I'm looking for articles and research on dog dietary requirements

SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)

I'm looking for valid informational sources on topics addressing a raw meat diet and also whether dogs should be fed vegetables or not and their benefits, if they are to be had. I've looked at the pro raw and the anti vegetables websites (and there's a lot) but now I can't seem to get past all the pro raw meat and only raw meat websites in my searches to see arguments for the other side. Thank you for any sources you can send my way. I'm also looking for sources on the possible dangers of feeding a diet that consists 100% of meat, fat (animal bases) and bone.

Hi Captmicha,

Hand et al. 2010, 'Small Animal Clinical Nutrition' published by Mark Morris Institute, Topeka is a fairly comprehensive resource for companion animal nutrition.

Chapter 12 (from page 250 in the 5th edition) is about nutrition for healthy adult dogs and may help with what you are looking for.

Originally Posted by captmicha

I'm looking for valid informational sources on topics addressing a raw meat diet and also whether dogs should be fed vegetables or not and their benefits, if they are to be had. I've looked at the pro raw and the anti vegetables websites (and there's a lot) but now I can't seem to get past all the pro raw meat and only raw meat websites in my searches to see arguments for the other side. Thank you for any sources you can send my way. I'm also looking for sources on the possible dangers of feeding a diet that consists 100% of meat, fat (animal bases) and bone.

please please please talk to your veterinarian or a veterinary nutritionist about this and don't just use books/internet resources. diets like this can be extremely dangerous if their health and nutritional status are not carefully and closely monitored. find a veterinarian who is willing to work with you on what you're looking for in a pet diet, they do exist!

jmo1012, there's no need to worry. I won't be feeding raw meat or a diet consisting only of meat, animal fat and bones. I feed and always will feed a high quality kibble supplemented with cooked boneless meat, veggies, fruit and grain. And plenty of healthy treats and natural chews. I tried to sound impartial in my original post as to not offend anyone who may feed or prefer a raw meat or all meat, fat and bone diet but I have to confess that I don't see valid scientific evidence to support the benefits or even the safety of feeding raw meat or an only meat, animal fat and bone diet.

Here are some articles that caution against raw diets mainly due to the increased risk of contamination (mostly by Salmonella spp.):

Human Health Implications of Salmonella-Contaminated Natural Pet Treats and Raw Pet Food - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16447116

Septicemic salmonellosis in two cats fed a raw-meat diet - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14736718

Preliminary assessment of the risk of Salmonella infection in dogs fed raw chicken diets - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC339295/

Bacteriological evaluation of commercial canine and feline raw diets - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1140397/

Evaluation of the association between feeding raw meat and Salmonella enterica infections at a Greyhound breeding facility - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16677120

Just had a first year nutrition test last week. Some highlights that apply here are how commercial companion pet foods are optimized to meet the requirements of 80% of that species (which is very hard to achieve with the 30-something essential nutrients for dogs, even more for cats), and the remaining 20% would need additional nutrients due to metabolic or disease states. In regards to dogs, evolutionarily they are an omnivorous species (less so than humans, but more than cats which are considered carnivores) and can subside with more than 50% of their diet being grain. The Dr. who gave us that lecture (who is a animal nutritionist) was adamant about the misconception that grain is bad for dogs. By using grains in the diet, it is much easier to control the levels of nutrients in the servings. Even between "better" kibbles that have meat as the first ingredient, it can be tougher to determine the quality of the feed because there is more variability of nutrient content of meat ingredients vs. grains. In other words, 1 oz of meat can often have different levels of protein and fat, but species of grain will be more consistent.

In addition, cooking at reasonable temperatures can actually unlock nutrients and can make feed more digestible so that more nutrients are absorbed. I saw no information about cooking destroying nutrients as long as it was at reasonable temperatures.

But I'm not a doctor (yet anyway) and this was just from a first year class...

Originally Posted by BigMountainVMD

In addition, cooking at reasonable temperatures can actually unlock nutrients and can make feed more digestible so that more nutrients are absorbed. I saw no information about cooking destroying nutrients as long as it was at reasonable temperatures.

Somewhat unrelated but I wonder if this extends to human diets as well (I can't logic why it wouldn't). If so a lot of people on raw diets are missing out!

Thanks guys. If anyone has more info, please keep it coming! I'm hoping to write a paper to change how some people are feeding their dogs.

It is becoming SO hard to combat misconceptions about dog (and cat but not what I'm focusing on here) diets. People hear an idea that they like for such and such reasons and they take it as gospel and they choose to dismiss science. While in the meantime, they're doing a diservice to the health of their pets.

It may be romantic to think of dogs as wolves and wolves as the perfect killer who need nothing besides a raw meat diet but science just doesn't show this to hold up as fact. Dogs aren't magically impervious to food borne parasites and pathogens. Even wolves aren't, in fact, I spoke to Dr. Mech and he hypothesizes that wolves consume grass in order to scour out parasites. I spoke to other wold researchers and I also consulted studies and wolves are a host to many parasites. Short, highly acidic digestive systems and all.

Then we have the evolutionary changes from wolf to dog to consider. Less musculature in the domestic dog's skull means less jaw power because of their change in diet. They're no longer bringing down large game and studies of feral dog populations show them as scavengers, not very good at hunting. So less meat is in their diet because who is throwing out mass quantities of meat?? They don't really have the jaw power for crushing large bones and their digestive system doesn't safely wrap bone shards in the prey's fur for safe passage like a wolf's digestive system does. Also, existing along side man as they evolved, they ate our handouts and garbage as well. Meat was a very precious resource before mass farming and supermarkets. We still see meat as very scarce in the diets of people in third world countries. Why would we have squandered such a valuable resource by giving it away to dogs? Doesn't make sense. Our excess food would have been their handouts, and grains are what we had most. They comprised the staple of our diets. Also, we didn't have refrigerators or freezers, or cooking appliances. We likely wouldn't have cooked separate parts of the animal and had raw bits leftover for the dogs. This, however is speculation and I need to do more research on the culinary practices of ancient man.

Then we have plants, grains, vegetables and fruit. Dogs can't digest cellulose but neither can we. Yet, we still get benefits from plant matter and it would make sense that dogs do as well. So to exclude these from the diet for a silly belief that dogs don't need them isn't doing the animal any favors. Fiber, antioxidants, vitamins, minerals and more are to be had from plant materials. Their molars are inconsequential because they don't need to grind plant matter in order to consume it. Gulping whole or crushing suffices. For example, the maned wolf has molars remarkably similar to both the grey wolf and the domestic dog and their diet is largely comprised of plant matter. No one would argue that.

And I also would think that it would be obvious to most people that proper cooking temperatures wouldn't account for much nutritional loss but apparently, it's not obvious. And like you pointed out BigMountainVMD, nutrition can even be unlocked by cooking some foods. Just look at spinach.

Originally Posted by hopefulinva

Somewhat unrelated but I wonder if this extends to human diets as well (I can't logic why it wouldn't). If so a lot of people on raw diets are missing out!

Many people on raw diets juice or blend many of their veggies and fruit in an attempt to unlock more nutrients without destroying any of the enzymes. I personally love green smoothies and feel better after eating them than eating the equivalent cooked.

I draw the line at raw meat however...ick. blended meat.

I don't understand what the issue is with supplementing a dog's diet with raw meat just like I supplement my rabbit's feed with veggies. Istill need to read the articles linked above(on phone) butthe issues seem to be from improperly treated meat.

I recommend a book called Feed Your Pet Right: The Authoritative Guide to Feeding Your Dog and Cat By Marion Nestle, Malden Nesheim
It is well researched and written by Ph.D. nutritionists, one of which also has a masters in animal nutrition. It goes over the all different types of possible dog/cat food diets, including vegetarian (seriously), and discusses each in regards to the dietary needs of the animal. Well written and not a terribly boring read either.

Originally Posted by hopefulinva

Somewhat unrelated but I wonder if this extends to human diets as well (I can't logic why it wouldn't). If so a lot of people on raw diets are missing out!

It does. There was an article that came out about this not too long ago that got some pop science attention. A researcher noticed that tons of people on raw food diets were underweight despite eating more than enough calories (as we typically think of them). I . . . wish I had kept the link.