a sample size, factors of each group, percentages, percentages of error, what the report considered a favorable finding, etc (it is a very long list) - that one sentence would be a huge part of the research not just 5-6 words.

"Is that scientific enough" - no it isn't.

P.S.
Rather amusing you attempt to prove your point by citing zoo animals are healthy as a rule and not as an exception.


----------



## hast (Aug 17, 2011)

kafkabeetle said:


> <snip> How is it not obvious to raw food groupies and anti-pet food zealots that this sort of talk is HURTING your message and certainly not helping any dogs.


Ditto! Ever so often I contemplate starting to feed my dog raw food, but every time I come across a thread like this I get afraid that most feeding raw are zealots like this and that means that 1; I don't want to be associated with them. 2; I don't trust what they say. SO ... I'll keep feeding Orijen with the same good results I've had so far.


----------



## Mr. V (Jan 28, 2010)

Willowy said:


> Wolves in the zoo (or in the wild) do not escape those kinds of problems. Not at all. Ask a zoo vet. If they live long enough (they don't in the wild), they end up with all the same problems that pet canids have. And raw-fed dogs do eventually feel the ravages of old age, and sometimes get cancer, and they all die eventually.


This. I've had the pleasure of working on quite a few animals from the zoo and plenty of raw fed dogs. These guys end up with the same things that most pets get.


----------



## ADalla (Oct 1, 2011)

Mr. V said:


> Most allergies are hypersensitivity reactions which can be auto-immune mediated.


Hypersensitivity of the immune system is different from the immune system not being able to differentiate between foreign bodies and it's own healthy tissues. Most people with autoimmune disorders will have hypersensitivity, but allergies do not constitute an autoimmune disorder. 

On the subject of gluten sensitivity there are usually two groups formed with patients. Those with GSE and those with wheat allergies, which do not have the same adverse effect on the gastrointestinal organs that GSE does. 

Just thought I'd throw that out there. I'm always a bit upset when someone calls a condition like Celiac "just an allergy".


----------



## ADalla (Oct 1, 2011)

hast said:


> Ditto! Ever so often I contemplate starting to feed my dog raw food, but every time I come across a thread like this I get afraid that most feeding raw are zealots like this and that means that 1; I don't want to be associated with them. 2; I don't trust what they say. SO ... I'll keep feeding Orijen with the same good results I've had so far.


Agreed! Couldn't have said it better.


----------

