I suspect (but don't know) that the other nutrient content of raw meats might have more variance--minerals or vitamins.

And this study intentionally removed the fats from the sample sources (which was appropriate for their study, this was only a survey of proteins)...but we all know that there is wide variance between the fatty acids among animal sources.

I'm still of the common sense opinion that good nutrition comes from eating an abundant variety of minimally processed, species-appropriate foods. Some species are adapted to live on very little variety. Pandas, penguins and anteaters can thrive eating a single species of food. But, IMO, dogs benefit from dietary variety.

Still, quite an interesting report. Thanks.

If you are serious, then I apologize for my tone.

It's hard for me to accept that you are, however, if you are going to refute something after 5 weeks using a paper from 1943 that references a study from 1942 and continuing to refer to a book written by Dr. Campbell, some of whose work can be found here: http://www.petasearch.org/texis/search?dropXSL=&pr=default&prox=page&rorder=500&rprox=500&rdfreq=500&rwfreq=500&rlead=500&sufs=0&query=colin+campbell&submit=Go .

Have you seen this?
http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html

Here's an interesting paragraph:

The generalization from the milk protein casein to all "nutrients from animal-based foods" is clearly unwarranted. If Campbell took caution to study the issue further before generalizing from casein to all proteins, why didn't he take the same caution before generalizing from casein to all animal proteins or all animal nutrients? Indeed, Campbell later acknowledges that he is making this generalization: ". . . casein, and very likely all animal proteins, may be the most relevant cancer-causing substances that we consume." 16 Why this generalization is "very likely" to be true is left unexplained.

Maybe Dr. Campbell is best left to other types of forums.

Interesting, though!

 Quote: Tracy Collins

... I suspect (but don't know) that the other nutrient content of raw meats might have more variance--minerals or vitamins.

It does. You are correct.

 Quote: Simon Raban

I also feed once per week organ meats (mainly livers and gizzards).

Gizzards are not organ meat, they are muscle meat. Organs are liver, spleen, pancreas, kidney (if it's naturally stinky when its fresh it's probably an organ). Heart is a muscle meat.

As far as vegetable matter in my dog's diet... I feed them the whole prey animal, including whatever partially digested vegetation is in the intestines (my dogs lap up the green pudding). I think they do best with digestible greens included in their diets.

The study from 1943 is still valid from a perspective of measuring amino acid content in meats and its conclusion that there is no significant difference in amino acids except for muscle meats and organ meat sources. The reference for the China Study was not due to its conclusion regarding animal protein on human health, but due to reference made by Dr. Campbell that amino acids contents in animal products is virtually similar to Casein and has the same impact. By the way, it is absurd to claim that The China Study was supported by PETA. The study was supported by the Cancer Institute and had nothing to do with PETA.

Regarding your repeated claim about the farm raised versus farmed fish. Sure there is a difference in nutrient content. Farm raised fish, for example, do not contain Omega-3 oils (assuming they were fed typical grain based diet for farm raised samon), but I have not seen evidence that their protein is significantly different.

If you have any scientific basis to support your comments regarding the different protein sources due to amino acid content, then by all means, bring it here. Otherwise, it seems you are making baseless claims that just misinform others.

Assuming you're correct about amino acid similarities between meat sources (and I have no way of refuting it)...what practical application does this information suggest? What are you suggesting those of us who feed a diet based on raw meat do with this info? Or is it just of interest?

The notion of dietary variety as a key to nutritional completeness seems based in common sense, no?

 Quote: Tracy Collins

The notion of dietary variety as a key to nutritional completeness seems based in common sense, no?

This is all that matters, IMO.

 Quote: Simon Raban

By the way, it is absurd to claim that The China Study was supported by PETA. The study was supported by the Cancer Institute and had nothing to do with PETA. ...

The China Study from the 80s was done by someone with strong PETA ties.

And I am going to say again that neither a study nor a book advocating a vegetarian diet applies to a dog-feeding forum.

Have you read any of the many peer reviews of the doctor's conclusions?

To round out your reliance on Dr. Campbell's book a little, you might want to look at
http://drlwilson.com/Articles/CHINA%20STUDY%20BOOK%20REVIEW.htm
http://www.westonaprice.org/bookreviews/chinastudy.html
http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html

Again, though, I found the book interesting, and I learned some stuff when I read it. OTOH, I found some statements presented as fact that had zero backup at all.


But about my "baseless claims that misinform others" about different amino acid profiles besides just between organ and non-organ meat :
Below:
If you scroll down to the chart on page 2, below the explanation of how amino acid acid content is determined, you can compare, say, beef and milk casein, in light of your original posts on this topic:

 Quote: simon raban

As far as I know, all animal protein is the same -- Casein (ref The China Study by Prof Cambell).

and later:

 Quote: simon raban

.... there is no significant difference in amino acids except for muscle meats and organ meat sources. ...

and later:

 Quote: simon raban

... reference made by Dr. Campbell that amino acids contents in animal products is virtually similar to Casein ...

http://www.scientificpsychic.com/fitness/aminoacids.html
http://www.scientificpsychic.com/fitness/aminoacids1.html
(Scroll to :The following table shows representative amino acid profiles of some common foods and dietary protein supplements.) Note that casein has a very different amino acid profile from beef. If you look up the amino acid profile for casein elsewhere, you will find that this chart is not a typo.

The following extract may help to explain why diversity in protein sources is important. QUOTE: If the content of a single indispensable amino acid in the food is less than an individual's requirement, other amino acids cannot be used for normal protein synthesis even when the total nitrogen intake level is adequate. Thus, the "limiting amino acid" will determine the nutritional value of the total nitrogen or protein in the diet. END QUOTE


Here, as with most dietary considerations (canine as well as human), variety minimizes reliance on one source to provide critical nutrients.

I recommend this book: Amino Acids in Animal Nutrition By J. P. Felix. One of many amino acid facets it explores and explains is how the feed given to slaughter animals changes the amino acid profiles of the resulting meat yield (same animal, same strain).

 Quote: simon raban

... Regarding your repeated claim about the farm raised versus farmed fish. Sure there is a difference in nutrient content .... but I have not seen evidence that their protein is significantly different.

http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Doi=67041
QUOTE: Wild salmon had a higher content of amino acids than farmed salmon. END QUOTE

I hope that a couple of your concerns have been addressed. However, we need to take it to PMs if not, because this thread has been severely highjacked now from its subject (vegetable matter in raw feeding).

But you brought up interesting points!


And back to Vegetables in a Raw Diet.

Simon

You may want to reexamine your facts here. If you go to our web site in the section on feeding dogs you will find a Q&A section on feeding raw.

I will hazard a guess that Cindy has more experience on feeding raw than anyone in the study you mention.

With that said the focus of what YOU personally should be doing with your dog should be to focus on the best for your dog.

There are plenty of STUPID people and STUDIES out there - don't buy people who lack experience OR have ulterior motives for their work.

Keep your motives pure and try to do the best for your dog - don't get bogged down in the bullshit from people who simple don't know.


Ed