# Problems with Dog.Food.Analysis.com



## 2Catahoulas (Aug 11, 2008)

Some errors I discovered with the web site, dogfoodanalysis.com... While an excellent source for foods...

(1) There are no authorities mentioned on this site. No Animal Nutritionists, no one listed with Master's or with a Ph.D. In fact there's no mention of anyone's name at all on this site. The site is run by Boxer World, a forum again with no one listed as an authority. 

(2) DFA concentrates on chicken or turkey and water content as listed in the first four ingredients. What DFA fails to mention is the actual protein value of the ingredient. Water does not affect protein. Chicken contains between 22-26 grams of protein per 100 grams of chicken meat. Therefor, whether chicken is first or fourth, the protein value has not changed. 

Source contacted: Kathryn E. Michel DVM, MS, DACVN
Associate Professor of Nutrition
Chief, Section of Medicine
Dept of Clinical Studies-Philadelphia
University of Pennsylvania 

DFA states: "As we’ve already noted, most dry pet foods are based on grains or other plant material. But the animals we’re feeding them to are carnivores and should be eating a diet that is mainly made up of meat…"

Error: Dogs are in the scientific Order _Carnivora_, dogs are not obligate carnivores. A dog is neither dependent on meat-specific protein nor a very high level of protein in order to fulfill its basic dietary requirements. A dog's digestive tract is longer than that of an actual obligate carnivore. As proof, several dog food companies produce very nutritious vegetarian formulas with protein from vegetable material. 

Some obligate carnivores: _Mustelidae, Felidae, and Pinnipedia._

DFA states: "Grains contain protein too – but it’s far less bioavailable protein for a carnivore that lacks the digestive enzymes needed to digest plants." 

Error: Wild canines not only eat available plants to obtain essential amino acids, but also obtain nutrients from vegetable matter from the stomach and intestinal contents of their herbivorous prey, which they usually consume. Domestic dogs can survive healthily on a reasonable and carefully designed vegetarian diet, particularly if eggs and milk products are included. However, some sources suggest that a dog fed on a strict vegetarian diet without L-carnitine may develop dilated cardiomyopathy. -- _Small animal internal medicine, R.W. Nelson, Couto page 107. _

DFA: "Meat, meat and more meat products. Cats and dogs are carnivores, and a species appropriate diet for these animals must be based on meat. They have no evolved need of carbohydrates in their diet. Grains are in pet food because they’re cheaper than meat products, and are needed to hold the kibble bits together. Not because they’re species-appropriate nutrition for a carnivorous mammal."

Error: Dogs are omnivores not true carnivores. They are classified as carnivores only by dentition (dental pattern). Like bears (other than polar bears), canines in the wild will supplement their diets with vegetation. Also, dogs are natural scavengers and will eat a variety of fruit and vegetables freely and without prompting. This is not true of carnivores.

In short, Dog Food Analysis displays foods exceptionally well however they are capable of making errors.


----------



## Dakota Spirit (Jul 31, 2007)

Yeah, I only ever bill DFA as a good jumping off point. It can and does give you some idea as to what the better foods are - but is NOT a replacement for your own research. Owners still need to make a conscious effort at looking up these things for themselves so that they can learn the terms, general facts, 'warning' ingredients, etc. etc. In essence, you need to make an effort at getting to the point where YOU can read a label and make an intelligent choice. 

Nothing statement read on the internet should be believed blindly at 100%. You need to be responsible for looking to make sure such facts can be verified.

However, speaking on your second point only (protein content) I think you may be misunderstanding. Typically the ingredients listed first are those with the most content in said food (of course, that does not take into consideration ingredients that are more or less the same but listed under different names - ie. Rice products.) so often you want to look for meat sources among the first ingredients because it would suggest that the food may have a higher meat content. Obviously the protein content within the meat doesn't changed - but the amount of meat _itself_ does.

As for the rest of what's been posted...well much of that is shrouded in controversy. There are contradicting sites and 'experts' all over the place. Again, this is where doing your own research comes into play.


----------



## CinnamintStick (Jul 25, 2008)

2Catahoulas said:


> (1) There are no authorities mentioned on this site. No Animal Nutritionists, no one listed with Master's or with a Ph.D.



Thats why I like http://www.petdiets.com
Dr. Rebecca L. Remillard 
Dr. Remillard has been awarded B.S., M.S. and Ph.D. in Animal Nutrition from three different US Universities. 

A few of her answers from the FAQ page

*There seems to be a big push to have dogs fed raw meat; however, the FDA puts warning labels on the meat I buy for myself about how to cook it thoroughly. Should my dog be fed raw meat? *Answer 
*No,* this is not a safe practice. Dogs fed raw meat or eggs may develop mild to severe gastrointestinal disease from consuming products contaminated with Salmonella, Campylobacter, Escherichia, Neorickettsia, Vibrio or Yersinia. The FDA strongly encourages people to cook meat well because these microorganisms are present in our meat and egg supply.
The misconception that dogs are somehow “immune” to the clinical effects of these organisms has been sadly demonstrated to be false throughout the veterinary clinics and hospitals in this country. Young animals infected with these organisms have died. Most adult animals survive the episodes of vomiting and diarrhea with IV fluid and antibiotic therapies, although some, too, have died. 





* If dogs are carnivores, shouldn’t their diet be mostly meat as it was in the wild? *
The term carnivore may be used as either a taxonomic classification or a type of feeding behavior. Taxonomically, dogs are members of the order Carnivora, which is quite a diverse group. It includes 12 families of more than 260 species, and in fact contains some plant eating mammals such as the panda. There are three feeding behavior types (omnivorous, herbivorous and carnivorous) all of which can be found among members of the order Carnivora.
Dogs are in the order Carnivora, but their feeding behaviors are best described as omnivorous. Their anatomy and physiology also support an omnivore diet. The nearest living ancestors of our domestic dog are wolves, and the closest living relatives are coyotes. Both wolves and coyotes are opportunistic predators and scavengers. They eat carrion (dead animals), small mammals, birds, amphibians, and the feces of herbivores (horses) that does contain plant material (starch, fiber). Canine predators consume the intestinal tract of large herbivores, which contains plant material. Both coyotes and wolves have been observed eating plants; fruits, berries, persimmons, mushrooms, and melons in the “wild”. Similarly, our dogs have anatomical and physiological characteristics that permit the digestion and utilization of a widely varied diet from both plant and animal sources. 

The nutrient composition of an organ or skeletal meat, even including the bone, does not meet the known nutrient requirements of the dog; in fact, it is quite deficient in some nutrients and excessive in others. Yes, dogs like to eat meat and chew on bones. However, that does not necessarily mean that the nutrient composition of such a diet is complete and balanced for the dog. Most of us like some foods more than others, but a diet comprised of only the foods we like is not a complete and balanced diet for us, either!

Dog foods today use both plant and animal ingredient sources. Most products are nearly 90% digestible with the exception of those designed to have a lower digestibility for weight reduction. 

A few excerpts from the FDA Bad Bug Book: 

Salmonella; has long been isolated from the outside of eggshells. The present situation with Salmonella is complicated by the presence of the organism inside the egg, in the yolk. Foods other than eggs have also caused outbreaks of the disease. It is estimated that from 2 to 4 million cases of salmonellosis occur in people in the U.S. annually, and that the incidence of salmonellosis appears to be rising both in the U.S. and in other industrialized nations. 

Campylobacter; frequently contaminates raw chicken. Surveys show that 20 to 100% of retail chickens are contaminated. This is not overly surprising since many healthy chickens carry these bacteria in their intestinal tracts. Raw milk is also a source of infections. The bacteria are often carried by healthy cattle and by flies on farms. However, properly cooking chicken, pasteurizing milk, and chlorinating drinking water will kill the bacteria. Campylobacter is the leading cause of bacterial diarrhea in the U.S. 

Escherichia; is commonly found in raw beef and chicken, although any food exposed to fecal contamination is strongly suspected.
___________________________________________________

Additionally, there is no nutritional advantage to feeding meat or egg ingredients raw, only the risk of contracting a mild to severe and potentially deadly gastrointestinal disease. The best recommendation is to cook all surfaces of the meat and not to feed raw ground meat. The pathogens are usually on the surface of the meat, but will be mixed throughout the meat in the grinding process. Feeding rare is safer than feeding raw. Many of the eggs in the USA are infected with Salmonella, and therefore eggs should never be fed raw to dogs or cats.

See Food and Drug Administration Talk Paper T02-56
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ANSWERS/2002/ANS01183.html


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

Hehe, I have seen a lot of things written about feeding dogs raw diets over my 7 years of research but I have never until I read this one found one that every single sentence in the whole post was incorrect. 



> *There seems to be a big push to have dogs fed raw meat; however, the FDA puts warning labels on the meat I buy for myself about how to cook it thoroughly. Should my dog be fed raw meat? *Answer
> *No,* this is not a safe practice.


Yeah, it's not like they have been eating raw meat, bones and organs for millions of years. It's amazing that there are any canines left in the world. They should have been extinct 100,000 years ago. LOL Of course dogs can safely eat raw meat, bones, and organs. Millions do it every day.



> Dogs fed raw meat or eggs may develop mild to severe gastrointestinal disease from consuming products contaminated with Salmonella, Campylobacter, Escherichia, Neorickettsia, Vibrio or Yersinia. The FDA strongly encourages people to cook meat well because these microorganisms are present in our meat and egg supply.


Yep, dogs can eat this stuff with no problem. You should have smelled some of the stuff I have fed my dogs. I had to open the window in the kitchen and use a whole can of room deoderizer several times. Never caused a problem except humans had to eat out that night. LOL



> The misconception that dogs are somehow “immune” to the clinical effects of these organisms has been sadly demonstrated to be false throughout the veterinary clinics and hospitals in this country. Young animals infected with these organisms have died. Most adult animals survive the episodes of vomiting and diarrhea with IV fluid and antibiotic therapies, although some, too, have died.


Ahhhh, baloney ... Dog's stomach juices are over 50% hydrochloric acid. Anything that enters the body through the mouth is pretty much killed pretty quickly by the strongly acidic digestive juices. What little makes it through is pushed out of the short intestinal tract before they can do any harm. It's just a biological fact.



> * If dogs are carnivores, shouldn’t their diet be mostly meat as it was in the wild? *
> 
> Dogs are in the order Carnivora, but their feeding behaviors are best described as omnivorous. Their anatomy and physiology also support an omnivore diet. The nearest living ancestors of our domestic dog are wolves, and the closest living relatives are coyotes. Both wolves and coyotes are opportunistic predators and scavengers. They eat carrion (dead animals), small mammals, birds, amphibians, and the feces of herbivores (horses) that does contain plant material (starch, fiber).


Error after error after error ... There is NOTHING in the anatomy and physiology of a dog that supports an omnivore diet.

There are physical charateristics that make an animal a carnivore or omnivore.

1. Carnivores have large mouths as they eat other animals. Omnivores/herbivores have smaller mouths.

2. Omnivores have flat teeth in the back of their mouths. This is used to crush and mash plant material. All plant material has each cell coated with cellulose. You much mash and crush this shell to extract nutrients from the plant. Humans have these flat teeth. Carnivores don't have flat teeth. They can't get through the cellulose to get to the nutrients. Carnivore teeth are designed to kill prey(front teeth) and to rip and tear meat and crush bones(back teeth).

3. When omnivores/herbivores chew, they move their lower jaw not only up and down but also sideways in order to crush the cellulose. Carnivores don't have the ability to move their lower jaw from side to side. Only up and down.

4. Omnivores/herbivores hae an enzyme called amylaze in their salava and stomach juices. Amylaze is used to digest plant material and digestion begins in the mouth for these animals. Carnivores don't have amylaze in their salava or stomach. They don't make the enzymes necessary for digesting plant material.

5. I don't know how to explain it with words but there is a difference in the way the lower jaw is hinged in omnivores/herbivores and carnivores.

6. Carnivores have very acidic stomach juices to kill bacteria on meats and to digest bones. Omnivores/herbivores have much less acidic stomach juices.

7. Omnivores/herbivores have relatively long intestinal tracts. Carbs must ferment in the gut for a long time during digestion. Carnivores being meat eaters have a very short intestinal tract in order to get the meat through the body quickly before it rots. With thier short intestinal tract they are not able to have carbs in the intestines long enough to digest.

So there you have your biology lesson in a nutshell. There is no arguing the fact that dogs are carnivores. They have all the physical characteristics of a carnivore and none of the omnivores characteristics.



> Canine predators consume the intestinal tract of large herbivores, which contains plant material.


Again, not true. Wolves/dogs do not eat intestional tracts of prey animals. My dogs have eaten whole animals many times and always leave a neat little pile of intestines laying on the ground along with stomach contents. Everything else is eaten including fur. Studies of wild wolves by David Mech verify this in the wild.



> Both coyotes and wolves have been observed eating plants; fruits, berries, persimmons, mushrooms, and melons in the “wild”. Similarly, our dogs have anatomical and physiological characteristics that permit the digestion and utilization of a widely varied diet from both plant and animal sources.


Dogs are not coyotes, they are wolves. A dog/wolf may occasionally eat berries and fruits in season. It could be equated to humans eating cake and ice cream. We eat it because of the sugar and taste. They get no nutritional value from them for the reasons stated in the carnivore statements above.



> The nutrient composition of an organ or skeletal meat, even including the bone, does not meet the known nutrient requirements of the dog; in fact, it is quite deficient in some nutrients and excessive in others.


I have seen statements like that many times but when I ask exactly what nutrients are missing, I never get an answer. THere are no nutrients in plants that are not contained in the meat, bones, and organs of the prey animals that eat them. Nature designed it that way.



> Yes, dogs like to eat meat and chew on bones. However, that does not necessarily mean that the nutrient composition of such a diet is complete and balanced for the dog.


Yes it does. Millions of years of evolution have proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt. Wolves/dogs wouldn't exist today if that weren't true.

Most of us like some foods more than others, but a diet comprised of only the foods we like is not a complete and balanced diet for us, either!

I have never seen "balance" defined for either humans or dogs. It's talked about a lot by nutritionists but never defined. I think it is a word they use to justify their existance. If there were no such thing as balance, there would be no need for nutritionists. I think balance is a myth.



> Dog foods today use both plant and animal ingredient sources. Most products are nearly 90% digestible with the exception of those designed to have a lower digestibility for weight reduction.


Another HUGE error. No way of the face of the earth that dog food is 89% digestable. Feed your dog nothing but raw meat, bones and organs for a week and you will see what 90% digestable looks like. Dog foods are mostly plant matter for one reason and one reason only. COST. Who seriously believes that dog food could be even half meat and still cost less than $1/lb?



> A few excerpts from the FDA Bad Bug Book:
> 
> Salmonella; has long been isolated from the outside of eggshells. The present situation with Salmonella is complicated by the presence of the organism inside the egg, in the yolk. Foods other than eggs have also caused outbreaks of the disease.


All that is true for humans. It doesn't even claim to apply to dogs.



> Campylobacter; frequently contaminates raw chicken. Surveys show that 20 to 100% of retail chickens are contaminated. This is not overly surprising since many healthy chickens carry these bacteria in their intestinal tracts.


My dogs have eaten chicken AT LEAST one time a day for 6 years. If dogs couldn't handle those little bacteria, it would appear that they would have at least an occasional case of diarrhea. I can't remember a case of diarrhea in my dogs in at least 5 years.



> Campylobacter is the leading cause of bacterial diarrhea in the U.S.


In humans, not in dogs.



> Escherichia; is commonly found in raw beef and chicken, although any food exposed to fecal contamination is strongly suspected.


Again, something for humans to worry about , not dogs




> Additionally, there is no nutritional advantage to feeding meat or egg ingredients raw, only the risk of contracting a mild to severe and potentially deadly gastrointestinal disease.


Enzymes are destroyed by cooking. No deadly gastro disease will be caused by bacteria in food for dogs.



> Many of the eggs in the USA are infected with Salmonella, and therefore eggs should never be fed raw to dogs or cats.


My dogs get one or two raw eggs a week and have for 6 years. No problems.

I have given a lot of experiences in this post about my dogs. My dogs aren't special. They are typical of dogs world wide. Everything I said about my dogs would apply to every raw fed dog I know and I know hundreds.


----------



## CinnamintStick (Jul 25, 2008)

I don't know what kind of dog you have but my dog is domestcated. It has been eating people food since the Mesolithic period. That includes everything that is hunted and grown. It was also cooked.

Feeding Kibble since 1946


----------



## BoxMeIn21 (Apr 10, 2007)

Kibble has only been around for about 70 years or so...feeding raw food or people food has been around for MUCH longer.


----------



## harrise (Jan 9, 2008)

Heh, mesolithic food safety standards...


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

CinnamintStick said:


> I don't know what kind of dog you have but my dog is domestcated.


Hehe, my dogs and YOUR dog is a wolf. 0.02% difference in DNA. Thats closer than some races of humans. You can verify that by googling Robert Wayne and read his DNA studies of wild wolves.

Our "domesticated" dogs have the same mouth, teeth, jaws, throat, stomach, intestines and anus as a wild wolf. They also have the same nutritional needs.



> It has been eating people food since the Mesolithic period.


Neither of us know what it ate back then. I think it is just as likely, if not more likely, that they ate the carcass of the human kills after the humans removed what they could use.



> That includes everything that is hunted and grown.


Neither of us knows for sure that they ate what was grown. Since plant material's bioavailability is so small, I doubt serioiusly doubt they bothered eating any.



> It was also cooked.


We don't know that either, as cooked food was very valuable. I doubt the humans would give up such a valuable resource to the animals.

We don't even know what was fed to dogs 200 years ago, let alone way back in cave man days. I can promise you one thing. They have only been eating kibble for less than 50 years. They have been eating raw meat, bones, and organs for millions of years.

You can't create an omnivore by feeding a carnivore plant material. He is still a carnivore because of the reasons listed in my previous post. For optimum health, he should not be fed plants. There is no dietary need for them.


----------



## BoxMeIn21 (Apr 10, 2007)

harrise said:


> Heh, mesolithic food safety standards...


ROFL!!! Of course...


----------



## UrbanBeagles (Aug 13, 2007)

BoxMeIn21 said:


> Kibble has only been around for about 70 years or so...feeding raw food or people food has been around for MUCH longer.



That's not true ... 

Kibble as we know it became widely available in the mid/late 1950's due to the new cooking process - extrusion. Before that, there were dog meals and dry dog food products, however they were mainly marketed to kennels and working dog owners. Many companies including Fromm, Purina, JOY, the now out of business Gaines - they've all been around for at least 50-70yrs. Those are the newer ones.

Spratts popularized dry dog food cakes in the late 1880s, yet contrary to popular belief, he was not the original producer of what would become commercial dog food. Dry food was being sold AT LEAST 20 yrs before that in the US. Specialized diets for weaning, hunting dogs, etc. So it's safe to say that dry commercial dog food made from the human scrap industry has been around conservatively for 125+ yrs. That's beside the point though.

Domesticated dogs were always fed little, if any raw meat. We've been feeding dogs our cooked meat, grain, veggie leftovers for something like 10,000 years. Any species that could not adapt in that amount of time would surely have died off on such "biologically inappropriate" feed. But dogs adapted. Their bodies eventually derived nutrition from grain and cooked foods. Feral dogs more often scavange than hunt. One can manipulate genes in only a few generations, so I do not believe that necessity did not dictate that dogs who survived could utilize and eventually needed grains and cooked foods. My family has been involved in breeding dogs since the early 1930's and had never heard of feeding dogs raw meat. In fact I can't find reference to feeding dogs any raw meats whatsoever in vintage dog books going back 140 yrs. I can't find anyone who had dogs befoe kibble became popularized that ever remembers feeding raw anything. I do know many old timers who vividly recall cooking for their dogs or sharing leftover scraps. Their dogs ate what they ate, and lived long healthy lives.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

UrbanBeagles said:


> Domesticated dogs were always fed little, if any raw meat. We've been feeding dogs our cooked meat, grain, veggie leftovers for something like 10,000 years.


Where do you get that information?



> Any species that could not adapt in that amount of time would surely have died off on such "biologically inappropriate" feed. But dogs adapted. Their bodies eventually derived nutrition from grain and cooked foods.


So you are saying that dogs have developed flat molars in their mouths? They have learned how to move their lower jaw from side to side to chew grain and veggies? Their intestines have become longer? Where do you get that information? Feeding a carnivore plant material does not make it an omnivore.



> Feral dogs more often scavange than hunt.


You must be in the city. Country dogs kill and eat A LOT of wild animals.



> One can manipulate genes in only a few generations, so I do not believe that necessity did not dictate that dogs who survived could utilize and eventually needed grains and cooked foods.


Again, no flat teeth, no lower jaw horizontal movement, large mouths, no amylaze in the mouth, very acidic stomach juices, short intestens all point towards a carnivore. Carnivores eat meat. If an animal eats plants AND meat, it is an omnivore. Dogs are not omnivores.



> My family has been involved in breeding dogs since the early 1930's and had never heard of feeding dogs raw meat.


Canines have been eating raw meat since the beginning of time. Their bodies are designed for it and have not changed in the last few years.



> I do know many old timers who vividly recall cooking for their dogs or sharing leftover scraps. Their dogs ate what they ate, and lived long healthy lives.


I know, they didn't eat kibble. Dogs who eat only a non-commercial diet whether that diet be cooked, BARF, or prey model raw or any combination of those live an average of 30 months longer than dogs fed only a commercial diet whether it be kibble, canned or a combination of those.

Long Life Study Summary
http://www.ukrmb.co.uk/images/LippertSapySummary.pdf

Actual Study
http://www.ukrmb.co.uk/images/LippertSapyFullReport.pdf


----------



## AkiraleShiba (Dec 9, 2007)

On a side note, did you know that if you go to the library it's impossible to find a book on dogs nutrition that has not been sponsored by a kibble company? or almost impossible for scientific articles not sposored. Even on JSTOR it's hard to find articles on dog nutrition. So we mostly rely on information partial to either side.

However I think that if you use some basic reasonning based on biological factors I am persuaded that dogs should eat mostly meat supplemented occasionally or slightly by veggies, fruits and herbs -not grains-


----------



## Wimble Woof (Jan 16, 2007)

and the debate continues...

Some say its safe, others say it isn't... use your own reasoning and research and go from there.
My vet ( and all the vets at the clinic that I use for the dogs) fully support raw feeding, the place is owned by a holistic vet and all the others have gone to seminars and done extra studies on nutrition.
Funny thing, I dont think i have ever seen anyone walk out of there with a bag of science diet ( although they do have it for sale there) I have seen them hand out a tonne of raw information though.

It depends on who you talk to, where you go, and what you are willing to learn. IMHO raw is 100% safe, no more dangerous than kibble, and dogs are perfectly capable of digesting it properly.


----------



## dusty&lulusmom (Jul 30, 2007)

Great info in this post. Lots of knowledgeable people with lots of opinions and info. I continue to learn and modify my dogs diets. Right now my dogs are on homecooked and 1/2 EVO kibble. This works for me and my dogs have never been healthier. Before becoming educated they ate 100% kibble from the grocery store...yikes...that will never happen again. The more I learn the more I modify...I have now removed all grains...this change has helped my older dog..she is no longer scratching excessively. I tend to think the Raw Diet is probably the most natural for dogs...at least from my own research... but I am not completely sold on the idea to commit to it.


----------



## fyzbo (Jun 19, 2008)

RawFedDogs said:


> Hehe, I have seen a lot of things written about feeding dogs raw diets over my 7 years of research but I have never until I read this one found one that every single sentence in the whole post was incorrect.





2Catahoulas said:


> (1) There are no authorities mentioned on this site. No Animal Nutritionists, no one listed with Master's or with a Ph.D. In fact there's no mention of anyone's name at all on this site. The site is run by Boxer World, a forum again with no one listed as an authority.





Dakota Spirit said:


> Nothing statement read on the internet should be believed blindly at 100%. You need to be responsible for looking to make sure such facts can be verified.





UrbanBeagles said:


> http://www.showdogsupersite.com/kenlclub/breedvet/dogdiets.html


http://www.secondchanceranch.org/rawtestimony.htm


----------



## CinnamintStick (Jul 25, 2008)

From Royal Canin http://www.caninehealthnutrition.com/DogNutrition/history-of-dog-food.html


The History of Dog Food
Ever since they have been domesticated, dogs have gradually turned away from the strictly carnivorous diet of their wild ancestors and adopted the diet provided by humans. Dogs'environments and their diets, have differed through the years according to the day and age and to the uses to which the dogs were put.

Until the 19th century, hunting dogs were often fed essentially on bread made with various grains (barley, wheat or rye); meat (offal) was fed only rarely, when the quarry was given to the hounds or on a temporary basis to strengthen "weak" dogs.

Sheepdogs in poor areas (such as Anatolian Sheepdogs) were also happy with grain-based foods and dairy products. Their work performance was not much affected by this diet, but they had a short life expectancy.

Meat was long considered to be an "optional" part of the canine diet, with some exceptions (coursing dogs hunting large game and war dogs were readily given meat, which was said to give them strength; sled dogs were traditionally fed seal meat, walrus meat or pemmican). However, we can guess that the fairly independent lifestyle of dogs in rural environments allowed them to supplement their daily ration of moistened bread with various other sorts of prey.

As the human standard of living rose, meat was more frequently included in dogs' diets, replacing bread and grains (much as people switched from "earning their bread" to "bringing home the bacon").

By the 19th century, meat had become the symbol of high living and was thought to be a nutritional cure-all for dogs, which people had re-defined as strict carnivores. This oversimplification unfortunately led people to forget the dog's ancestral habits, which were perfectly adapted to foods other than meat.

This change in attitudes occurred in the context of a large shift in the dog's status at this time. Departing from their exclusively functional role (hunting, guarding, defence), dogs assumed a more social, even sociological, role as they became incorporated into the family, which no longer considered them as utilitarian objects but as living beings worthy of love and respect.

Commercial food appeared at the beginning of the 19th century, relying on the affection given to dogs to construct a very specific market. The industry adapted and diversified in the wake of increasing urbanization, changing lifestyles, higher owner expectations and the different directions taken by the dog food companies depending on whether they considered the dog as a member of the family and played to the owners'emotional side—an easy thing to do. Such segmentation may seem rather rigid, but nevertheless reflects two diametrically opposed attitudes of dog owners, for whom the fact of feeding a dog can represent a daily ritual loaded with affection or, more rationally, can be considered as looking out for its biological best interests.

Since that time, the essential problem faced by commercial manufacturers (particularly kibble manufacturers) has been to conquer (through scientific debate, no less) the psychological resistance demonstrated by many owners who do not want to "take the easy way out" by feeding their dog commercially-prepared food. Homemade food, which takes more time to prepare, is for many owners (especially the elderly) a concrete expression of the love they have for their pet. Shortening the "meal ceremony" gives rise to a sense of guilt, which can lead to refusal to feed a reasonable diet. This reaction is very clear in France, with its great culinary tradition, while in countries with Germanic roots (Great Britain, the United States, Holland and Scandinavia), an opposite reaction can be observed


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Even if the domestic dog consumed raw meat diets in their evolutionary past, and even if people consider that consumption 'natural', '_preferable_' and 'natural' are not synonyms. A diet that a dog has evolved to consume may offer clues to their nutritional requirements, but it does not tell us what the _optimal _diet is. Dogs have nutrient requirements, not ingredient requirements. The nutrient requirements of the species in question are of primary importance; not necessarily the food items that they had access to in their evolutionary past. Granted that nutrients may be more or less bioavailable in different ingredients, but with regard to whether a dog should be eating raw meat versus a formulated balanced and complete diet of adequate digestibility, the point being made is that carcasses are not preferable just because they are natural. If food is balanced and complete, bioavailable and palatable then it does not matter what ingredients made it.

The premise that 'natural is preferable' is problematic on its own since there is very little unbiased, anecdote free, supporting evidence for it. It is usually assumed as a hidden premise without supporting evidence. This should be unavoidably true. Even if we could accept this 'natural is preferable' argument, which we should not without further support, it may or may not be relevant to any diets other than truly natural diets (freshly killed carcasses of birds and rodents, including garbage). What most people feeding a raw meat diet feed their dog may not resemble a truly natural diet (as admitted by many who feed raw when they include words like 'likely' as prefaces to a point, otherwise assumed to be true), and the fact that dogs have managed to stay alive and to reproduce on garbage and rodents does not mean that diet is preferable. The logic is faulty because it rests on the fallacy that natural is necessarily preferable.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

CinnamintStick said:


> From Royal Canin http://www.caninehealthnutrition.com/DogNutrition/history-of-dog-food.html
> 
> 
> The History of Dog Food
> Ever since they have been domesticated, dogs have gradually turned away from the strictly carnivorous diet of their wild ancestors and adopted the diet provided by humans. Dogs'environments and their diets, have differed through the years according to the day and age and to the uses to which the dogs were put.


Dog food companies have spent millions upon millions upon millions of dollars to convince people that dogs are omnivores, therefore need to eat a diet of mostly grains with very little meat in order to get people to buy their garbage dog food. Their marketing departments have done a magnificient job of doing this. This article is one example of what they will write to convince us to buy thier products.

You can not feed a carnivore grains and veggies and change him into an omnivore. Dogs did not choose to eat grains and veggies, they were forced to eat them to survive. Their bodies are STILL not equipped to properly digest these foods. We STILL try to force this food down them. They are still the same carnivores they were a million years ago.


----------



## Westhighlander (Sep 28, 2007)

The average lifespan of a wolf in the wild is 7 years. That's the only control group available.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> Even if the domestic dog consumed raw meat diets in their evolutionary past, and even if people consider that consumption 'natural', '_preferable_' and 'natural' are not synonyms.


All animals are equipped by nature to eat their optimal diet. If they are not, they become extinct. "optimal" and "natural" are synonyms.



> A diet that a dog has evolved to consume may offer clues to their nutritional requirements, but it does not tell us what the _optimal _diet is.


A dog's physical make up and physiology tells us what his optimal diet is. When his body is incapable of digesting certain items(grains and veggies in this case), it tells us that this particuar animal should eat meat, bones, and organs and has no need for plant material of any kind.



> Dogs have nutrient requirements, not ingredient requirements. The nutrient requirements of the species in question are of primary importance; not necessarily the food items that they had access to in their evolutionary past.


OK, lets assume that statement is correct. What needed or even desirable nutrients are missing from a diet of meat, bones, and organs? What makes it necessary to force plant material into a carnivore?



> Granted that nutrients may be more or less bioavailable in different ingredients, but with regard to whether a dog should be eating raw meat versus a formulated balanced and complete diet of adequate digestibility, the point being made is that carcasses are not preferable just because they are natural. If food is balanced and complete, bioavailable and palatable then it does not matter what ingredients made it.


Define "complete and balanced" How do you measure bioavailability of a highly processed cereal vs. meat, bones, and organs. If we accept your premise, then humans should eat a diet of Total Cereal and nothing else.



> The premise that 'natural is preferable' is problematic on its own since there is very little unbiased, anecdote free, supporting evidence for it.


Show some unbiased, anecdote free, supporting evidence that highly processed cereal is preferable to raw meat, bones, and organs. Are you saying that processed food is more nutritious than whole foods?



> Even if we could accept this 'natural is preferable' argument, which we should not without further support, it may or may not be relevant to any diets other than truly natural diets (freshly killed carcasses of birds and rodents, including garbage).


That would be the ideal diet if you throw in large ungalets. The ideal diet would be mostly ungalets. Since we can't feed that, we try our best to simulate it. Our best is NOT feeding a highly processed grain based cereal.



> What most people feeding a raw meat diet feed their dog may not resemble a truly natural diet (as admitted by many who feed raw when they include words like 'likely' as prefaces to a point, otherwise assumed to be true), and the fact that dogs have managed to stay alive and to reproduce on garbage and rodents does not mean that diet is preferable. The logic is faulty because it rests on the fallacy that natural is necessarily preferable.


Obviously you have some unbiased evidence that natural is not preferable?


----------



## fyzbo (Jun 19, 2008)

RawFedDogs said:


> Dog food companies have spent millions upon millions upon millions of dollars to convince people that dogs are omnivores, therefore need to eat a diet of mostly grains with very little meat in order to get people to buy their garbage dog food. Their marketing departments have done a magnificient job of doing this. This article is one example of what they will write to convince us to buy thier products.
> 
> You can not feed a carnivore grains and veggies and change him into an omnivore. Dogs did not choose to eat grains and veggies, they were forced to eat them to survive. Their bodies are STILL not equipped to properly digest these foods. We STILL try to force this food down them. They are still the same carnivores they were a million years ago.


These threads are starting to all look the same.

Someone asks for information/posts new information/resources.
Link to article written by vet
Rebuttal from RawFedDogs

Link to article written by PHD
Rebuttal from RawFedDogs

Link to study
Rebuttal from RawFedDogs

Link to history based on research/books/etc.
Rebuttal from RawFedDogs

Don't you ever get tired of posting your opinions/propaganda? If you really want to make a point show some facts with sources to back them up, post links supporting your opinion from credited professionals, post studies enforcing your views. I get that you've done this for a long time and that you have a lot of anecdotal evidence, but you are going against vets, phds, field trials, scientific studies, etc. You need more then anecdotal evidence and a overwhelming passion for what you believe.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

Westhighlander said:


> The average lifespan of a wolf in the wild is 7 years. That's the only control group available.


Wild wolves eat food that can and sometimes do kill them by kicking them in the mouth or other vital parts of the body.

Wild wolves have no access to vet care.

Wild wolves will die when they get even simple injuries like a broken leg or jaw.

More wild wolves die from guns than from anything else.

Wild wolves do not get vaccinated against common diseases.

These are hardly a control group for domestic dogs who have all the advantages and protection of modern living.


----------



## Westhighlander (Sep 28, 2007)

RawFedDogs said:


> Wild wolves eat food that can and sometimes do kill them by kicking them in the mouth or other vital parts of the body.
> 
> Wild wolves have no access to vet care.
> 
> ...



It is mere speculation all the different reasons you have offered why they live shorter lives. You have still no control group so there is no proof, which means raw feeding may or may not be better.


----------



## fyzbo (Jun 19, 2008)

There are problems with the assumption natural is optimal.

How to define natural? Obvsiously the first time something accors it's going to be unnatural, but how many times does it take before it becomes natural?


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

fyzbo said:


> These threads are starting to all look the same.
> 
> Someone asks for information/posts new information/resources.
> Link to article written by vet
> Rebuttal from RawFedDogs


The article was written by a vet who has never fed a raw diet to a dog. Anyone who has fed raw for 6 months can see the misstatements in that article. It doesn't take a genious, it takes someone who is expereinced.



> Link to article written by PHD
> Rebuttal from RawFedDogs


Same as above. Misinformation is corrected.



> Link to study
> Rebuttal from RawFedDogs


THere is no study that shows that a highly processed cereal is more nutritious than whole food, in this case meat, bones, and organs.



> Link to history based on research/books/etc.
> Rebuttal from RawFedDogs


Again, maybe based on books, but not based on researche. See? You, yourself, have been convinced that the dog food companies have researched their product and proved it to be nutritious. Far from the truth.



> Don't you ever get tired of posting your opinions/propaganda?


Yes I do. I wish people would wake up and see what the the marketing departments of the dog food company is telling you. I wish people would do a little research on their own. Learn what the ingredients in dog food really are, where it comes from and how it is processed. Then I could just sit back and enjoy the discussions without having to correct so many erroneous stateaments.



> If you really want to make a point show some facts with sources to back them up, post links supporting your opinion from credited professionals, post studies enforcing your views.


I wish some of those studies would be done but they never will be. If you have any questions on my views, I will be glad to discuss them with you and explain how I arrived at my conclusions in a logical and systematic way.



> I get that you've done this for a long time and that you have a lot of anecdotal evidence, but you are going against vets, phds, field trials, scientific studies, etc.


Against vets, yes ... against phds, yes ... field trials, no ... scientific studies, no. If people would realize that there are no field trials and no scientific studies, it would make my job a lot easier. People have to learn to look at the evidence and use logic and reason to come to a conclusion.



> You need more then anecdotal evidence and a overwhelming passion for what you believe.


So do you. Where is yours?



Westhighlander said:


> It is mere speculation all the different reasons you have offered why they live shorter lives. You have still no control group so there is no proof, which means raw feeding may or may not be better.


If you look at other factors, its very easy to come to the conclusion that raw is better. I have already posted a few times the 7 reasons that a dog is a carnivore. You don't feed a carnivore plant material anymore than you would feed a dead rabbit to a cow. I think it is pretty well accepted that whole foods are more nutritious than processed foods. If you look at the ingredients that are in kibble and understand that those ingredients are not the pretty meats and veggies on the package. In fact they are the refuse from human food processing plants that would otherwise go into the garbage dump if not bought by the dog food companies. If you look at history and realize that canines have eaten meat, bones, and organs and thrived for millions of years but have only eaten kibble for abotu 50 years and there is absolutely no evidence that kibble is anywhere close to as nutritious as whole raw foods, the the only conclusion you can come to is that a diet of raw meat, bones, and organs is far superior to highly processed grain based cereal made from garbage. How can you come to any other conclusion?


----------



## 2Catahoulas (Aug 11, 2008)

Dakota Spirit said:


> However, speaking on your second point only (protein content) I think you may be misunderstanding. Typically the ingredients listed first are those with the most content in said food (of course, that does not take into consideration ingredients that are more or less the same but listed under different names - ie. Rice products.) so often you want to look for meat sources among the first ingredients because it would suggest that the food may have a higher meat content. Obviously the protein content within the meat doesn't changed - but the amount of meat _itself_ does.


Dakota Spirit, Let's get rid of the catch-word "protein" which everybody tends to use and examine the exact value of protein or the make-up of protein which are amino acids. 

There's no doubt that meat or fish is high in protein. *Chicken* has every available amino acid (especially high in Glutamic acid and Aspartic acid). It only lacks Hydroxyproline. Surprisingly* brown rice*, which is used in many high end foods, also has every amino acid except Hydroxyproline. The two amino acids that brown rice has the most of are the same as chicken (Glutamic acid and Aspartic acid). 

*A Shocker*: Flaxseed is also present in high end dog foods so let's examine the amino acids. Flaxseed has every single amino acid available and is higher in overall protein than chicken per 100 grams. Flaxseed is higher in the amino acids of Leucine, Methionine, Cystine, Phenylalanine, Valine, Arginine, Histidine, Alanine, Glycine, Serine. Flaxseed is twice as high in Aspartic acid and Glutamic acid. Flaxseed nearly mirrors chicken in Tyrosine and Proline. Chicken only wins in the amount of Tryptophan.

So for everybody, let's not be so afraid of grains. Dogs aren't getting shorted on protein or good protein in dry foods.


----------



## Westhighlander (Sep 28, 2007)

RawFedDogs said:


> If you look at other factors, its very easy to come to the conclusion that raw is better. I have already posted a few times the 7 reasons that a dog is a carnivore. You don't feed a carnivore plant material anymore than you would feed a dead rabbit to a cow. I think it is pretty well accepted that whole foods are more nutritious than processed foods. If you look at the ingredients that are in kibble and understand that those ingredients are not the pretty meats and veggies on the package. In fact they are the refuse from human food processing plants that would otherwise go into the garbage dump if not bought by the dog food companies. If you look at history and realize that canines have eaten meat, bones, and organs and thrived for millions of years but have only eaten kibble for abotu 50 years and there is absolutely no evidence that kibble is anywhere close to as nutritious as whole raw foods, the the only conclusion you can come to is that a diet of raw meat, bones, and organs is far superior to highly processed grain based cereal made from garbage. How can you come to any other conclusion?


Again, more speculation. My conclusion is that there is no evidence , therefore the rationale behind raw is better is inconclusive. To come to any other conclusion is illogical.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

Westhighlander said:


> Again, more speculation. My conclusion is that there is no evidence , therefore the rationale behind raw is better is inconclusive. To come to any other conclusion is illogical.


Actually if you go back and carefully re-read my previous post, there is not one sentence that is speculation. Each statement is a statement of fact.

I have one question for you since you want to be logical  .... Why do you ask for proof for a diet that has been around for over a million of years but you ask for no proof from a diet that is merely 50 years or less old? You see, there is no proof that the new fad diet (kibble) is nearly as nutritiuos as the diet wolves/dogs have thrived on for millions of years. Hasn't it already been proven that whole foods are superior to processed foods for humans? Why would dog be different? Lets really use logic here.


----------



## Westhighlander (Sep 28, 2007)

RawFedDogs said:


> Actually if you go back and carefully re-read my previous post, there is not one sentence that is speculation. Each statement is a statement of fact.
> 
> I have one question for you since you want to be logical  .... Why do you ask for proof for a diet that has been around for over a million of years but you ask for no proof from a diet that is merely 50 years or less old? You see, there is no proof that the new fad diet (kibble) is nearly as nutritiuos as the diet wolves/dogs have thrived on for millions of years. Hasn't it already been proven that whole foods are superior to processed foods for humans? Why would dog be different? Lets really use logic here.


It is illogical that the old diet is automatically better than something new. Man would still be eating uncooked meat if that was true. You seem to like to answer with questions. I am asking for facts, not conclusions you think are logical to you. You still have no control group, therefore there is no conclusive evidence.


----------



## 2Catahoulas (Aug 11, 2008)

RawFedDogs said:


> Error after error after error ... There is NOTHING in the anatomy and physiology of a dog that supports an omnivore diet.


RawFedDogs, your argument ended when you mentioned "omnivore diet." The fact that a dog willingly eats things other than meat makes a dog an omnivore by scientific definition. A carnivore is a scientific nomenclature referring to the order _Carniviora_. A Giant Panda is within this order but is almost exclusively a *herbivore *yet will eat fish, eggs, and some insects. The Grizzly Bear is in the order _Carnivora_ but is an *omnivore *and has been observed in Yellowstone eating whitebark pine pine nuts, roots, tubers, grasses, and cutworm moths. The Brown Bear, within the order_ Carnivora_, eats berries, roots, and sprouts, fungi.

You are using anatomy and physiology as if you were exclusively discussing scientific classification. This discussion is based on diet.

Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2006-11-17)
Wilson, Don E., and DeeAnn M. Reeder, eds.. "Ursus arctos californicus


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

Westhighlander said:


> It is illogical that the old diet is automatically better than something new.


No, its not automatic, bUt the old diet proved itself over millions of years. I don't accept a new diet without proof which there isn't any. THere isn't even any logic to support the new diet. 



> Man would still be eating uncooked meat if that was true.


If man had the stomach juices dogs did then raw would definately would be better for man.



> You still have no control group, therefore there is no conclusive evidence.


You keep avoiding my question. In the absense of conclusive evidence, why do you accept processed food as superior to whole food? Why do you accept a 50 year old diet over a million year old diet? There is no way you can call that logical.

Here is some evidence.

Study Summary
http://www.ukrmb.co.uk/images/LippertSapySummary.pdf

Actual Study
http://www.ukrmb.co.uk/images/LippertSapyFullReport.pdf



2Catahoulas said:


> You are using anatomy and physiology as if you were exclusively discussing scientific classification. This discussion is based on diet.


If you captured an undiscovered animal, you would need to know what to feed it. You would look at its physiology to determine that. If you looked at it's phyology and determined that it could not digest plant material because of the 7 reasons listed in previous posts and could very well digest meat, bones, and organs, what would you feed this animal. Yes I am talking about diet. 

By the way ... pandas are the exception to the rule, dogs aren't. Pandas eat for 20 hours a day. Dog don't. 

How is it illogical to say that whole foods are more nutritious than processed foods?


----------



## fyzbo (Jun 19, 2008)

RawFedDogs said:


> Hasn't it already been proven that whole foods are superior to processed foods for humans? Why would dog be different? Lets really use logic here.


 Actually the opposite is true. We get more nutrition out of cooked meat then raw meat, the same can be said for some vegetables. Vitamins could be considered the most processed food out there, yet they can improve almost anyone's diet.

If you accept the premise that natural is optimal you might be following logic, but that premise is blatantly false. Science and research can and does improve diet, it's amazing how everything in nature works together, but that's not to say it can't be improved upon.



RawFedDogs said:


> Here is some evidence.
> 
> Study Summary
> http://www.ukrmb.co.uk/images/LippertSapySummary.pdf
> ...


You finally post a source and it doesn't apply.



> Our study shoes that for food, the animal fed with home made food (based on similar food as the family) reach an average age of 13.1 years, as the animals fed with canned industrial food, reach an average age of 10.4 years. The animals fed with mixed food (home made plus canned food) reach an average age of 11.4 years.


Raw fed is not similar to the family. The one source you have provided doesn't discuss or look at raw fed at all! Why can't you come up with a legitimate source that promotes a raw fed diet? The only evidence is anecdotal at best. Any sources from studies, vets, and phds make a point to debunk this raw fed propaganda.


----------



## harrise (Jan 9, 2008)

Heh, classic thread. Almost makes me want to go resurrect the political threads...


----------



## Westhighlander (Sep 28, 2007)

RawFedDogs said:


> You keep avoiding my question. In the absense of conclusive evidence, why do you accept processed food as superior to whole food? Why do you accept a 50 year old diet over a million year old diet? There is no way you can call that logical.


Where in any of my posts did I say one was better than the other? I stated that due to lack of evidence, there is no conclusive answer. Which means simply raw has not been proven to be better. It doesn't mean that processed is better.


----------



## Dakota Spirit (Jul 31, 2007)

2Catahoulas said:


> Dakota Spirit, Let's get rid of the catch-word "protein" which everybody tends to use and examine the exact value of protein or the make-up of protein which are amino acids.
> 
> There's no doubt that meat or fish is high in protein. *Chicken* has every available amino acid (especially high in Glutamic acid and Aspartic acid). It only lacks Hydroxyproline. Surprisingly* brown rice*, which is used in many high end foods, also has every amino acid except Hydroxyproline. The two amino acids that brown rice has the most of are the same as chicken (Glutamic acid and Aspartic acid).
> 
> ...


Hey 2Catahoulas,

My post wasn't meant to get into any sort of 'this is better then that' opinion as I'm really not interested in arguing such points. I thought only that you were misunderstanding WHY people look for meat in the first couple ingredients.

However, I do ALSO know that grains are often avoided as there are many many cases of dogs turning up with allergies sometime during the lives which can often be linked to the food they are eating. Typically when the owners switchs to a grain free food the problem more or less clears up. Before it's pointed out though - those are neither controlled cases or situations in which success can be linked (for sure) to one exact thing. It's merely an observation/guess that has been made in the past.

Now, I feed a high end kibble - it's got flaxseed and several other things present. So I'm certainly not arguing against some of these things. Just giving a few of the reasons why I personally know people tend to look for lower grain foods. To each their own is my standpoint...just feed what works best for your dog.


----------



## 2Catahoulas (Aug 11, 2008)

My post wasn't meant to get into any sort of 'this is better then that' opinion as I'm really not interested in arguing such points. [....] 
Oh I knew that. I posted that because many people are very ant-grain. It kind of veered away from the subject in a way.

"However, I do ALSO know that grains are often avoided as there are many many cases of dogs turning up with allergies sometime during the lives which can often be linked to the food they are eating." [....]
Yes, especially corn and wheat.


"Now, I feed a high end kibble - it's got flaxseed and several other things present. So I'm certainly not arguing against some of these things. [....]"
I was actually surprised that flax was that nutritious.


----------



## Dakota Spirit (Jul 31, 2007)

Oh ok, no problem :]

Yep, corn and wheat were the main two I've seen problems with as well. I think sometimes people hear that fact and then get caught up in a "No grains _at all_" mindset without actually checking into what may or may not work with their dog. I don't actually mind that so much...but if they don't have correct information/haven't personally verified it for themselves, then they really have no place spreading it off to other people.

Yep, good for people too.


----------



## Tamara (Dec 6, 2006)

harrise said:


> Heh, classic thread. Almost makes me want to go resurrect the political threads...


Heehee more like the Religion ones that happened here...

I am all for Raw and all for a good premium kibble - to me it really is up to what you are comfortable with. Like so many have posted, there really is so much research convincingly supporting both. I sit on the fence and feed half kibble (Orijen) and half home cooked (a huge -controlled - variety of stuff). To me as long as vet visits are rare and my very spritely 10 year old carries on then this is working. 
If you look at the human's digestive system - they should not be eating meat... lol maybe that's for another forum
Dogs have evolved from being wolves and since they were domesticated - some 15,000 years ago to eat and get benifits from other things along with meat. Well that's what I have read...


----------



## CinnamintStick (Jul 25, 2008)

My dog's faster than your dog, 
My dog's bigger than yours. 
My dog's better 'cause he gets Ken-L Ration, 
My dog's better than yours.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

RawFedDogs said:


> All animals are equipped by nature to eat their optimal diet. If they are not, they become extinct. "optimal" and "natural" are synonyms.


Equating 'natural' to 'optimal' is misguided (at best); it's actually 'natural' for wolves to die of Salmonella once in a while, too, in the wild. It is natural for mammals to die of bacteria infections, too...but we prefer to treat some with antibiotics to avoid that result, though that is *not* natural, right? Sometimes doing things 'unnaturally' has its advantages. Wolves would be just as healthy if they ate cooked meat, if not healthier, but that just isn't an option for them, now is it? 



> A dog's physical make up and physiology tells us what his optimal diet is. When his body is incapable of digesting certain items(grains and veggies in this case), it tells us that this particuar animal should eat meat, bones, and organs and has no need for plant material of any kind.


Incorrect. A dog's anatomical and physiological features do not tell us what the animal is capable of digesting; it merely suggests certain nutritional requirements. But again, this does *not* imply that dogs must or even should eat a raw meat based diet. 



> OK, lets assume that statement is correct. What needed or even desirable nutrients are missing from a diet of meat, bones, and organs? What makes it necessary to force plant material into a carnivore?


You mean besides the obvious like phytonutrients? Well, without supplementation raw meat is not only deficient in certain vitamins but is deficient in calcium, while containing an excess of phosphorous. 



> Define "complete and balanced" How do you measure bioavailability of a highly processed cereal vs. meat, bones, and organs. If we accept your premise, then humans should eat a diet of Total Cereal and nothing else.


Actually what you've concluded on my premise and of a human diet is purely absurd, so I laugh.  A "complete and balanced" diet is dependent on a dog's physiological state. Is it a puppy, an adult dog, or a geriatric dog? So to simply answer your question a "complete and balanced" diet includes water, carbohydrates, protein, fats, minerals, and vitamins. What quantity is dependent on the dog's individual digestive ability - all other nutrient requirements are just an estimate, so pick your source. As far as bioavilability, this too is variably dependent on the individual dog. However, observation of the appearance and behavior of the dog is probably sufficient in both cases. 



> Show some unbiased, anecdote free, supporting evidence that highly processed cereal is preferable to raw meat, bones, and organs. Are you saying that processed food is more nutritious than whole foods?


This isn't my argument. I'm not sympathetic, like some, to either side of the argument. I just know a bad argument when I see one.



> That would be the ideal diet if you throw in large ungalets. The ideal diet would be mostly ungalets. Since we can't feed that, we try our best to simulate it. Our best is NOT feeding a highly processed grain based cereal.


Sorry, large prey is reserved for wolves who are pack-forming cooperative predators. Our dogs aren't this, they are group-forming (at best), scavengers. Even anatomical differences suggest this. The natural diet for today's dog is probably various scraps and byproducts of human food production, and maybe even small, freshly killed wild animal whole-carcasses would be natural too for some dogs. In either case these "natural" diets tend not to correlate to what is fed by the raw meat-based diet advocates. 



> Obviously you have some unbiased evidence that natural is not preferable?


Certainly, we could create a seemingly endless list of pathogens and contaminants that are natural and not preferred.


----------



## kimel (Jul 9, 2008)

Hmmm...so you have a problem with a site due to their lack of credentials and then start spouting your own philosophy that we are all supposed to just fall for without citing your own credentials? Or maybe you are well known here but me being new and all I missed it. If so, my apologies.

Tossing around scientific names, big words and sprinkling citations can be done by anyone (which is the basis for your initial post) yet you do the same thing and expect respect and belief.

Not sticking up for dogfoodanalysis or anyone else. Just want to be making fair and honest comparisons here.

Kevin
MS Zoology - U Idaho 1994 (all of which really means diddly squat because you don't know where my research was) caveat emptor


----------



## harrise (Jan 9, 2008)

Caveat venditor...


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 22, 2008)

fyzbo said:


> Actually the opposite is true. We get more nutrition out of cooked meat then raw meat, the same can be said for some vegetables.


I would really like to see where that informatin comes from. It's exactly the opposite of everything I've read anywhere. The following is a very well referenced web page about dogs being carnivores and cooking of food. If you just want to see the cooking part, scroll about half way down the page.
http://www.dogtorj.net/id51.html



> Vitamins could be considered the most processed food out there, yet they can improve almost anyone's diet.


It has yet to be proven that vitamin pills is of any health benefit to humans or dogs.



> If you accept the premise that natural is optimal you might be following logic, but that premise is blatantly false. Science and research can and does improve diet, it's amazing how everything in nature works together, but that's not to say it can't be improved upon.


Perhaps you have some examples and maybe some sources of information?



> Why can't you come up with a legitimate source that promotes a raw fed diet?


Read the book Raw Meaty Bones Promote Health by Dr. Tom Lonsdale. It is a well referenced book on why you should feed a raw diet. You can get this book at amazon.com or dogwise.com or from Tom's webpage at http://www.rawmeatybones.com You can download it in PDF format for just a vew dollars from his web site.

You can also look at these websites that have referenced information.
http://www.rawlearning.com/rawfaq.html
http://www.rawfed.com/myths/
http://www.rawmeatybones.com
http://rawfeddogs.net/
http://www.dogtorj.net/id51.html
http://www.championpetfoods.com/orijen/documents/ORIJEN_White_paper.pdf --- This one is by a dog food company
http://www.kc.net/~wolf2dog/wayne2.htm



> The only evidence is anecdotal at best. Any sources from studies, vets, and phds make a point to debunk this raw fed propaganda.


I think the above sources should keep you busy for a while. Read, learn, and enjoy. 



Westhighlander said:


> Again, more speculation. My conclusion is that there is no evidence , therefore the rationale behind raw is better is inconclusive. To come to any other conclusion is illogical.


Where is speculation in my post? They are all statements of fact? You look at fact A add to that fact B plus fact C and throw in fact D and the conclusion becomes rather apparent unless you really hide you head in the sand and ignore every bit of information. You can never come to a rational conclusion if you refuse to look at the information plainly in front of you.



Curbside Prophet said:


> Equating 'natural' to 'optimal' is misguided (at best); it's actually 'natural' for wolves to die of Salmonella once in a while, too, in the wild.


There is no documented case of a wolf ever dying from salmonella. Wolves and dogs can handle salmonella very well. It basically doesn't affect them. Salmonella is everywhere. I'm sure my dogs eat salmonella every day. It can't be avoided when I feed them raw meat, bones, and organs.



> It is natural for mammals to die of bacteria infections, too...but we prefer to treat some with antibiotics to avoid that result, though that is *not* natural, right?


It is natural for wild wolves to die from bacterial infections of wounds on the body. They do not die or even get sick from bacteria ingested with their food. It's the same with our dogs. Afterall, dogs lick their own butts and don't get sick from it.

Wolves would be just as healthy if they ate cooked meat, if not healthier, but that just isn't an option for them, now is it? 

Read this page ... if you only want to see about the cooked food part, scan half way down the page to the section "about cooked diets". It's all well referenced.
http://www.dogtorj.net/id51.html



> Incorrect. A dog's anatomical and physiological features do not tell us what the animal is capable of digesting; it merely suggests certain nutritional requirements. But again, this does *not* imply that dogs must or even should eat a raw meat based diet.


Actually physiology tells us all we need to know about diet. Because of a dog's lack of flat mollars and the inability to move their jaw side to side when eating, they cannot crush the cellulose covering that is on every cell of plant material. This prevents extraction of nutrients from those cells. Plant material requires fermentation to be digested. The dog's gut is too short and the food exits the body faster than the time it takes this process to take place. These two facts alone tell you that a dog is not capable of digesting plant material. The only think left in nature is raw meat, bones, and organs.



> You mean besides the obvious like phytonutrients? Well, without supplementation raw meat is not only deficient in certain vitamins but is deficient in calcium, while containing an excess of phosphorous.


Congratulations. You are absolutely 100% correct. You have never seen me or any expereienced raw feeder suggest a diet of only raw meat. To have a healthy diet, you must also feed bones, and organs. Bones are VERY high in calcium. There is no way on the face of the earth that a dog whose diet contains around 15% bone is deficient in calcium. Also the the small amount of phosphorus in bones, allows the calcium/phophorus to be exactly correct. IF that were not the case, wolves would not have lasted millions of years. The vitamins that are missing in a meat only diet, are contained on organs. If there were nutrients missing from a diet of meat, bones, and organs, wolves would have have thrived for so long.

Phytonutrients are iimportant for humans, not needed at all by dogs. They are two different species and their bodies operate differently.



> Is it a puppy, an adult dog, or a geriatric dog?


Doesn't matter. Wolf pups begin eating a raw diet of meat, bones, and organs at around 8 to 10 weeks of age.



> So to simply answer your question a "complete and balanced" diet includes water, carbohydrates, protein, fats, minerals, and vitamins.


Correct for humans, but dogs/wolves aren't human. Carbohydrates are not needed by dog/wolves. They utilize fat in the same way we utilize carbs.



> This isn't my argument. I'm not sympathetic, like some, to either side of the argument. I just know a bad argument when I see one.


I hope I've made a better case now between this post and my previous post.



> Sorry, large prey is reserved for wolves who are pack-forming cooperative predators.


Correct. I assume you are speaking of wolves. Our dogs ARE wolves. Only their appearance and behavior have changed. You can see DNA evidence from the wery well documented web page:
http://www.kc.net/~wolf2dog/wayne2.htm

Robert Wayne is the world's formost expert in wolf DNA. The data on this page proves that dogs and wolves are the same species. Actually dogs are a subspecies of wolf. You can interbreed wolves and dogs and produce fertile offspring.

BTW: I feed my dogs a lot of beef and deer meat which are some of the large animals wolves would eat.



> Our dogs aren't this, they are group-forming (at best), scavengers. Even anatomical differences suggest this.


Yes, dogs have been forced into this. If you know of any anatomical differences in wolves and dogs I would love to know about it.



> The natural diet for today's dog is probably various scraps and byproducts of human food production, and maybe even small, freshly killed wild animal whole-carcasses would be natural too for some dogs.


It's the diet that dogs have been forced to eat but not the natural diet.



> In either case these "natural" diets tend not to correlate to what is fed by the raw meat-based diet advocates.


We try to simulate it as close as possible. We feed a variety of animal parts from a variety of animals. In our situation, its the best we can do with what we have. It's far far closer to their natural diet than processed grain based cereal made from human garbage.



> Certainly, we could create a seemingly endless list of pathogens and contaminants that are natural and not preferred.


Pathogens yes, but not bacteria injested on food. These are just not a problem. Take it from someone who has been feeding raw meat, bones, and organs for 6 years to 4 different dogs and 3 cats without one case of vomiting or diarrhea.


----------

