Angela Burrell wrote 06/05/2009 01:36 PM Re: Kibble vs Raw [Re: Aaron Myracle ] #242735 - 06/05/2009 01:36 PM
Angela Burrell Webboard User Reg: 05-10-2006 Posts: 2273 Loc: Ontario, Canada Offline	Hi Jo, I know you asked for an article but you gave anecdote of your dog I've had a dog (more than one dog and more than one time) vomit due running or playing too hard, or I had fed a raw meal and the dog ate a chunk too big and regurgitated, nine plus hours after being fed kibble. The kibble in the vomit was perfectly formed and only slightly softened. The kibble was meat based and grain free. I have seen grain-containing kibble in vomit many hours after being eaten (6+ hours) and it seems to swell up after that amount of time. The grain free kibble didn't seem to swell. I also would like to see the results of canids being fed food containing marker and how long exactly did it take to pass. Edited by Angela Burrell (06/05/2009 01:38 PM) Edit reason: whoops, typo
Top
Connie Sutherland wrote 06/05/2009 01:38 PM Re: Kibble vs Raw [Re: Aaron Myracle ] #242736 - 06/05/2009 01:38 PM
Connie Sutherland Moderator Reg: 07-13-2005 Posts: 31571 Loc: North-Central coast of California Offline	Quote: Alyssa Myracle Kibble has to be rehydrated before it can be digested. It takes how ever long it takes a stomach to rehydrate kibble. Raw is full of liquid, and needs no rehydration. And grain and other starches take longer for the canine system to process (to the extent that it can). But we were looking for some authoritative statement or study, and they do exist; I have read them. I'm sure others here have too, but now I have to find online mention.
Top
Tracy Collins wrote 06/05/2009 01:42 PM Re: Kibble vs Raw [Re: Aaron Myracle ] #242737 - 06/05/2009 01:42 PM
Tracy Collins Webboard User Reg: 10-09-2008 Posts: 1917 Loc: St. Louis, Missouri Offline	I don't even feed kibble, but here's something I've always wanted to know (seriously, I'm not trying to be a wise ass): What difference does it make that some categories of foods take longer to digest than others? Is there a suggestion that eating combined foods causes a problem? I'm thinking of an over-simplified scenario such as, say, tuna salad on white bread. The bread is nearly digested by the time it is swallowed--most of the starch is converted to sugar by saliva. And each ingredient in the salad would take a somewhat different amount of time to break down in the stomach and small intestine: fish, fat, bits of celery... Yeah, I know, dogs aren't people, and they don't eat tuna salad on white. But if a dog can digest meat, and can digest kibble, what's the diff if they are fed together or separately? Even in a simple raw item like a leg quarter the meat is digested faster than the bone. What am I not getting? Cinco | Jack | Fanny | Ellie | Chip | Deacon
Top
Angela Burrell wrote 06/05/2009 01:49 PM Re: Kibble vs Raw [Re: Tracy Collins ] #242739 - 06/05/2009 01:49 PM
Angela Burrell Webboard User Reg: 05-10-2006 Posts: 2273 Loc: Ontario, Canada Offline	Because raw meat has high levels of bacteria. If is is slowed down significantly in its travels by the presence of very slow digesting kibble, the bacteria has time to marry and raise its family - leading to possible illness. Especially in young, old or sick animals. I learned this from the Wise one, Connie
Top
JessicaKromer wrote 06/05/2009 01:50 PM Re: Kibble vs Raw [Re: Angela Burrell ] #242740 - 06/05/2009 01:50 PM
JessicaKromer Webboard User Reg: 10-28-2006 Posts: 991 Loc: CA Offline	It can also cause digestive issues from tummy ache, gas and vomit. For my dogs, it gives them a bad gut ache, and loose stool. Jessica
Top
Peter Marek wrote 06/05/2009 02:06 PM Re: Kibble vs Raw [Re: JessicaKromer ] #242742 - 06/05/2009 02:06 PM
Peter Marek Webboard User Reg: 03-05-2009 Posts: 274 Loc: NJ, USA Offline	Here is some good research on the intestinal tract of a canine. If you look a the bottom of page 6 and top of page 7 in the PDF (not the actual numbered pages) you will see references to predominantly liquid meals and predominately meal based foods. Other good information in here as well. Enjoy! http://journals.cambridge.org/production/action/cjoGetFulltext?fulltextid=593440 No, I am not an alien!
Top
Jo Harker wrote 06/05/2009 02:06 PM Re: Kibble vs Raw [Re: Angela Burrell ] #242743 - 06/05/2009 02:06 PM
Jo Harker Webboard User Reg: 10-24-2008 Posts: 921 Loc: Indiana Offline	Quote: angela burrell Because raw meat has high levels of bacteria. If is is slowed down significantly in its travels by the presence of very slow digesting kibble, the bacteria has time to marry and raise its family - leading to possible illness. Especially in young, old or sick animals. I learned this from the Wise one, Connie I wonder if it isn't also the fact that with the "grains" and bacteria, any salmonella, ecoli, etc in the kibble could proliferate and/or the grains feed the bacteria from the meat.... Connie? Edited by Jo Harker (06/05/2009 02:07 PM) Edit reason: Am I stupid? My question is answered by the quote...duh. Look! I DO fit in the bag.
Top
Connie Sutherland wrote 06/05/2009 02:27 PM Re: Kibble vs Raw [Re: Peter Marek ] #242750 - 06/05/2009 02:27 PM
Connie Sutherland Moderator Reg: 07-13-2005 Posts: 31571 Loc: North-Central coast of California Offline	Quote: Peter Marek Here is some good research on the intestinal tract of a canine. If you look a the bottom of page 6 and top of page 7 in the PDF (not the actual numbered pages) you will see references to predominantly liquid meals and predominately meal based foods. Other good information in here as well. Enjoy! http://journals.cambridge.org/production/action/cjoGetFulltext?fulltextid=593440 It's saying there there that density = slowed emptying. Pretty clear: Stomach emptied of kibble in 900 minutes (+/- 60); canned 420-480 minutes, fresh 240-360 minutes. I didn't know there was that much difference between canned and fresh. But anyway, it's kibble and fresh we wanted, and there it is. Good Googling, Peter!
Top
Jo Harker wrote 06/05/2009 02:31 PM Re: Kibble vs Raw [Re: Connie Sutherland ] #242751 - 06/05/2009 02:31 PM
Jo Harker Webboard User Reg: 10-24-2008 Posts: 921 Loc: Indiana Offline	From the http://journals.cambridge.org/production/action/cjoGetFulltext?fulltextid=593440  Quote: The major enzymes present in the lumen of the stomach are lipase and pepsin. Dog gastric lipase is a 49 kDa glycoprotein containing 13 % carbohydrate which is formed by a single polypeptide chain of 377-379 amino acid residues, acting on both long and short chain triglycerides. At pH 4 this lipase is 13 times more active on long-chain than on shortchain triacylglycerols (Carrikre et al. 1991). The lipase is irreversibly inactivated below pH 1.5, its activity also decreases significantly above pH 6.0, and it is completely inactivated at pH 7.0. At pH values below 6.0, which normally prevail in the duodenum after ingestion of a liquid meal, a gastric lipase activity of c. 90 % is recovered (Carrikre ef al. 1993). So, feebly wondering about the high PH level inactivating the lipase enzyme (needed for digesting fat?), if that occurs because of grains raising the ph? Connie, what say you? Anyone? Look! I DO fit in the bag.
Top
Connie Sutherland wrote 06/05/2009 02:33 PM Re: Kibble vs Raw [Re: Connie Sutherland ] #242752 - 06/05/2009 02:33 PM
Connie Sutherland Moderator Reg: 07-13-2005 Posts: 31571 Loc: North-Central coast of California Offline	Interestingly (I do not mean that sarcastically), that is what many raw-feeding sites say: 2 to 3 times as long for kibble as for fresh. So correct info about it was disseminated at some point, and probably from books rather than from publications like this one. I'm guessing that the Australian DVMs who pioneered raw feeding cited such research in their books and I/we just don't remember (and didn't look at the citations).
Top

Previous Topic

Index

Next Topic

Page 2 of 3 <<123>>

When purchasing any product from Leerburg Enterprises, Inc. it is understood that any and all products sold by Leerburg Enterprises, Inc. are sold in Dunn County Wisconsin, USA. Any and all legal action taken against Leerburg Enterprises, Inc. concerning the purchase or use of these products must take place in Dunn County, Wisconsin. If customers do not agree with this policy they should not purchase Leerburg Ent. Inc. products.

Dog Training is never without risk of injury. Do not use any of the products sold by Leerburg Enterprises, Inc. without consulting a local professional. The training methods shown in the Leerburg Ent. Inc. DVD’s are meant to be used with a local instructor or trainer. Leerburg Enterprises, Inc. cannot be held responsible for accidents or injuries to humans and/or animals.

Copyright 2010 Leerburg® Enterprises, Inc. All rights reserved. All photos and content on leerburg.com are part of a registered copyright owned by Leerburg Enterprise, Inc. By accessing any information within Leerburg.com, you agree to abide by the Leerburg.com Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.