This is a site that has a wealth of information, and notations/ footnotes about specific food content, what dogs would eat if they were wild like wolves and coyotes.
Please read this whole link, as there is much good info for those considering a raw diet.

I am sure Connie will have more specific links, but this whole site explain a lot if anyone has doubts about raw feeding.
http://rawfed.com/myths/changed.html

 Quote:

What about the argument that dogs may have weaker digestive enzymes than wolves? Some argue that dogs may not be as efficient as wolves in digesting raw meat and bones. This argument has been recognized by wolf researchers (Mech, L.D. 2003. Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation.) but is generally not considered in their dog model studies. Why? From mouth to anus, dog and wolf physiology and basic anatomy are almost precisely the same. What is the significance of this? This means dogs should still be fed a carnivorous diet to meet their needs. What does it matter if they don't have the same digestive capabilities as a wolf? How does that justify feeding them an even harder-to-digest meal of commercial pet food or cooked food? How does that justify feeding them any differently from a prey model diet that has been proven by nature to be completely sufficient?

and this:

 Quote:

Let us forget the wolf-dog relations for a moment. Let us just look at the dog itself and listen to what its body can tell us about its diet. The dog has the anatomy and physiology of a predatory carnivore, of a hunter designed to subsist on other animals. It has the skull and jaw design of a carnivore: a deep and C-shaped mandibular fossa that prevents lateral movement of the jaw (lateral movement is necessary for eating plant matter). The jaw muscles are designed for crushing grips and powerful bites, with a jaw that hinges open widely to help gulp chunks of meat and bone. The teeth of the dog are pointed and specialized for ripping, tearing, shearing, and crushing meat and bone. Their saliva lacks amylase, the enzyme responsible for beginning carbohydrate breakdown; instead, they have lysozyme in their saliva, an enzyme that destroys pathogenic bacteria. They have highly elastic stomachs designed to stretch to capacity with ingested meat and bone, complete with incredibly powerful and acidic stomach acid (pH of 1). Their intestines are short and smooth, designed to push meat through quickly so that it does not sit and putrefy in the gut. Their external anatomy also shows development as a hunter. They have eyes situated in the front of their skulls rather than to the side like an herbivore. The body (prior to man-made manipulation of things like size and angulation) is built for chasing down prey, and its senses are acutely developed to help locate prey. By all accounts, this is an animal designed to eat other animals.

Is Whole Dog Journal a peer reviewed journal? Are the articles written by DVMs or PhDs?

This is an article that I find credible, though lacking in sample size.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC339295/

After reading this article in The Canadian Veterinary Journal, raw fed dogs come into weekly contact with salmonella and would have much higher loads of salmonella in them than a dog who is fed kibble and comes into contact with a scoop(s) of dog food with salmonella. The salmonella doesn't leave the dog's body with the food. I dont see the relevance transit time has with pathogenicity in dogs.

And none of the dogs--raw fed or kibble fed--in this study sample got sick from their diets. I think it's safe to assume that most healthy dogs have the ability to handle a sizable load of pathogens in their diet. Raw feeders have been saying just that.

The recalls of contaminated kibble in this thread have been PEOPLE getting sick, not their pets.

Every raw feeder knows that kitchen hygiene is important when handling raw meat. It's no different than handling the raw chicken you cook for the humans in the household. After you handle raw chicken, wash your hands. After you handle poop, wash your hands.

The problem, as I see it, is that most people who feed kibble operate under the mistaken assumption that it is a relatively clean product. Most people don't treat kibble with the same level of care that they do raw chicken. Many people reject the idea of raw because of the pathogens, and choose kibble as a cleaner alternative. Looks like that assumption is often wrong.

As we've said in numerous threads on this subject, no one needs a study to tell them that raw meat and poop contain pathogens.

 Quote: Michele Alston

Is Whole Dog Journal a peer reviewed journal? Are the articles written by DVMs or PhDs?

This is an article that I find credible, though lacking in sample size.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC339295/

After reading this article in The Canadian Veterinary Journal, raw fed dogs come into weekly contact with salmonella and would have much higher loads of salmonella in them than a dog who is fed kibble and comes into contact with a scoop(s) of dog food with salmonella. The salmonella doesn't leave the dog's body with the food. I dont see the relevance transit time has with pathogenicity in dogs.

No, it's not a peer-reviewed journal .... just popular press.

It's almost always two steps for me .... WDJ is good with citations and footnotes, which I then look up if the article is something I'm interested in.


QUOTE: "Dogs fed raw chicken may therefore be a source of environmental contamination."

Agreed. I agree 100% that dog poop should be handled carefully and kept out of people's mouths, by whatever route.


As Tracy says, kitchen hygiene is also critical when working with raw poultry and other meats, including prep for human consumption.




I've seen a few anti-raw articles from Dr. Daniel J. Joffe and more than a few in the Canadian Veterinary Journal (as, of course, in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association).

I'm better at recognizing U.S. names and orgs with major funding from Hill's et al. That is, we know about the "partners" relationships (funding) between Hill's/Science Diet and the AVMA, but I've never looked at the links between the CVMA and, say, Hill's Pet Nutrition Canada.

I know how cynical this is going to sound, but I'm being honest: these days I look at the money. Who funded what I'm reading?

This isn't to say that there isn't lots of valid info in articles paid for by financially interested corporations. Not at all. That's where the money is.

For me, though, I've developed a "first show me who paid for this" POV over the years.

Whole Dog Journal (popular press, but replete with authoritative citations) has no ties (that I've ever found) to big money.

Of course, I still read the authorship and funding info of articles/research/papers they may cite.


I enjoy this kind of discussion, and would rather engage in it than what I am doing, which today is looking up non-Diamond-manufactured replacement kibbles for folks.

All JMO!



eta
If you have access to the book Nutrient Requirements of Dogs and Cats, the relationship between transit time and the makeup of the bacteria population of the gut is addressed at length.

You can probably read chunks of it at Google Books.

Edited by Connie Sutherland (05/06/2012 08:40 PM)
Edit reason: eta

 Quote: Tracy Collins

... The problem, as I see it, is that most people who feed kibble operate under the mistaken assumption that it is a relatively clean product. Most people don't treat kibble with the same level of care that they do raw chicken. Many people reject the idea of raw because of the pathogens, and choose kibble as a cleaner alternative. Looks like that assumption is often wrong.

Yes.

This is what has me and a lot of other people scrambling once again to find substitutes for the many people who prefer to feed kibble and are feeling overwhelmed.

 Quote:

I know how cynical this is going to sound, but I'm being honest: these days I look at the money. Who funded what I'm reading?

This isn't to say that there isn't lots of valid info in articles paid for by financially interested corporations. Not at all. That's where the money is.

For me, though, I've developed a "first show me who paid for this" POV over the years.

Whole Dog Journal (popular press, but replete with authoritative citations) has no ties (that I've ever found) to big money.

Of course, I still read the authorship and funding info of articles/research/papers they may cite.


I enjoy this kind of discussion, and would rather engage in it than what I am doing, which today is looking up non-Diamond-manufactured replacement kibbles for folks. smiley for

All JMO!

Well, I must be quite cynical too because I wholeheartedly agree with you Connie. In the small independent dog/cat food store I work at, we are very aware of the masses who come in regularly, who were given Science Diet to their dogs from their vets. In turn because they are vets who prescribe these foods, the customer comes in completely shocked when we show them this and have them read through it, they are most of the times in shock over the poor quality ingredients;
http://www.dogfoodadvisor.com/dog-food-reviews/hills-science-diet-dog-food-adult-dry/
an excerpt:

 Quote:

The first ingredient in this dog food is corn. Corn is an inexpensive and controversial cereal grain of only modest nutritional value to a dog.

For this reason, we do not consider corn a preferred component in any dog food.

The second item lists chicken by-product meal, a dry rendered product of slaughterhouse waste. It’s made from what’s left of a slaughtered chicken after all the prime cuts have been removed.

In a nutshell, chicken by-products are those unsavory leftovers usually considered “unfit for human consumption”.

Because so many vets carry this in their office, and because it is such a poor quality food, you have to ask yourself, why on earth would a vet support such a terrible food?

It has to be two things;
1.) The fact that Hills Science Diet funds the vet schools with all their educational materials, that is about as biased as it gets. To my knowledge, this still continues.
There is very little time spent on the the education of nutrition. Plus if it only coming from Hills and nothing else, that is seriously flawed, in my opinion.
2.) Hills is big money, and people pay high dollar for this crap in a bag. The mark up on this food is ridiculous, considering it is so terribly substandard food. Not to mention the ingredient list is comprised of how cheap the named ingredients actually are. Corn, meat by- products... this list goes on.

It is big money indeed, and it really makes me so sad that so many vets endorse it.
All, we can really do is encourage educating the consumers.
JMHO.

 Quote:

It has to be two things;
1.) The fact that Hills Science Diet funds the vet schools with all their educational materials, that is about as biased as it gets. To my knowledge, this still continues.
There is very little time spent on the the education of nutrition. Plus if it only coming from Hills and nothing else, that is seriously flawed, in my opinion.
2.) Hills is big money, and people pay high dollar for this crap in a bag. The mark up on this food is ridiculous, considering it is so terribly substandard food. Not to mention the ingredient list is comprised of how cheap the named ingredients actually are. Corn, meat by- products... this list goes on.

3.) Job security?

Talk about cynical! LOL


PS

I honestly do believe that it's usually mostly Reason #1.

I do NOT believe that anyone with a good brain who stops to think, questioning and reading the label, comes up with "Ah! A bag of corn! That's what this DOG needs to eat every day."

I DO think that Hill's/SD does a great job of keeping their product right where it needs to be to lend it credence and that they pay lots of money for that positioning and "educating."

 Quote: Connie Sutherland

I do NOT believe that anyone with a good brain who stops to think, questioning and reading the label, comes up with "Ah! A bag of corn! That's what this DOG needs to eat every day."

I think that the whole category of packaged pet food is so culturally pervasive that nobody does think. Nobody even remembers a time before dog chow, so they can't conceive of any other possibility.

NOT feeding your pet something that comes out of a bag is to be an oddball, even a dangerous oddball. Since the invention of dog chow, nearly everyone believes that these kinds of diets are the only possible way to feed a dog. We are told that it is too difficult to feed a dog a properly balanced diet when we seem to do okay keeping ourselves and our children alive without getting scurvey or ricketts--and not many people have degrees in human nutrition, or even understand it all that well.

There's no "people food" and "dog food." There's only good and bad food. I can't tell you how many times I've yelled at the TV set during the Beneful commercial...when they get to the shots of the lovely whole chickens that are supposedly in it, "Just feed your dog the damned chicken."

 Quote: Tracy Collins

We are told that it is too difficult to feed a dog a properly balanced diet when we seem to do okay keeping ourselves and our children alive without getting scurvey or ricketts--and not many people have degrees in human nutrition, or even understand it all that well.

This was the thought that really stuck with me when I was on the fence about trying raw. If you can raise a healthy child without child chow, why does it need to be rocket science for a dog?

The other thought that really struck me was the fact that no one would say that a person needs to eat a strict Total cereal diet to make sure that they get the proper nutrition. So why do they say that about a dog?