# Can Pet Food Have Too Much Protein?



## Must Love Belle (Feb 16, 2008)

My research has always supported that dogs need between 22-25% of meat based, highly digestible protein...and no more than that because it simply isn’t necessary; their bodies don’t use it. So what are the effects if we feed more? 

On The Dog Food Project web site I read two articles; one on if too much protein has adverse affects, and one on protein in pet food. The premise in both articles seems to be that too much good protein is not bad as long as it's good quality meat protein. The point was made that when the studies on how protein can negatively affect the kidneys the pet foods used in the study were not good quality. This is significant because it is a well known fact that low quality protein produces more ash that high quality protein. Having too much ash in the diet makes the kidneys work overtime and can cause damage over time. The conclusion is that while these studies did show negative effects on the kidneys it was due to the low quality proteins used not the amount. 

I thought this was a very good point and agree. However, the caveat to the argument is that although high quality protein does produce less ash than low quality protein…high quality proteins do produce ash. The amount of ash is directly related to the amount of protein consumed. These articles and all those that I could find all used protein percentages around 25%. So what happens when we begin to feed our dogs food with 42% protein…or even higher in some cases? 

At normal protein levels a high quality pet food can have 25% protein and have it be a very good thing for the animals. They are getting the protein their bodies need and keeping the ash a low as possible. But when we inflate those levels to 42% or higher aren’t we asking for kidney trouble? We may as well be feeding the low quality protein because we are exposing our dogs to the same level of ash.

Any thoughts or good information on this would be welcomed.


----------



## cascabel (Sep 25, 2007)

Must Love Belle said:


> My research has always supported that dogs need between 22-25% of meat based, highly digestible protein...and no more than that because it simply isn’t necessary; their bodies don’t use it. So what are the effects if we feed more?


What research? You keep referring to this '22-25%' number. Care to share your sources?

I fed a diet with 41% protein for a while with almost all protein coming from meat. (the food was grain free) My dog only poops once a day and it is the size of a couple of peanut m&ms. (I attribute that large of a volume to the fact that the food contains some veggies which are not fully digestible.) The volume of food that is put in her daily is probably about the size of a soda can. So where did it all go if it wasn't used? 

She has had thorough blood and urine tests which indicate that she is incredibly healthy and I see this in her appearance/activity level. I no longer have trouble keeping her at a healthy weight like I did when she was on mid-twenties protein % foods with grains. She is lean, but with extraordinary musculature. Overall she is just MUCH healthier on the grain-free, high protein food. 


As far as your questions regarding the DFP go...why not e-mail the author and see what her take is on your questions? I'm sure she would be willing to discuss questions raised by her articles.


----------



## briteday (Feb 10, 2007)

I would look at the protein studies carefully. Most of the early studies with high protein dog food were done on rodent kidneys, and then extrapolated to reflect the effect on dogs. It just doesn't translate.

And I think there's a huge difference between high meat protein and high amounts of "other" protein. Grains contain a significant amount of protein, but also carbs. Grain protein is not assimilated as well by dogs (think about when you have corn for dinner and poop the next day), however meat protein is well assimilated and any excess can be used for energy aong with fat in the diet. Carbs are not a necessary part of a canine diet. Whatever is not used in the first few hours for energy is then stored as fat.

Also, remember to break the food down into the only three food groups...protein, fat and carbs. Add the protein and fat, then subtract from 100. That final number is the percentage of carbs. If you have 25% protein and 15% fat...that leaves 60% carbs. (there are some adjustments for dry food, but the changes in your numbers will be minimal) That makes for a lot of poop.


----------



## BoxMeIn21 (Apr 10, 2007)

> The point was made that when the studies on how protein can negatively affect the kidneys the pet foods used in the study were not good quality.


Protein, regardless of quality, does not cause kidney problems in a healthy dog. It's kidneys that are already damaged or diseased that have a hard time processing Nitrogen, which is a by-product from digesting poor quality proteins (like grain or plant).


----------



## Must Love Belle (Feb 16, 2008)

cascabel said:


> What research? You keep referring to this '22-25%' number. Care to share your sources?


Without even touching on the topic of whether grains are good or bad for dogs(that's a whole seperate topic)  I want to explain that I did not quote what I said above from any aritcle I read. My research in kidney functions began with studying the road to kidney problems. For instance what causes Struvite Crystals. I studied how they were treated and if overtreated what the outcome can be (i.e. Stuvite crystals develop when the dog's system becomes too alkaline; usually caused by feeding too much carbohydrate and not enough protein. But if they are overtreated, in other words is the dogs system is kept too acidic for too long Oxalate Crystals can form. Of the two; Oxalate are much worse) More reasearch led me to how this can be regulated by the diet and why it is important to keep ash to a minimum (ash which contains calcium, phosphorus, sodium chloride, potassium, and other minerals) and is produced by all proteins.

Fact 1: All proteins produce ash
Fact 2: Too much ash in a dogs diet will cause kidney problems over time (if you doubt this look up ash; and it's effects on the kidneys)
Fact 3: Low quality proteins produce more ash than high quality proteins

That tells us to make sure we feed a high quality meat protein. However, if we feed too much of it over an extended period of time, regardless of our good intentions, we are exposing our dogs to gross amounts of ash.

conclusion: Over time, it will cause kidney problems

To me this seems very simple, logical, and substantiated by several studies of kidney problems if you reasearch it. The reason I qualify that is because if you Google protein and the effect on kidneys you will only find the studies written by people pushing either the raw diet or grain free.

However if you reasearch just what causes kidney problems in dogs, what effects pH levels in dogs, how diet can effect those factors...you will agree with me. I'm just throwing it out there. You don't have to agree. My opinions are not unsubstantiated I've done a lot of research to come to those conclusions. 

Normally this isn't something I would take my time to do...come on one of these forums. But with these high protein diets running rampant and people defending so strongly I worry about the effect on the dogs after 3-4 years of these diets. I guess I just think it's my responsibility to share what I've learned. I don't expect you to just accept what I say, but I hope you do look into it (beyond web sites dedicated to high protein diets...or articles that dismiss the connection based on rat studies or poor quality ingredients). 

Instead find out what the effects of feeding a very good quality protein, but in huge amounts, and over a long period of time. That will give you a better picture and I hope you do research it yourself.


You asked for references so here are a few of the references on protein and dogs (when I was trying to decide how much protein is appropriate in dogs and why) They do not talk about kidney function but if you study kidney function you will see what I mean. Obviously I have a lot more but I don't want to go overboard...LOL  Ok...maybe I already did that 

REFERENCES 
Aaron, A, and Schad, J. S. (1954). Nitrogen balance studies with dogs on casein or methionine-supplemented casein. J. Nutr., 53:264. 
Allison, J. B. (1955). Protein requirements of the dog. Popular Dogs, Sept. 
---(1958). Amino acid requirements. Feedstuffs, Dec. 13. Allison, J. B., Anderson, J. A, and Seeley, R. D. (1947). Some effects of methionine in the utilization of nitrogen in the adult dog. J. Nutr., 33:361. 
Campbell, J. E., and Phillips, P H. (1953). Some problems on feeding fat to dogs. The Southwestern Vet. Winter Issue, pages 173-175. 
Dawson, D., and Allen. J. G. (1961). Biological study of fifty-six-day¬protein-free diet in dogs. Am. J. of Clin. Nutr., 9:320-323: Nutr. Abst. and Rev. (1961), 31(4): #5717. 
Heiman, V. (1947). The protein requirements of growing puppies. JAVMA, 111 :304-308. 
---(1955). Dogs need protein-of course. Popular Dogs, Septem¬ber. 
Kazakova, Z. A (1957). Importance of dietary protein for production and course of experimental hypertension in dogs. Vop. Pitan., 4:8-15. Nutrition Abst. and Rev. 28:223. 
Kling, J. M., Burns, M. J., and Clark, C. H. (1963). Treatment of dogs with experimentally induced achylia pancreatica. JAVMA, 143(3):291¬294. 
Koehn, C. J. (1942). Practical dog feeding. Ala. Agr. Exp: Sta. Bull. 251. 
Manitius, A., Pigeon, G., and Epstein, F. H. (1963). Mechanism by which dietary protein enhances renal concentrating ability. Am. J. of Physiol., 205:101-106. Nutr. Abst. and Rev. (1964), 34(1): #675. 
Mitchell, H. H. (1950). Some species and age difference in amino acid requirements of mammals. In: Protein and Amino Acid Require¬ments of Mammals. A A Albanese, ed. Publ. Academic Press, New York. 
National Research Council (1962). Nutrient Requirements of Dogs. Publ. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. 
Ontko, J. A, Wuthier, R. E., and Phillips, P H. (1957). The effect of increased dietary fat upon the protein requirement of the growing dog. J. Nutr., 62:163-169. 
Orten, A U., VanBuren, M.D., and Johnston, C. G. (1952). Compara¬tive absorption of amino acids from the intestine. Fed. Proc., 11:452. 
Payne, P R. (1964). Assessment of the protein values of diets in rela¬tion to the requirements of the growing dog. In: Canine and Feline Nutritional Requirements. O. Graham-Jones, ed. Pages 19-31. Publ. Pergamon Press, London. 
Platt, B. S., Heard, C. R. C., Stewart, R. J. C., and AI-Rabbi, H. A (1962). Differences in the blood of dogs due to diets of different pro¬tein values. Proc. Nutr. Soc., 21(2):xxix-xxx. 
Rose, W. C., and Rice, E. E. (1939). Science, 90:186. 
Weech, A A., Goettsch, E., and Reeves, E. B. (1935). Nutritional edema in the dog. I. Development of Hypoproteinemia on a Diet Defi¬cient in Protein, J. Exp. Med., 61:299-317. Nutr. Abst. and Rev. (1935),5:1,411. 
Young, D. R., and Price, R. (1961). Utilization of body energy reserve during work in dogs. J. Appl. Physiol., 16(2):351-354, Biological Abstracts (1961), 36, #47683. 
SUPPLEMENTAL READINGS 
Costa, G. (1960. Hypothetical pathway of nitrogen metabolism. Nature, 1988(4750):549-522. 
Kazakova, J. A (1958). The importance of protein in the diet for the higher nervous activity of dogs under normal and pathological condi• tions. Csl. Gastroenterol, Vyz., 12(1):58-61. Nutr. Abst. and Rev. (1959), 29(1 ):750.


----------



## GreatDaneMom (Sep 21, 2007)

well, i can tell you that there is such a thing as too much protein for a growing pup. it aids in causing growth problems in young dogs. so in that case, yes it can have too much protein. i typically stay under 24%. but in the case of normal dogs, functioning normally, adult, etc.... no. dogs tolerate proteins differently than rodents, of whom the tests were conducted upon, do. dogs are ok with high proteins. where the problems with the kindneys come into play is mostly the level of phosphorus in the food. too much phosphorus, and an unequal balance of calcium to phosphorus will cause problems in the kindneys.


----------



## flipgirl (Oct 5, 2007)

Thank you Must Love Belle for the wealth of information. I, too have been going back and forth on the high protein, and/or grain free diets. While dogs have a different digestive systems than humans do (hence we cannot make parallels between the effects of high protein on dogs and humans), I think there can be too much of a good thing. I'm not sure I believe that feeding high protein foods during puppyhood will cause growth problems but I believe that feeding too much food during the growth period will. Maybe grain free foods are good for dogs but how much protein is too much? ARe there any long term studies on the effects of 42% protein on dogs? I find that the higher protein foods have a higher percentage of fat; which is needed to help digest the protein. So would that knock the balance of nutrients off balance? I'm feeding my dog a semi-homemade food which is grain-free but I find that she is hungrier and she poohs more often. I thought I would try it but I think I'm going to go back to the other semi-homemade food which included whole grains. I think that, to a certain extent, this grain-free thing is somewhat of a fad just like it was with us humans even though dogs require higher amounts of protein than we do. just because your dog likes the higher protein food, doesn't mean it's better for them. Cats need a much higher amount of protein than dogs but dogs love cat food. But they say dogs shouldn't eat cat food because of the high protein content. Must Love Belle's reasoning makes sense and she's done a lot of research as is evident from her references. I think she is just offering what she has learned (and i'm grateful for it!) and suggesting that more research is done and before believing a study's conclusions, think about the factors which influence those conclusions.


----------



## BoxMeIn21 (Apr 10, 2007)

> I think that, to a certain extent, this grain-free thing is somewhat of a fad just like it was with us humans even though dogs require higher amounts of protein than we do. just because your dog likes the higher protein food, doesn't mean it's better for them.


I think some manufacturers have done well by eliminating the grains from commercial food.
Dogs are carnivores; their bodies are designed to eat meat and bone, not grains and carbs. In fact, you could call "kibble" a fad seeing as how its only been around 60 years or so. 



> well, i can tell you that there is such a thing as too much protein for a growing pup. it aids in causing growth problems in young dogs. so in that case, yes it can have too much protein.


I am not sure this is entirely true. Earlier studies claimed that high amounts of protein and calcium in dry foods exacerbated musculoskeletal disorders in growing puppies - later studies say exactly the opposite. 
Of course this only applies to dry foods - not natural diets or canned. Which is puzzling - a raw diet probably has twice the amount of protein than any dry food on the market, but RAW has never been linked to any joint and bone disorders.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Didn't people used to feed their dogs horsemeat? I'm talking about back in the 1950s and before. You could get bones and scraps from the butcher---cheap---for your dog, and ground horsemeat, also cheap because Americans won't eat it (the French would be aghast at feeding dogs good horsemeat). Organ meats, tripe, etc. I really don't think many dogs got a lot of grain in their diets back then....maybe a few table scraps. And those dogs lived good long lives, in general. My mom's family's dog was brought home the same day my mom came home from the hospital, and died when my mom was 16. Pretty good for an unspayed, unvaccinated, un-heartworm-preventative-d dog in Panama. So you could say that any kind of kibble is the "fad", not grain-free diets.


----------



## Must Love Belle (Feb 16, 2008)

GreatDaneMom said:


> but in the case of normal dogs, functioning normally, adult, etc.... no. dogs tolerate proteins differently than rodents, of whom the tests were conducted upon, do. dogs are ok with high proteins. where the problems with the kindneys come into play is mostly the level of phosphorus in the food. too much phosphorus, and an unequal balance of calcium to phosphorus will cause problems in the kindneys.


I agree that rodents tolerate proteins differently, that's why my research did not inclued those studies because I do not believe they are accurate. However, if you look above at what makes up "ash" you will see that it includes phosphorus. You are correct that phosphorus, in disporportionate amounts will cause kidney problems. That is a major point to consider when protein is fed at such high levels, you are in essence feed inflated phosphorus levels. That was very good information, thank you.



BoxMeIn21 said:


> I think some manufacturers have done well by eliminating the grains from commercial food.
> Dogs are carnivores; their bodies are designed to eat meat and bone, not grains and carbs. In fact, you could call "kibble" a fad seeing as how its only been around 60 years or so.
> 
> 
> Dogs are not carnivores, they are omnivores. Which is important to remember. I would say you are correct that in a sense "kibble" pet food is a fad. However, if you were to compare... high protein diets have gained momenum only in the past few years. Not only would that qualify them as a fad but we are taking a real gamble with what the effects on our dogs will be after a few years of such a diet. You can not refute that whether you support high protein diets or not, high protein diets are an untested extreme. It's just me personally but I wouldn't take such a chance my furry child.


----------



## Must Love Belle (Feb 16, 2008)

flipgirl said:


> Thank you Must Love Belle for the wealth of information. I, too have been going back and forth on the high protein, and/or grain free diets. While dogs have a different digestive systems than humans do (hence we cannot make parallels between the effects of high protein on dogs and humans), I think there can be too much of a good thing. .


Hey Flipgirl! I just wanted to say thank you. Just because an idea isn't popular doesn't mean it doesn't hold merit and you have a refreshing way of taking in information and forming very logical conclusions. As you can probably tell from the other quotes most people are not like that. My mother always said the scariest ideas are formed with the least knowledge...so true. Anyway, thank you.


----------



## BoxMeIn21 (Apr 10, 2007)

Must Love Belle said:


> conclusion: Over time, it will cause kidney problems


The claim that high protein is the cause of kidney problems is a very, very old myth. 
http://www.thepetcenter.com/imtop/protein.html


> A fable that has finally been debunked is the one that states that dogs acquire kidney problems from eating too much protein. This fable was repeated so often that it became self-sustaining and axiomatic. Finally, experts in animal nutrition have buried this myth. It simply is not true that high protein levels in dog food cause kidney problems. "The dog can digest large amounts of proteins, especially those of animal origin" stated Prof. Dominique Grandjean DVM, Ph.D., at the Fourth Annual International Sled Dog Veterinary Medical Association Symposium (page 53 of 1997 PROCEEDINGS).


Here are a few more articles...

http://www.b-naturals.com/newsletter/kidney-diet/
http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/Opera/2167/bovee_protein_RD.pdf
http://www.dogaware.com/kidney.html#protein
http://www.peteducation.com/article.cfm?cls=0&articleid=1104




Must Love Belle said:


> Dogs are not carnivores, they are omnivores.


You might believe that.  But there is a whole group of other folks who believe the opposite. 
http://rawfed.com/myths/omnivores.html


----------



## Must Love Belle (Feb 16, 2008)

BoxMeIn21 said:


> The claim that high protein is the cause of kidney problems is a very, very old myth.
> http://www.thepetcenter.com/imtop/protein.html
> 
> 
> ...


Read your own articles...they support what I said. I never said to not feed protein. I think dogs do need protein in moderate levels. Those articles are disputing feeding low protein diets. I agree with them. My argument is high, high levels...i.e. 42%!



BoxMeIn21 said:


> You might believe that.  But there is a whole group of other folks who believe the opposite.
> http://rawfed.com/myths/omnivores.html


This is from the web site you used to support your belief that dogs are not omnivores but are carnivores...

_"Myth: DOGS ARE OMNIVORES.
Dogs are carnivores, not omnivores. Dogs ARE very adaptable, but just because they can survive on an omnivorous diet does not mean it is the best diet for them. "_

... ok but it does prove they are omnivores. Additionally this is a site dedicated to raw diets. Hmmm???


----------



## flipgirl (Oct 5, 2007)

BoxMeIn21 said:


> I think some manufacturers have done well by eliminating the grains from commercial food.
> Dogs are carnivores; their bodies are designed to eat meat and bone, not grains and carbs. In fact, you could call "kibble" a fad seeing as how its only been around 60 years or so.
> 
> Good point BoxMeIn, good point! Their teeth are definitely not designed to eat kibble! But while dogs in the wild may not consume as many carbs as kibble contains, they do eat the contents of their prey's stomachs; that is their source of carbs. I'm not sure that dogs in the wild ate potatoes either. However, just because they ate all meat in the wild doesn't mean that all meat was good for them - that was all that was available. They are adaptable and I think as long as we're feeding them quality grains but feeding them the right amount of protein and fat, they can surely adapt to this type of diet. But the question remains, carnivore, omnivore or not, how much protein is too much? With a high level of protein, you also have to increase the fat to help the dog digest all that protein. I know in humans, too high protein dehydrates so you have to drink a lot of water and it also causes kidney problems and catabolism (where you body basically eats muscle to fuel itself). So what is the answer? If you are feeding a raw diet, do you know how much protein you are giving your dog and how do you make sure he's getting enough protein? Wouldn't raw meat have less because it's more water than, let's say, a meal like chicken meal? I think there can be too much of a good thing.
> ...


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

DO dogs (or wolves) eat the contents of their prey's stomachs? I ask because I've heard it so often, even about cats. But, I've spent a lot of time observing my mom's indoor-outdoor cats, and the various farm cats around here, and I'm not so sure that's true. I mean, they DO eat mice whole. Just gulp down the hatch. But when they eat larger prey (rabbits, gophers and such), they do not eat the stomach. They leave the stomach (with contents), the intestines, and the feet. Which is really gross to find in the yard  . So I was just wondering if anyone had the chance to observe a dog eating whole prey, and if they eat the stomach contents or not.


----------



## AkiraleShiba (Dec 9, 2007)

I have once tried a high quality diet inclusive of grains for my dog and the results were horrible. Now he's on a 42% fish protein and he's doing great and looking great. I will never ever try low protein diets inclusive of grains ever again.

By the way dogs are non-exclusive carnivores they can eat other stuff but they will never thrive on anything else than meat and fish.

The plus about meat proteins is that what the dog does not use is eliminated through urine. 

On the other hand, cereal proteins when unused are transformed into sugar which is stored into the dog's system. It leads to weight gain and eventually diabetes.

I would like to conclude by saying that most information discrediting high protein content comes from big companies like Purina, Iams, Eukanuba and the like. There is only Royal Canin that acknowledge that high levels of proteins are good for dogs. Science is not impartial and scientists depend on grants to conduct research you have to make the best of both sides and choose on what you want to believe. I decide to believe what my eyes see.


----------



## BoxMeIn21 (Apr 10, 2007)

Must Love Belle said:


> Read your own articles...they support what I said. I never said to not feed protein. I think dogs do need protein in moderate levels. Those articles are disputing feeding low protein diets. I agree with them. My argument is high, high levels...i.e. 42%!


Hmm. Perhaps I am confused. Dogs bodies are designed to consume and effectively digest meat and bone (calcuim & protein), but your belief is that high levels of protein will eventually cause them kidney problems?


----------



## TomN (Jul 1, 2007)

Dogs as in Wolves were designed to consume large amounts of protein, especially from meat sources. Their digestive systems were designed to handle it. The question might be what kind of protein. Highly digestible protein from meat sources would be the key here. Protein from a grain heavy feed would not fall into that catagory I would think. The topic of this thread is "can pet food have too much protein". It would certainly depend on what the source of the protein was and whether or not it was highly digestable for dogs.

Agreed that the high protein link to kidney failure in dogs is old and outdated. The original testing was done on rodents and not dogs, so it would be like comparing apples to oranges, as both have entirely different digestive systems. This does not however suggest that a dog with diminished renal function or even renal failure should be on a high protein diet. FWIW


----------



## Must Love Belle (Feb 16, 2008)

BoxMeIn21 said:


> Hmm. Perhaps I am confused. Dogs bodies are designed to consume and effectively digest meat and bone (calcuim & protein), but your belief is that high levels of protein will eventually cause them kidney problems?


My belief is that there is absolute proof that there is a strong link between too much ash in a diet and eventual kidney problems...ash is a by product of protein. In small amounts it is fine...in moderate amounts it is fine...in large amounts I think you're asking for trouble.


----------



## briteday (Feb 10, 2007)

Unless my biochemistry profs were all wrong, ash is produced when mainly bones (yes, the meat also produces an ash residue when incinerated, but not nearly as much as bones) are incinerated/cooked.

Those of us who feed raw diets don't deal with ash contents because we don't cook anything. Our dogs are getting the "un-incinerated" minerals present in the bones that they ingest...calcium, magnesium...

I guess if one were to look at the ash contents on the bags of high protein kibbles, you could find if they are low or high in ash. The protein content is completely separate from the ash content and one has nothing to do with the other. 

Maybe if you could cite a specific article where it states that protein, in the form of meat only, breaks down into ash, I'd like to see it.


----------



## MushPuppies (Sep 13, 2007)

In my younger years, when I did body building, we always ate large amounts of proteins like eggs and chicken. I can't understand how QUALITY, digestible proteins would be harmful to dogs, especially, when in their natural haibitat, they would eat a diet largely consisting of meat. While I was researching some of the ingredients in the Innova 42% protein EVO food that I'm feeding my Huskies presently, I ran across this article from The Dog Food Project.
"Is too much protein harmful?
Old wives tales about dry dog foods high in protein causing kidney disease run rampant both on and off the internet and many people deprive their dogs of what they crave most for fear of damaging their health. 
Unfortunately the whole protein thing is not easily explained in just a few sentences, so bear with me if I ramble on for a while. I'll try to keep it as simple and straightforward as possible without going too much into scientific terms. 
First of all, it is important that we understand that protein isn't only a nutrient - the amino acids it is made up of (think lego bricks forming a bigger structure) also serve as building blocks for body tissues, organs, enzymes, hormones, antibodies and so on - roughly half of the dry body mass of a dog consists of protein. Knowing this it is easy to understand that growing puppies need protein to build above mentioned body tissues, organs, enzymes, hormones, antibodies and both adults and growing puppies constantly need to replace and rebuild these as well. The body recycles amino acids to some extent, but part of them need to be replaced, just like you can't endlessly recycle paper or plastic. 
Protein is processed in the liver and any waste materials are filtered and excreted by the kidneys. High quality protein does not generate large amounts of waste that needs to be removed from the body, but poor quality protein which is difficult to digest does and thus puts stress on the kidneys. The liver needs water to process protein and as a medium to carry waste products to the kidneys, where they are filtered out and most of the water is reabsorbed. The less concentrated the waste products in this primary filtrate are, the easier it is for the kidneys to do their filtering work - that's why it is unhealthy to feed dry food only and so critical that dogs eating mostly or exclusively dry food and dogs with liver disease get lots of extra water. Dogs who eat mostly canned food or a home prepared diet automatically take in more moisture and do not need to compensate as much by drinking. Contrary to what many people think and pet food companies claim, dogs (and cats) do not know instinctively how much extra water they have to drink to make up for what is lacking in the dry food. This is why I so highly recommend that people always add water to the kibble at feeding time. 
Now that we have the basics laid out, we can return to the protein in the food. Many people cite old, outdated research that claims high protein percentages in the food are harmful to dogs and do all kinds of damage, especially to the liver. Fact is that these studies were conducted by feeding dogs foods that were made from poor quality, hard to digest protein sources, such as soy, corn, byproducts, blood meal and so on. From my explanation above, you now already know that it is a question of protein quality that affects the kidneys. Consider a wolf in the wild, who will eat relatively little else but meat if they can help it - these animals don't get kidney diseases on the same scale domestic dogs do. Their protein comes in the form of quality muscle and organ meat though, not processed leftovers from human food processing. It also contains around 70% moisture, whereas most commercial dry foods contain a maximum of 10%. Dogs and other "dog like" animals (canids) evolved eating a diet that consists primarily of meat, fat and bones, which they have been eating for hundreds of thousands of years. Commercial foods, especially dry food, has only been widely available for the past 60 years and we are still learning how much damage certain aspects of it can do. Things have improved quite a bit from hitting rock bottom in the 70s and 80s, but the majority of pet food manufacturers still produce bad foods from poor quality ingredients. 
Just to digress for a moment, when I went to the grocery storeyesterday, I saw that Purina Dog Chow was on sale, $8 for a 22 pound bag. That's a little over 36 cents per pound, including the profit the supermarket makes on it, cost for the pretty, colorful packaging, advertising and all. On top of that, of course the manufacturer (Nestle/Purina) wants to make a profit too. How much do you think the food actually costs them just to make, without any profits? The answer is pennies per pound, which also reflects the ingredient quality. If I calculate a 40% profit margin for each the supermarket and the manufacturer, it comes to about 13 cents per pound. That's $260 per ton of food. Yikes. 
Anyway, back to the protein. Protein in dog food can come from either plant or meat sources. Logically, plant sources are cheaper, especially considering that corn gluten meal, the most popular, cheap protein booster, is a byproduct of the human food processing industry, left over from making corn starch and corn syrup. It has a crude protein content of 60%, so theoretically even if your food recipe contained no other protein sources at all, you could make a food with a 20% crude protein content by mixing it 1:2 with some cheap carb source. 
It is critical to stress that the term "crude protein" is used in the guaranteed analysis, which means there is no statement whatsoever as to its digestibility. Protein comes in many forms, even shoe leather, chicken feathers or cow hooves have a fairly high crude protein content, but the body is only able to extract and process very little of it, at the price of a lot of work and stress to do so. 
Due to this labeling issue (only one of many, many others), the percentage of protein in a food by itself doesn't say anything at all. Ingredient lists are not 100% straightforward and truthful either, but at least you can somewhat gauge if there's even any quality protein in there at all. 
Just to illustrate once again by example, let's say we have two foods which have the same percentages of protein, fat, carbohydrates, fiber and moisture. Food A contains 25% protein that is 60% digestible and food B contains 25% protein that is 85% digestible. That means of food A the body is able to utilize 15% of the protein content, but of food B 21.25%. Logically, to meet the body's requirement of protein, you'd have to feed more of food A than of food B, and the body of the dog eating food B will have to work less to utilize it.
I guess in really simple terms you can compare it to the engine of a car and the type of fuel you use. Just because you use high octane gas in a car that doesn't need it, it's not going to do any damage, but if you use poor quality fuel, regardless whether it is high or low octane, there will be buildup in the engine that hampers performance and will eventually lead to damage."


----------



## Peacekat (Sep 9, 2012)

Since a lot of ground is covered in this forum already, I just want to add a couple things from my experience and thinking. 

First, I inherited a beautiful 12-yr old Golden with a cancer diagnosis (mast cell tumor on thigh) and the first thing I did was research anti-carcinogenic diet. What I learned surprised me, but it was correlated in several places (sorry - it was over a year ago and I no longer have the sources at my fingertips). What I learned was that dogs do not digest grains adequately, which supports the development and growth of cancer cells. (They obviously do not eat grain in nature). The conclusion was clear: no grains. Cancer being such a widespread problem for our pets in this toxic world, I decided that any dog I adopt in the future would go grain-free. Zoey lived over a year beyond her 6-month projected lifespan with this diagnosis.

My newest rescue dog is a little Boston Terrier-Whippet mix. Her fosters gave me a big bag of treats, which she joyfully received as fast as I would dole them out. I also had leftover all-meat duck strips from Zoey, so I snipped them into little bits and gave them to little Gracie. Gracie adored them and flatly refused to go back to any cookie-type baked treats. 

It makes sense to me to listen to our canine friends about their preferences. Different breeds and mixes and individuals will have different preferences. I don't mean feed 'em pizza daily because they ALL love it as far as I can tell :B^) But my Goldens were true omnivores. They loved veggies, some fruits, peanut butter, dairy, etc. etc. including salad, even with dressing. Gracie, a small, athletic little girl of uncertain mixed breeding, loves all things protein and (except for pizza) hold the rest. Can't get her to eat fruits or veggies. I feed her Acana, a regional, quality high-protein kibble (which includes some fruits and veggies) with a spoonful of pro-biotic yogurt mixed with cottage cheese and some roasted chicken strips on top. For treats she gets duck jerky bits. All dogs graze. I always thought the grass thing was about cleansing, but when I looked into this, I found that chlorophyll is anti-carcinogenic.

All that said, where I come out is based on my dogs' expressed preferences tempered by the discerning use of information, scientific and experiential, I find online and in books. Thanks to everyone who contributed to this post.


----------



## boxerlover876 (Dec 31, 2011)

One dog can't be a carnivore and another am omnivore to me. Like you said they may like it, but it may not be needed. They can have preferences for different things or just feel the need to eat them, but they don't need to. My dog ate chocolate and loved it for awhile after it. He was practically addicted to it because chocolate has an addictive effect on dogs. It certainly doesn't mean I'd give it to him.


----------



## flipgirl (Oct 5, 2007)

boxerlover876 said:


> One dog can't be a carnivore and another am omnivore to me. Like you said they may like it, but it may not be needed. They can have preferences for different things or just feel the need to eat them, but they don't need to. My dog ate chocolate and loved it for awhile after it. He was practically addicted to it because chocolate has an addictive effect on dogs. It certainly doesn't mean I'd give it to him.


Not only is chocolate addictive, it's toxic to dogs. Please don't feed your dog chocolate. Some chocolates lime milk chocolate isn't as bad as dark but I'd avoid it.altogether.


----------



## Peacekat (Sep 9, 2012)

boxerlover876 said:


> One dog can't be a carnivore and another am omnivore to me. Like you said they may like it, but it may not be needed. They can have preferences for different things or just feel the need to eat them, but they don't need to. My dog ate chocolate and loved it for awhile after it. He was practically addicted to it because chocolate has an addictive effect on dogs. It certainly doesn't mean I'd give it to him.


Boxerlover: you took me more literally than I intended to be taken. Canines are listed as "extant carnivores," so that settles the matter in scientific terms. In practical experience, some dogs very much enjoy a wide array of foods, including fruits and vegetables. Most dogs seem to prefer animal proteins given a choice, but are amenable to select other foods. I made the reference to pizza precisely in order to make clear that I was NOT advocating letting dogs have anything they want to eat. Your example of chocolate is interesting since conventional wisdom has it that it's dangerous - potentially lethal - to dogs.


----------



## kafkabeetle (Dec 4, 2009)

Peacekat said:


> Boxerlover: you took me more literally than I intended to be taken. Canines are listed as "extant carnivores," so that settles the matter in scientific terms. In practical experience, some dogs very much enjoy a wide array of foods, including fruits and vegetables. Most dogs seem to prefer animal proteins given a choice, but are amenable to select other foods. I made the reference to pizza precisely in order to make clear that I was NOT advocating letting dogs have anything they want to eat. Your example of chocolate is interesting since conventional wisdom has it that it's dangerous - potentially lethal - to dogs.


I think you may be confused. Extant is just the opposite of extinct...it describes a species which is still in existence. I think you mean that dogs are facultative carnivores, which means they eat primarily meat and also some proportion of plant matter. This is true, in that their minimum dietary requirements can maybe sometimes be met by plant matter, unlike obligate carnivores which depend upon certain animal-derived nutrients that their bodies cannot produce, just to stay alive. If we're talking about bare bones, keeping an animal ALIVE and nothing more, dogs could maybe be considered omnivorous (because the distinction between facultative carnivores and omnivores has no established, concrete definition...one just eats a higher proportion of meat than they other). But we're talking about house pets that we want to not just survive, but thrive. I have personally found that my dog does best on high protein, high fat foods with lots of meat and few carbs. I imagine this would be the case for most dogs.

Oh, and I'm not much for letting my dog's preferences dictate what I feed her, because for one thing, the foods I like the best are not always the best for me. And because, well...one of her favorite snacks is cat poop.:laugh: And about chocolate being lethal...yeah duh, that was boxerlover's point-- just because your dog likes it, doesn't mean it's what's best for them.


----------



## boxerlover876 (Dec 31, 2011)

kafkabeetle said:


> I think you may be confused. Extant is just the opposite of extinct...it describes a species which is still in existence. I think you mean that dogs are facultative carnivores, which means they eat primarily meat and also some proportion of plant matter. This is true, in that their minimum dietary requirements can maybe sometimes be met by plant matter, unlike obligate carnivores which depend upon certain animal-derived nutrients that their bodies cannot produce, just to stay alive. If we're talking about bare bones, keeping an animal ALIVE and nothing more, dogs could maybe be considered omnivorous (because the distinction between facultative carnivores and omnivores has no established, concrete definition...one just eats a higher proportion of meat than they other). But we're talking about house pets that we want to not just survive, but thrive. I have personally found that my dog does best on high protein, high fat foods with lots of meat and few carbs. I imagine this would be the case for most dogs.
> 
> Oh, and I'm not much for letting my dog's preferences dictate what I feed her, because for one thing, the foods I like the best are not always the best for me. And because, well...one of her favorite snacks is cat poop.:laugh: And about chocolate being lethal...yeah duh, that was boxerlover's point-- just because your dog likes it, doesn't mean it's what's best for them.


I'm glad someone understood the chocolate example.

Anyway I agree with basically everything said here.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

A slightly related question, sort to hyjack for a moment but I think it has relevance to this discussion:

I recently read that earthborn holistic has 713 grams of protien per cup or whatever... Is this accurate or not? I couldn't find anything saying if it is or not.


----------



## zhaor (Jul 2, 2009)

dogdragoness said:


> A slightly related question, sort to hyjack for a moment but I think it has relevance to this discussion:
> 
> I recently read that earthborn holistic has 713 grams of protien per cup or whatever... Is this accurate or not? I couldn't find anything saying if it is or not.


um....no.

Looking at primitive natural, 38% protein, 3800kcal/kg, 445kcal/cup, that's 44.5 grams protein per cup and only 117grams of food per cup.


----------



## Peacekat (Sep 9, 2012)

kafkabeetle said:


> I think you may be confused. Extant is just the opposite of extinct...it describes a species which is still in existence. I think you mean that dogs are facultative carnivores, which means they eat primarily meat and also some proportion of plant matter. This is true, in that their minimum dietary requirements can maybe sometimes be met by plant matter, unlike obligate carnivores which depend upon certain animal-derived nutrients that their bodies cannot produce, just to stay alive. If we're talking about bare bones, keeping an animal ALIVE and nothing more, dogs could maybe be considered omnivorous (because the distinction between facultative carnivores and omnivores has no established, concrete definition...one just eats a higher proportion of meat than they other). But we're talking about house pets that we want to not just survive, but thrive. I have personally found that my dog does best on high protein, high fat foods with lots of meat and few carbs. I imagine this would be the case for most dogs.
> 
> Oh, and I'm not much for letting my dog's preferences dictate what I feed her, because for one thing, the foods I like the best are not always the best for me. And because, well...one of her favorite snacks is cat poop.:laugh: And about chocolate being lethal...yeah duh, that was boxerlover's point-- just because your dog likes it, doesn't mean it's what's best for them.


The point of what I wrote was that dogs are classified as carnivores, not omnivores. 

Boxerlover wrote: "My dog ate chocolate and loved it for awhile after it. He was practically addicted to it because chocolate has an addictive effect on dogs." I don't think I was the only one who misunderstood her to be saying she gave her dog chocolate. I'm relieved to know her problem was with the English language, not the conventional wisdom about chocolate and dogs. Too bad you didn't go to the same lengths to understand my post.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Did you forget to quote the last line of boxerlover's post? 



> My dog ate chocolate and loved it for awhile after it. He was practically addicted to it because chocolate has an addictive effect on dogs. *It certainly doesn't mean I'd give it to him.*


Also, I don't think that kafkabeetle misunderstood your post because she didn't read it correctly -- you just weren't being as clear as you thought you were. First you claimed that your goldens were "true omnivores" just because they liked eating veggies. Then you clarified that you know that all dogs are actually "extant carnivores," when, as kafka pointed out, you probably meant "facultative carnivores" as opposed to "obligate carnivores" (which cats, for example, are). Yes, many dogs enjoy eating veggies! They get some benefits from doing so. It doesn't mean that they would thrive on a diet of mainly veggies. I'm not sure what point you're actually attempting to make here.

Also, this thread is four years old! I'm sure there are more recent threads that go more in-depth on the protein issue.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Yeah, I love Micky D's but it doesn't mean it's good for me 

Oh & crap I just realized that I means 713 CALORIES per cup not protien sorry for the flub up lol.


----------



## kafkabeetle (Dec 4, 2009)

dogdragoness said:


> Yeah, I love Micky D's but it doesn't mean it's good for me
> 
> Oh & crap I just realized that I means 713 CALORIES per cup not protien sorry for the flub up lol.


Oh, in that case, it's actually 445 calories per cup. It's listed on the website as kilo-calories per cup, but it's essentially the same thing. http://www.earthbornholisticpetfood.com/us/dog_formulas/primitive_natural/guaranteed_analysis.php



Peacekat said:


> The point of what I wrote was that dogs are classified as carnivores, not omnivores.
> 
> Boxerlover wrote: "My dog ate chocolate and loved it for awhile after it. He was practically addicted to it because chocolate has an addictive effect on dogs." I don't think I was the only one who misunderstood her to be saying she gave her dog chocolate. I'm relieved to know her problem was with the English language, not the conventional wisdom about chocolate and dogs. *Too bad you didn't go to the same lengths to understand my post.*


Well, you clearly chopped up that quote to make it sound like boxerlover was being unclear about whether or not they were FEEDING their dog chocolate, when really it was quite clear. The last sentence changes the entire meaning of the example. If anyone was confused they misread what boxerlover wrote. Could it be that YOUR problem is with the English language as well? Or are you just being intentionally deceptive?

While we're taking people's words out of context, I'll just leave this here:


Peacekat said:


> *But my Goldens were true omnivores*. They loved veggies, some fruits, peanut butter, dairy, etc. etc. including salad, even with dressing.


Who could possibly think you thought dogs were omnivores, right? LOL


----------



## Bear2010 (Aug 21, 2012)

Must Love Belle said:


> Without even touching on the topic of whether grains are good or bad for dogs(that's a whole seperate topic)  I want to explain that I did not quote what I said above from any aritcle I read. My research in kidney functions began with studying the road to kidney problems. For instance what causes Struvite Crystals. I studied how they were treated and if overtreated what the outcome can be (i.e. Stuvite crystals develop when the dog's system becomes too alkaline; usually caused by feeding too much carbohydrate and not enough protein. But if they are overtreated, in other words is the dogs system is kept too acidic for too long Oxalate Crystals can form. Of the two; Oxalate are much worse) More reasearch led me to how this can be regulated by the diet and why it is important to keep ash to a minimum (ash which contains calcium, phosphorus, sodium chloride, potassium, and other minerals) and is produced by all proteins.
> 
> Fact 1: All proteins produce ash
> Fact 2: Too much ash in a dogs diet will cause kidney problems over time (if you doubt this look up ash; and it's effects on the kidneys)
> ...


I support this as well,my vet is very versed on the protein levels for puppies and adult dogs as mentioned in one of my previous posts.Longterm over amounts of protein cannot be absorbed (not needed) therefore causes the kidneys to overwork and can put a strain on them for later in life problems.


----------



## kafkabeetle (Dec 4, 2009)

Bear2010 said:


> I support this as well,my vet is very versed on the protein levels for puppies and adult dogs as mentioned in one of my previous posts.Longterm over amounts of protein cannot be absorbed (not needed) therefore causes the kidneys to overwork and can put a strain on them for later in life problems.


As was mentioned in the other thread, this is based on old research. It is now understood that healthy kidneys can process high protein diets just fine. It is only animals with pre-existing kidney disease that need to watch the protein. Protein will never CAUSE kidney disease. Anyone who might have been convinced by Must Love Belle's impressive list of sources should note that they were all published in the 1950s and 1960s. I think we can all agree that our understanding of nutrition, while still imperfect, has improved since then! Some are over 60 years old!

Considering dogs are optimized to eat raw meat, bones and organs, which contain upwards of 40% protein on a day matter basis, I find it troubling that people suggest high protein is harmful. If you lower the protein in a food your have to raise the fat or carbs to replace it, both of which can be much more harmful. When you say people should stick to lower protein foods, what you're really saying is people should stick to foods with significantly less meat, and more carbs, whether they come from rice or potato. IMO, this is not a logical choice for our carnivorous companions.

Here's a quick explanation of the confusion regarding high protein and kidney health. http://www.peteducation.com/article.cfm?c=0+1770&aid=1104

Here's a study suggesting that high protein diets had no adverse affect on kidney function over 4 years in dogs that had had a 75% nephrectomy (most of their kidneys had been removed due to disease). It's from 1986, so I'm looking for newer studies as well.


----------



## boxerlover876 (Dec 31, 2011)

Peacekat said:


> The point of what I wrote was that dogs are classified as carnivores, not omnivores.
> 
> Boxerlover wrote: "My dog ate chocolate and loved it for awhile after it. He was practically addicted to it because chocolate has an addictive effect on dogs." I don't think I was the only one who misunderstood her to be saying she gave her dog chocolate. I'm relieved to know her problem was with the English language, not the conventional wisdom about chocolate and dogs. Too bad you didn't go to the same lengths to understand my post.


Well that's a new kind of insult. I can promise you I have no problems with grammar or flow with the English language. Apparently you read it wrong though. No need to move the blame beyond you.


----------



## zhaor (Jul 2, 2009)

I would actually agree that there CAN be too much protein. Anything in excess can present issues. Dog's may be carnivores but that certainly doesn't mean their diet is pure protein. For example it's completely possible to feed a low protein diet compose of primarily raw organs and meat.

However I don't believe commercial dog foods reach anywhere near the level of "too much protein". Limited meat content along with the fact that vegetable based protein are not as absorbable makes the actual protein intake lower than the analysis to begin with. I wouldn't be worried about "too much protein" in commercial diets. "too much low quality protein" perhaps but that's why it's important to find good quality ingredients in foods.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

zhaor said:


> For example it's completely possible to feed a low protein diet compose of primarily raw organs and meat.


I'm not sure how? Being that meat is, on a dry matter basis, about 75% protein, and some organs even higher, I'm not sure how you could do that.


----------



## kafkabeetle (Dec 4, 2009)

Willowy said:


> I'm not sure how? Being that meat is, on a dry matter basis, about 75% protein, and some organs even higher, I'm not sure how you could do that.


Yeah, I'm confused by that too. I can agree with the rest of the post, though.


----------



## Kathyy (Jun 15, 2008)

All I know is Sassy, who suffered from kidney disease, did better on 28% protein mostly from chicken than 22% protein kibble and Maxwell gained 15% of his body weight in useful muscle when he went from 22% kibble to ~50% raw food as a senior dog. Sassy's kidney values didn't increase with the addition of the protein and she remained on her feet and eating to the end of her life.

IAMS own study showed that dog maintained higher lean body mass on 28-32% chicken protein than less protein or combined 28-32% chicken and vegetable protein. It isn't much of a study but is sure mirrors my own experience.
http://www.iams.com/pet-health/dog-article/importance-of-animal-based-proteins-in-dog-foods


----------



## zhaor (Jul 2, 2009)

Willowy said:


> I'm not sure how? Being that meat is, on a dry matter basis, about 75% protein, and some organs even higher, I'm not sure how you could do that.


One simple way would simply be higher fat. Considering calories wise, 1g of fat is more than double 1g of protein, just adding a little fat to the food can reduce the protein intake by a lot. Although of course there's issues with a food being too fatty.

Really it just comes down to that protein content in diets is determined by the total amount of protein consumed so if a 10kg dog only eats 22g of protein a day, it doesn't matter if that protein came from a 99% food or a 20% food, it's still a low protein diet.

Btw where are you getting the dmb percentages? 75% seems higher than what I would expect.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

Must Love Belle said:


> _"Myth: DOGS ARE OMNIVORES.
> Dogs are carnivores, not omnivores. Dogs ARE very adaptable, but just because they can survive on an omnivorous diet does not mean it is the best diet for them. "_
> 
> ... ok but it does prove they are omnivores. Additionally this is a site dedicated to raw diets. Hmmm???


Things get messed up here, because there are more than 3 diet classifications, but it depends on how detailed you want to get.

Dogs are carnivores, however they can also get all the nutrients they need from non-meat food sources. While not ideal, they can survive, unlike cats who have nutritional deficiencies (i.e. taurine) that can only be made up by the consumption of meat.

Dogs are OPPORTUNISTIC carnivores. That means they do best on a strictly meat-based diet, but can survive just fine on other foods if they have to.

Cats are OBLIGATE carnivores. They cannot obtain all the nutrients they need from a plant-based diet.


> Some carnivores, particularly cats (family Felidae), are obligate carnivores, meaning they cannot obtain all the nutrients that they need from the plant kingdom and bacteria.


 - Encyclopedia britanica



> dogs are opportunistic carnivores, meaning they eat meat whenever they can find it, and cats are obligate carnivores, meaning they must eat meat regularly to survive.
> 
> Read more: http://therealowner.com/cats/can-my-dog-or-cat-be-vegetarian/#ixzz267H24UMN


Bears and pigs are TRUE omnivores. They do well on pretty much whatever they can find.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

zhaor said:


> Btw where are you getting the dmb percentages? 75% seems higher than what I would expect.


I ran the percentages of some commercial raw pet food I have in the freezer (Nature's Menu) through a cat food DMB calculator. It's all meat and organs, no plant matter, but does include supplements (no bone). It came up as 71% protein. I don't really know how that compares to pure muscle meat, pure organ meat, or meat including bone and fat, but around that anyway .


----------



## zhaor (Jul 2, 2009)

Ah i see. I was doing rough calculations based on about 70% water so 30% dry matter. From what I can find meat as a whole was closer to 18-20% protein so that's more like 60-67% without water. If you then make it 10% moisture like with dry food, that's like 54-60% protein. Still mine were only rough estimates and protein content depends on the cut of the meat and the animal and seems to even vary depending on where it was raised and what it's raised on.

I was hoping maybe you had some big meat nutrition table out there


----------



## kafkabeetle (Dec 4, 2009)

gingerkid said:


> Things get messed up here, because there are more than 3 diet classifications, but it depends on how detailed you want to get.
> 
> Dogs are carnivores, however they can also get all the nutrients they need from non-meat food sources. While not ideal, they can survive, unlike cats who have nutritional deficiencies (i.e. taurine) that can only be made up by the consumption of meat.
> 
> ...


This excerpt from the Wikipedia page on carnivores might also be helpful. 



Wikipedia: "Carnivore" said:


> Animals that depend solely on animal flesh for their nutrient requirements are considered obligate carnivores while those that also consume non-animal food are considered facultative carnivores.[2] Omnivores also consume both animal and non-animal food, and apart from the more general definition, there is no clearly defined ratio of plant to animal material that would distinguish a facultative carnivore from an omnivore, or an omnivore from a facultative herbivore, for that matter.[3]


To me this explains the source of all the confusion. If there's no clearly defined ratio, people can really use whichever term they want, but I do think it's a misuse of the word to say that dogs are omnivores. Their bodies are clearly more optimized for the consumption of meat...their teeth are perfect example. But the two words bleed into each other and it makes things difficult.

Human teeth









Dog teeth









Look how much wider and flatter human teeth are, which makes them good for grinding plant matter. Yet canine teeth are primarily thin and sharp and pointy, because they're optimized for ripping and shredding animal flesh. The difference becomes pretty clear if you ever see a dog try to eat something like broccoli. They can only chop it up, instead of grinding it (their mouth only opens up and down, not side to side like ours) so bits fall out of their mouth and it's generally just a very inefficient process.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

My zoology profs always used the term "opportunistic" in the same way as my microbiology prof used "facultative" (which was the same way you and wikipedia have used it). Perhaps a regional difference in jargon?

Believe me, I have seen enough skulls of mammals to be able to figure out their general diet based on dentition! I also used to be able to classify different families of voles based on the skull. Seriously, after that, getting most common mammals down to genus is easy!

And yeah, confusion really comes when you start blending zoology jargon with every-day language.... to anyone who's taken a higher-level biology class, carnivore can mean either a) a mammal who's dentition is specialized for the consumption of animals, or b) a mammal from the order _Carnivora_, but the average person doesn't know either of these definitions, having only learned the word carnivore in grade-school science, where it is used to indicate animals that only eat meat (which, as evidenced by dogs, isn't strictly true). While a more famous example of the same issue is the word "theory".... To people without science training, a theory is just an idea that hasn't been proven yet.... but to anyone who's in science it is essentially law!


----------



## kafkabeetle (Dec 4, 2009)

gingerkid said:


> My zoology profs always used the term "opportunistic" in the same way as my microbiology prof used "facultative" (which was the same way you and wikipedia have used it). Perhaps a regional difference in jargon?
> 
> Believe me, I have seen enough skulls of mammals to be able to figure out their general diet based on dentition! I also used to be able to classify different families of voles based on the skull. Seriously, after that, getting most common mammals down to genus is easy!
> 
> And yeah, confusion really comes when you start blending zoology jargon with every-day language.... to anyone who's taken a higher-level biology class, carnivore can mean either a) a mammal who's dentition is specialized for the consumption of animals, or b) a mammal from the order _Carnivora_, but the average person doesn't know either of these definitions, having only learned the word carnivore in grade-school science, where it is used to indicate animals that only eat meat (which, as evidenced by dogs, isn't strictly true). While a more famous example of the same issue is the word "theory".... To people without science training, a theory is just an idea that hasn't been proven yet.... but to anyone who's in science it is essentially law!


Oh, I was actually assuming opportunistic and facultative were roughly synonymous. And I hear you on people not understanding scientific terms. It's pretty frustrating when you have to define all the simple definitions before you can have an actual discussion on something!


----------



## TTs Towel (May 22, 2012)

.......................


----------



## kafkabeetle (Dec 4, 2009)

TTs Towel said:


> We could debate for years on whether a dog is a true carnivore or whatever. But, back to the question at hand...
> 
> Wanna know what happens to all that excess protein? It doesn't just get flushed through the kidneys as some big whole protein (not that it would be able to make it into a healthy kidney anyways since the filtration prevents this) - that'd be a huge waste. The body is much to resourceful to waste a valuable energy source. All that excess protein you're paying for is turning into the same thing that the other energy sources (like carbs) are turning into = energy for the dog and/or fat. See below - some of you I bet are familiar with this process.
> 
> ...


Except that excess carbohydrates have other consequences as well, such as raising blood sugar, causing tooth decay and in excessive amounts, leading to diabetes. The same is true for humans to a lesser degree, btw. I don't agree that less active dogs can't still benefit from lower carb/higher protein foods.


----------



## zhaor (Jul 2, 2009)

TTs Towel said:


> We could debate for years on whether a dog is a true carnivore or whatever. But, back to the question at hand...
> 
> Wanna know what happens to all that excess protein? It doesn't just get flushed through the kidneys as some big whole protein (not that it would be able to make it into a healthy kidney anyways since the filtration prevents this) - that'd be a huge waste. The body is much to resourceful to waste a valuable energy source. All that excess protein you're paying for is turning into the same thing that the other energy sources (like carbs) are turning into = energy for the dog and/or fat. See below - some of you I bet are familiar with this process.
> 
> ...


Yup and simple sugars are the easiest things to convert to energy. So best diet plan would be pure sugar + just the small amounts of amino acids and fatty acids used for maintenance and maybe a multivitamin. Right?

Nutrition isn't that simple. Nutrition even for humans isn't fully understood. We all understand most of the basic mechanism but the living body is a very complex system with lots of variables and everything affects something else. That's why nutrition is always talked about as a balance.


----------



## DaViking (Apr 13, 2012)

Many good points in this thread. It's not all cut'n dry. One thing that haven't been mentioned is water intake and high protein diets. More proteins means more nitrogen. High intake levels of protein can lead to increased water loss because the body excretes water to dispose of urea, a substance formed in the breakdown of protein. What happens is that the water intake increases and a flushing starts. There is no evidence today that this flushing of the kidneys is dangerous in any way so that's not my point. My point is that not all of this excess water comes out during urination. Some of this water also leads to a mild flushing of the colon. Meaning stools get more watery/moist and the transit time shortens. This is not good for assimilation. I see it more and more today, moist stools of average "quality" at best and this has become more or less the norm if you are not more than average interested in canine nutrition.

This is a quote from Livestrong. It's directed towards humans but as TT's link above shows amino acid metabolism is the same.

"
According to Lee Knight Caffery of Vanderbilt University, the more protein you eat, the more water you're likely to lose through sweat or urine. When urea---the byproduct of broken-down protein---needs to be excreted, and your body sends water along with it. While on a high-protein diet you may notice an increase in how much you sweat or how many times you need to go to the bathroom during the day. If this is the case, be sure to drink more water than you normally do to compensate for the fluids you're losing.
"

Here's the Vanderbilt link

I think the best thing that's come from all the focus on GF formulas the last years are the inclusion of more animal sources at the expense of simple carbohydrate products. Not necessarily ultra high protein levels. I know it might sound odd but there is a difference there. I like the shift of focus, doesn't mean I personally like many of the newer GF formulas, if that makes sense.


----------



## jpoolework (Sep 25, 2012)

http://www.petmd.com/dog/nutrition/evr_dg_focusing_on_protein_in_the_diet

This should answer everyone's question about the "too much protein" question. This is a recent article written by a DVM.

I've also been told by many vets and a few holistic feed stores that Evo Red Meat and Orijen Regional Red are two of the top foods to feed a dog. Both of which are very high in protein.


----------



## DaViking (Apr 13, 2012)

jpoolework said:


> http://www.petmd.com/dog/nutrition/evr_dg_focusing_on_protein_in_the_diet
> 
> This should answer everyone's question about the "too much protein" question. This is a recent article written by a DVM.
> 
> I've also been told by many vets and a few holistic feed stores that Evo Red Meat and Orijen Regional Red are two of the top foods to feed a dog. Both of which are very high in protein.


Don't know how much it "answer everyone's question" re. too much protein? It's a good article, however not very controversial really. The article doesn't offer any concrete advice. In 2012 most agree with the core message of the article, the bulk of the food should come from animal sources. Meaning more protein than was traditionally found in dog food. The article mention a 30%+ protein level. This is all good and most will agree that 30%+ is no problem, and maybe desirable for many. Older "classic" type foods are usually in the 22 to 26% range but formulas with 30 to 34% protein have also been around for a long time and are well documented. If that's what we are talking about in regards to the 30%+ most nutritionists will have no problem signing off on it. It's when we are talking about levels above 35% and in some cases in the 40s some are starting to question if this is appropriate for your average porch hound, backyard rover or couch potato. At these levels the quality of the protein sources also starts to play a more critical role.

I feel this article is more aimed at those who feed low quality big box and grocery store formulas and those who never got the memo on dogs needing a high amount of animal sources.

fwiw, vets and feed store owners are pretty much all over the map in their recommendations. Most vets are more than happy to send you on your way with a bag of Science Diet. We all know Science Diet is not the best thing since sliced bread.


----------



## NewPuppyBigCity (Oct 4, 2011)

hi everyone! I came across this thread in my search for protein discussions. I am in the process of finding new adult food for my 1 year and 3 month old puppy. He is a cavalier poodle mix and weighs about 13 pounds. He currently eats Wellness super5 just for puppy, but the adult version is not so good. I would like to try Merrick since I think they are a well-rounded brand with a lot of choices, however I am worried the protein content may be a bit to high. We give our pup a lot of meat-based chews (bully sticks, trachea, etc) and I'm concerned that those chews combined with a high protein food will go overboard. Does anyone have any opinion as to if it's a bad idea?

Thanks!!


----------

