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.
