Wow, that was really well written Connie!

Lol, please let me know if I read your post wrong, but it sounds like everything I said is in agreement with what you wrote.

If you add muscle meat to the chicken backs/necks to end up with a whole-prey ratio of bone/meat, isn't that what I was saying?

I was simply pointing out what I thought were the weak points of Billinghurt's diet (too much bone). This "modified" version you mention sounds just like the whole-prey model. And I was addressing Jan's comment about the 80/20 ratio being wrong and unbalanced.

As for the observation of the wolves; yes, the wolves always start with the stomach and organs (so do my dogs) but they don't actually eat the contents do they? I always see them shaking out the contents before eating them.

I feed whole, freshly killed rabbits to my dogs on a regular basis and I noticed something interesting. It's true that they consume the whole rabbit (including the stomach and its contents).
However, I tried a little experiment which I repeated a few times, where I would feed a large amount of fresh veggies (carrots, parsley, cabbage etc.) to the rabbit before killing it. When my dogs bit into the stomach and punctured it, I could see that it was stuffed full of partially-digested plant matter.

For the first time, my dogs hesitated (instead of scarfing it all down as usual)! They then proceeded to meticulously shake out all the contents before eating the stomach!! Just like they would with a cow stomach or deer stomach. They definitely seemed reluctant about consuming the vegetable matter. So far, the obervations done on wolves seem to confirm this... is that what you were saying in your reply? Or were you saying that wolves do indeed consume the vegetable matter in the stomachs? I missed this in your post, sorry

I feed berries to my dogs on a regular basis, because yes, indeed, wolves eat berries in the wild.

The only thing with veggies is that I don't see how dogs can digest them and extract the nutrients (even when the veggies are pulped or cooked).

Herbivores and omnivores not only have the ability to grind the veggies before swallowing them, but they also have large guts with immense bacterial populations there to ferment the plant matter in order to break it down and extract the nutrients.

If there's one thing everyone agrees with on this board, it's that dogs (and other carnivores) have very short and unconvoluted intestinal tracts through which the food passes very quickly. They're designed to process meat without getting sick from the bacteria like we would.
There's no way that the vegetables (even pulped) would sit there and ferment long enough to be broken down.

It just doesn't make sense to me... if you can find me one herbivore/omnivore that can effectively utilize plant matter as a main energy source WITHOUT (1) chewing the food (2) breaking down the carbohydrates with the alpha amylase enzyme in the saliva (dogs & other carnivores don't have this enzyme) and (3) having a large stomach and gut where the food can sit for hours and hours to ferment, then I will believe you.

I clearly don't have as much knowledge in this matter as you do, Connie, and I highly respect your opinions and experience. Maybe it's just me, but I just can't for the life of me see the logic behind feeding veggies (sure, some dogs like it, but can they really digest it??)

I do however agree entirely with adding supplements (omega 3's, vitamin E etc.) since most of the prey we feed our dogs is grain-raised and lacks the natural fatty acids that wild grass-raised prey would have. I'm lucky to have access to wild game for most of the year, but I understand that this is not the case for everyone.

I just don't think dogs have the ability to extract nutrients out of vegetable matter... it takes a very specialized digestive tract to achieve this and dogs don't have it.

(I apologize for dragging this on... I really don't mean to be annoying, but it's a real pleasure to be able to debate and exchange ideas with such knowledgeable people - especially on a topic that I care so much about. I've learned a lot already :blush

 Quote: Yuko Blum

...... As for the observation of the wolves; yes, the wolves always start with the stomach and organs (so do my dogs) but they don't actually eat the contents do they? I always see them shaking out the contents before eating them. ....
I feed whole, freshly killed rabbits to my dogs on a regular basis and I noticed something interesting. It's true that they consume the whole rabbit (including the stomach and its contents). .... However, I tried a little experiment which I repeated a few times, where I would feed a large amount of fresh veggies (carrots, parsley, cabbage etc.) to the rabbit before killing it. When my dogs bit into the stomach and punctured it, I could see that it was stuffed full of partially-digested plant matter. .... For the first time, my dogs hesitated (instead of scarfing it all down as usual)! They then proceeded to meticulously shake out all the contents before eating the stomach!! Just like they would with a cow stomach or deer stomach. They definitely seemed reluctant about consuming the vegetable matter......

What I have concluded after a ton of research (and some canine nutrition courses) is that they do eat the stomach contents of small prey but that they eat the contents of the first stomach of large ruminant prey (such as a moose or deer) only last, if they stick around for that and the hide and brains and heavy weight-bearing bones.

In the case of recently-fed rabbits, here's what I think (and I can't back it up directly): I think canids need most produce to be highly processed (digested) for it to be useful to them. So I think that maybe a very recent meal of produce might be too close to unprocessed to be their first choice.

While I realize that prey's stomachs contain uncooked produce, my own conclusions have led me to feed cooked AND ground or otherwise smooshed up produce to my dogs, except in the case of ripe low-sugar fruits and berries, which wild canids eat as is. I believe that cooking renders it closer to partly-digested.

This is not common theory and I'm not proposing that anyone accept it as such. It's just my own conclusion.

The exceptions besides occasional fruits (for me) are very young leafy greens, which have so little cellulose.

It's the sturdy cell walls of vegetation that canids don't process well (watch what comes out when your dog eats raw carrot: exactly what went in :grin. I choose tender produce when possible and blanch it; if it's tougher (say, green beans), I both cook and process.

This sounds like a big deal, but because prodice is (for me, as for many raw feeders) a very small part of the diet, it's something I do infrequently, freezing the results in batches.

Again, the reason I don't leave it out is that I don't want to completely delete something the wild canid would eat, because unlike a wild animal, my dogs cannot correct my omissions.

Grain, of course, has no place in my dogs' diets. I don't care if they eat occasional dog treats with grain; they are scavengers/omnivores, after all. But I'm 100% convinced of their inability to process grains fed to them every day (in most kibbles, say) to use the protein, which is included in the protein contents the manufacturers list on the label. For me, protein for a dog is supposed to be from animal products and not from grains. I believe that the stress on the pancreas of trying to produce unnatural amounts of the grain-digesting enzymes we humans have in abundance (like amylase, which we even have in our saliva) is probably a contributor to internal organ derangement such as pancreatitis and even cancer. JMO.

Of course, grains are not in question here; I just like to throw in anti-grain-for-dogs comments where I can.

But what about the difference in gut physiology between herbivores and dogs?

Let's say that you try to recreate the partially digested state of the veggies, as they would be found in wild prey:

(step 1) prey chews, grinds plant matter to break down cellulose - you approximate this by pulverizing and/or cooking the veggies

(step 2) alpha amylase enzyme in prey's saliva start breaking down the complex carbohydrates in chewed up veggies, to spare the digestive organs the extra work - you approximate this for your dog by feeding partially pre-digested veggies (from prey's stomach), or by adding enzymes to the food (cooking will not break down complex carbohydrates, not in grains and not in veggies)

(step 3) prey's stomach is designed with all the enzymes needed to further break down the complex carbohydrates in the plant matter, which sits fermenting for a long time to further break down - you approximate this by feeding the prey's stomach contents to the dog (who can't ferment food by having it sit for hours in the stomach)

(step 4) digestion continues as plant matter goes through small intestine, where large amounts of highly specialized digestive enzymes from pancreas, liver etc. continue breaking down the plant proteins & carbohydrates - you approximate this how...? (I would question the assumption that dogs produce these enzymes - I'll check the scientific literature)

(step 5) and finally, the mostly-digested plant matter travels through a very long gut, with ENORMOUS absorptive surfaces in herbivores/omnivores (I'm sure we've all heard the analogies of how the gut lining could cover entire tennis courts when fully laid out). The plant matter spends hours and hours in the gut, where enormous bacterial populations work away at it and the nutrients slowly get absorbed through the complex gut lining.

Step 5 is the main problem that I would point out. Dogs and other carnivores don't have much gut absorptive surfaces. This is a highly adaptive advantage for them because it allows them to pass meat & bone residue through their gut very quickly and thus avoid getting sick from bacteria & parasites that don't have time to colonize the gut and enter the bloodstream (also less risk of bones getting stuck and puncturing the gut lining).

No matter how much you break down the vegetables, even if you extract the plant matter directly from a prey's stomach or small intestine, you still have the problem of absorption.
Animal proteins are very easy to break down and absorb, so dogs don't need a large and highly developed gut.

How and where do you suggest that they absorb the plant nutrients??

The easiest way to prove this of course would be to do a nutritional analysis of the plant food that goes into a dog, followed by an analysis of what comes out. I would predict that very little gets absorbed, no matter how much you process the plant matter.

Another experiment I can think of is to remove a large portion of a prey's gut to approximate a dog's gut, and see how well the animal fares. It would probably starve, or at least develop a lot of nutritional deficiencies.

If grains are so hard for a dog to digest, plant matter would certainly be much more difficult for them.
Protein from plants and grains would not be effectively processed by a dog.
As for the carbohydrates, the simple carbs (refined sugars) would be easy for a dog to absorb, but I think we all agree that simple sugars are bad for them on so many levels.
The complex carbohydrates in grains and veggies would require a lot of work of the digestive organs to break down... and again, dogs are meant to live off animal proteins and fats, not carbohydrates and plant proteins. (I understand that raw-feeders don't base their dogs' diet on grains/vegetables, just inserting an anti-grains comment here ).

The only substances from plants that dogs truly benefit from are the antioxidants and water-soluble vitamins (and the fiber if they're constipated, lol). These vitamins are highly valuable and healthy for dogs. They also happen to be found in the flesh, organs and blood of fresh, healthy prey (of course the fragile water-soluble vitamins would all be detroyed by cooking, dehydrating/drying or highly processing the meat).

Connie I understand your logic in wanting to provide anything that may be missing from your dogs' diet. Is feeding vegetables a good way to accomplish this?

(Btw, I don't think that feeding fruits on occasion is a problem; fruits are mostly simple sugars and water, no cellulose or complex carbs, and are very high in vitamins and other antioxidants. Easy for dogs to digest and absorb, though one might want to watch the sugar content over the long-term.)

Finally, I'm not arguing against feeding vegetables every now and again (I occasionally do as well). However, if one were to do feed a lot of veggies very regularly to their dog, I would worry about the long-term strain on the dog's digestive organs.

 Quote: Yuko Blum

If grains are so hard for a dog to digest, plant matter would certainly be much more difficult for them.
Protein from plants and grains would not be effectively processed by a dog. ..... Finally, I'm not arguing against feeding vegetables every now and again (I occasionally do as well). However, if one were to do feed a lot of veggies very regularly to their dog, I would worry about the long-term strain on the dog's digestive organs.

Absolutely; I don't feed a lot of produce, and zero protein vegetables. (Protein vegetables would indeed be similar to grains to digest; protein vegetables are inappropriate for dogs.)

Young, green, low-cellulose vegetation and a little low-sugar fruit and/or berries are better.

And those: In about the amount that wild canids would get them...... small.

There are at least two threads going on that address this, I think. As you mentioned on another thread, green tripe is the way you feed green vegetation, and I agree that it's ideal. It's the perfect way to feed green produce that's processed in a way that's great for a dog's system.

QUOTE: The easiest way to prove this of course would be to do a nutritional analysis of the plant food that goes into a dog, followed by an analysis of what comes out. I would predict that very little gets absorbed, no matter how much you process the plant matter. END

Yes, this (and blood tests and urinalysis) is a protocol of canine nutrition researchers.

Yes, dogs have a short, enzyme-based system. No argument. This is why I do a lot of processing if I feed anything that's sturdy with cellulose (and I try not to), and why I prefer to feed very young tender green produce and the occasional low-sugar ripe fruit or berries.

The sugar issue is indeed larger than digestibility, because I believe that it creates a cancer-friendly environment.

Good points.

It was great reading yours and Connies points, I agree with you Yuko, on a lot of it as a matter of fact I think the way you do with the way you feed.After doing as much reading and research as a possibly can and reading so many quotes from you guys , I came to the same conclusion as you.You both have great points, I learn a lot each time their is a debate of some kind.

 Quote: angelique cadogan

It was great reading yours and Connies points, I agree with you Yuko, on a lot of it as a matter of fact I think the way you do with the way you feed.After doing as much reading and research as a possibly can and reading so many quotes from you guys , I came to the same conclusion as you.You both have great points, I learn a lot each time their is a debate of some kind.

Yes, I do too!

It took me a long time and a lot of research before I was convinced that (1) high-cellulose produce probably wasn't useful to dogs "as is" except as the occasional boost to the colon, and (2) canids probably do extract nutrients from tender produce and from the partially-digested produce they get from the small prey's stomach.

I am still taking canine nutrition courses, but I generally have the most lightbulb moments while discussing, either online or with vet students doing a nutrition specialty.

I think everyone who feeds raw probably has a similar tension between not wanting to eliminate anything the dog would instinctively search out in the wild and not wanting to add anything that the dog's organs are not designed to process.

And as we know better, we do better.

I'm always grateful to the pioneers who changed forever the way I think about feeding dogs, like Billinghurst (and others).

Hee hee, I didn't realize that anyone was actually following our little debate
I'm happy that you agree with me Angelique - it's always a relief to know that I'm not alone in my logic!

Connie, it sounds like you found the perfect solution to the veggie dilemma (well, besides feeding fresh tripe... which isn't always easy). Young tender green produce would work; it would certainly be better than the tougher or starchier produce.
There's always the matter of how much and how often to feed, but then again, we're probably overthinking it all, lol.

I agree with both of you, debating and discussing things like this is the best way to learn from eachother's experiences and to learn to think differently!

(Ps: Angelique, sent you a PM - hope it worked )