Thanks, Joyce. This difference in amino acid profiles is the science behind the need for variety in a well-balanced diet. A diet of "just chicken" may fulfil the need for protein---but by itself, it's lacking in amino acids that can be found in red meat. And the amino acid profile of heart meat is different than muscle meat. And it's not just amino acids, but micronutrients: vitamins and minerals that are found in different amounts in different foods. By mixing up the items in the dog's (or human's) diet and offering lots of variety, the chances of missing out on any important nutrients is reduced.

Yes, exactly, well said Tracy!

well I have to thank every one for explaining it to me.I can't really put my hand on my heart and say that I have understood it all.I have a little problem that I don't want to get any bigger.The vet concerned is also a behaviourist .I have follows ME and Leerburg since day 1 with this dog.
to answer the specific question.I feed whole chicken,beef heart and steaks,liver,kidneys,lamb necks and hearts,sardines,vit.e Grizzly,pork chops.
Thank you again
Jack

Your raw diet sounds completely fine to me, Jack. (quite good, in fact.)

If you really want to pursue this, ask the vet specifically what percentage of protein he thinks your dog should be eating. See what he says. Or if he has an answer. If you want to follow his advice, then just look up the numbers of the items you're feeding. As you've seen, on most of these charts, the percent of protein in most meat is under 20%.

He very well may be (like you were) assuming that a raw meat diet is higher in protein than it really is. It's not a crazy notion after all--it seems like raw meat would be a lot of protein. But as a percent of the total volume of the diet, it's no higher in protein than lots of kibbles made of corn.

I'd also be asking him questions about what, exactly, he believes reducing protein will do to a dog's behavior? "Hey, doc, that sounds really interesting. I'd like to read more about that. What references can you point me to that talk about how dietary protein affects behavior?"

And I'd also be asking him (if he's a behaviorist) why he's thinking this is a nutritional thing, rather than a behavior thing?

We talk about protein levels in the diet but a more specific description would be what percentage of the calorie intake comes from protein ( such as meat, fish) as opposed to the other components of the diet (carbohydrate, fat).

Just to clarify (or complicate!) things further, raw meat (including fish and chicken as well as red meat) has a water content of between 50 and 80% approx, so it is the remainder that is composed mainly of protein .So shoudn't I have to allow for the water to arrive at the overall protein level.I find it difficult to accept the raw diet is less than 20%.I have seen quite a number of studies that link injuries in working dogs with low protein diets..I think my vet is saying high value foods leads to excess energy in the dog causing this problem.Her best supposition along with other thoughts.as mentioned training etc.
Fascinating subject.

I'm on my phone, so brief .....

To compare fresh (like raw) with kibble requires a dry matter conversion.

http://www.whole-dog-journal.com/issues/15_6/features/Measuring-Nutritional-Value-in-Dog-Food_20542-1.html

"I find it difficult to accept the raw diet is less than 20%."

As fed, the meat part of the diet I give is slightly under 20% protein. One thing you'll note in that link is that even skinless boneless chicken breast, a particularly high-protein food, is only 23% protein by weight. You see 2/3 or so down that out of 28 grams of skinless boneless chicken breast, only 6.5 are protein. That's only about 23% protein by weight.

Unless a dog or a human subsists on just multivitamin tablets and dry protein powder, it seems to me that you have to consider the foods "as fed."

A dog has to take in a certain number of calories a day.

A dog's stomach requires a certain volume to reach satiety.

The difference between these volumes is filler.

In a raw diet the "filler" is mostly with water, the indigestible parts of bone, and a very small amount of cellulose if the dog is fed any plants.

In a kibble diet, the difference between calories and satiety is filled with dry filler---much more cellulose---because it is required in the kibbling process. You can't make a kibble that doesn't include carbohydrates. This is also why kibble-fed dogs make more poop.

But they both take in the same number of calories a day, and more-or-less the same volume of food.

Let's assume we're talking about a decent-quality kibble here. In both diets, the dog is going to eat about the same percentages of protein (and probably similar percentages of fat).

The difference is the raw diet is "filled" with water, and the kibble diet is "filled" with cellulose. Neither of them are contributing energy or nutrients to speak of.

---

"High value" is different than "high protein." Is this an issue of the dog getting excited at meal time? Because in my book, anything "high value" to the dog is "high value" to me as a trainer. If the dog wants the bowl of meat he needs to sit down, shut up, wait for my release.

well I have had another look at the web board this morning.Taking up Connies point of converting to dry matter,
Chicken meat is 75/80% water.probably more in a pumped up commercial bird
the dry matter is 20/25%
lets assume for this exercise its 75% water.
the protein is 6.5..
6.5 divided by 25=26% protein for this meat?
Is that right?

6.5 grams of protein per ounce of raw skinless chicken breat (not sure why the mix of measurement standards in that statement) is 23% protein "as fed." (Because there are 28 grams to an ounce. 6.5 divided by 28 = .23)

If the breast meat is 75% water (a reasonable assumption), then the dry matter calculation would go like this:

23 divided by 25 = 92% protein as dry matter.
____

Using the Dry Matter comparison makes a raw diet look very high in protein.

Doing the same dry matter calculation on chicken meat with skin puts it at 54% protein, 45% fat.
____

I'm not a nutritionist. But my gut instinct still tells me that because the dog isn't eating only dry matter, the water in the food still "counts" when we're talking about the density of nutrition in a bowl of real-world food.

An average of most raw meats that I've looked up numbers on runs about 17 to 23% protein as fed. (Cooking will usually change both the fat and protein percents as water evaporates and fat is rendered.) The rest of the meat is water and fat (and a little carb and micronutrients). (Needless to say, depending on the meat, the protein percent will go down as fat percent goes up.)

(Someone mentioned skinless chicken breast -- that is extremely high compared to most meats -- even turkey breast!)



The dry matter conversion is for the purpose of comparing kibble to foods that still have most or all of their natural water (canned, home-cooked, fresh raw).



The meat part of the raw diet I feed (RMBs, MM, fish oil, a small amount of produce, etc.), as fed, averages a little under 20% protein.


Do you know, Jack, how the vet arrived at the protein content in the current raw diet being fed? What was that number?

(This question is aside from the behavior question, about which I completely agree with others " .... going lower in protein would not alter the level of drive." )




All JMO!