Hi Connie, glad to "see" you jumping in here.... The question/comment was originally from Steven: "I can't say I ever came to terms why "kibble" should be fed seperately from raw stuff or why it stays in the stomach longer or (if it does) why that even matters. "

To which you replied with the information about it staying a long time in the intestines, allowing bacterial colonization, but then I said the Swedish study had said kibble stays longer in the stomach, rather than in the intestines, and you said it's still a problem there (the infamous "intragastric colonization"), and then I dug up the complete quote from Wendy Volhard that says staying in the stomach matters because it requires the body to draw enzymes from other parts of the body, and then Stephen said what's the evidence for that?

So I went looking, but couldn't find any readily available authoritative (e.g. peer-reviewed scientific journal articles) on that, but did find a site that at least cited some veterinary texts, but said the problem is with kibble affecting the ph level in the stomach so bacteria isn't killed off before entering the intestine, which seems to support what you said, not the enzyme-robbing theory.

Whew. To summarize again: What is the scientific theory or clinical/experimental evidence to explain why kibble stays in the stomach much longer than raw food, and why it matters if it does?

And I won't even mention that scientists just recently discovered why an apple a day really does keep the doctor away

QUOTE: explain why kibble stays in the stomach much longer than raw food, and why it matters if it does? END

Because it's baked and extruded to a degree of hardness that it has an almost-infinite shelf life, I guess.

According to Tufts and UC Davis, it does take 3+ times as long to digest as fresh food.

Neither said why. It seemed to me that "why" was obvious, but now that you ask, I guess it's not really.

Why does it matter? To me, because of the slow digestion forcing raw meat fed with it into much longer than normal contact with both the stomach and the intestines. (As someone mentioned earlier in the thread, it would be hard to picture the kibble and meat fed together emerging separately.)

I have never seen authoritative research about the enzyme-robbing theory. I'll look for some.

Maybe there's something in all the stuff I have saved (or a book) that has the whole thing in one paragraph. Ha.

How much raw should I feed at a meal. The dog is a 65 lbs Akita female, 9mnths old.

Yes, "Enzyme Robbing".

It sounds like, at best, a lay term for some other half-understood process (in the context of what I was initially provided with a page back).

At worst, some typically "holistic" term with zero basis in empirical, peer reviewed reality.*

The closest thing I've heard of which is almost kinda like this is the stress response. Cortisone type hormones catabolizing other bodily proteins for energy. But NOT the brain "gathering enzymes" from different organs to bring to the digestive tract.

*I use holistic in quotes to imply the quack side of things.

Since the foods do emerge at the same time in the (to borrow Sandy's phrase) "aftermath," then it's reasonable to assume one of two things:

1.) The meat is forced to stay with the kibble longer than it would normally, thereby forcing the dog's body to be in contact the the bad wigglies longer than it normally would. OR

2.) The meat forces the kibble out faster and therefore doesn't allow the kibble to stay in as long as is necessary to pull the nutrients out of them.

But you know what they say about *ASSUME*

I'm sure it's easy enough to do an experiement on, but I'm not really in the mood to time my dog's poos.

I feed mixed, and feed them seperate at different times of day. I do this because:

a.) I'm a better-safe-than-sorry type
b.) it's easier than having to mix kibble with the meat
c.) the kibble at night seems to make him less spastically hungry come morning time.

The mixed feeding of raw and Innova have given me a SHINEY, high-energy pup so I'm okay with it for now, until I get smahter (as they say here.)

I know from my Biology days that, in humans anyway, it's not so much what is in the food as it is how big the meal is.

It runs contrary to what you would think, but the bigger the meals are, the shorter it stays in your body and you will not have "proper" digestion as a result.

Also, in humans, I was under the impression that meat stays in our system longer than grains, so if our systems are anything to go on (and they very well may not be) that says something about how the kibble is made if it outlasts the meat.

Edited to sayogs are designated meat-eaters, so now that I think about it, the last is probably not a valid arguement against kibble.