Dutch Shepherd Forum

Are there any recent legitimate scientific studies out there being conducted on raw diets for dogs(& cats)? Topics that cover the evolution of a dog's digestive system (or lackthereof), and the health benefits vs the two are my main focus. I'm trying to prepare an argument where my stance is pro raw, but I'm only limited to scientific studies.

Do a search for Raw feeding, when you do make sure you add the word "abstract" and / or PDF, you will get much better results. I did a quick search and there was one from Tufts and a couple of others that looked good, they are all downloads.

Owly wrote:the evolution of a dog's digestive system

Somewhere on this forum a couple years ago, Christie referenced a study/studies that concluded the domesticated canine had adapted to digesting carbohydrates.

Someone might remember the thread or the research she referenced. I surely don't.

Raven wrote:Somewhere on this forum a couple years ago, Christie referenced a study/studies that concluded the domesticated canine had adapted to digesting carbohydrates.

Someone might remember the thread or the research she referenced. I surely don't.

I remember that one... a quick search turned up this post:
https://www.dutchshepherdforum.com/view ... 22&p=34163

Thank you! Any more studies you may come across will be greatly appreciated

What if you did a quick search for one or two popular fillers used in kibble/canned food and see what that unearthed? For instance, careenagen (sp?) or some dyes. Careenagen is toxic to humans but remains in our commercially prepped food as well as some dog foods.

Have there even been studies on RAW for dogs? There are plenty of opinions, but studies? So if no studies, what?---you'd be left to argue the possibility that a commercial diet/most standard commercial diets for canines is likely to produce the same health concerns/risks as exists for humans, manifesting in diabetes, allergies, etc,. and in growing numbers?

Raven wrote: Have there even been studies on RAW for dogs? There are plenty of opinions, but studies? So if no studies, what?---you'd be left to argue the possibility that a commercial diet/most standard commercial diets for canines is likely to produce the same health concerns/risks as exists for humans, manifesting in diabetes, allergies, etc,. and in growing numbers?

So many things I want to dive into on this! and if there aren't any studies on it... I think I know what my student research may start out as! (Should I ever make it to that point in my college career *sigh*) The only cons that are given to me are:
1) That dogs have evolved to eat scientifically formulated dry kibble, and that they are no longer wolves so should not eat raw meat.
2) That there are many health risks involving food contamination like salmonella poisoning.

Veterinarians are throwing this at me, but these are the same veterinarians that are trying to shove ScienceDiet down my dog's throat too and they also push for yearly dentals. I can't come back at them with a pro because I don't have any valid (scientific) proof that counters this logic of theirs. And it eats away at me like no other. SO, now I want it. Of course, if it's not out there because the above is true... then I'll accept it for what it is and accept that raw is bad, but I feel like if raw were such a bad thing... then why are most of your high performance dogs excelling on a raw diet? and with less health complications than their dry kibble counterparts?

Salmonella argument is silly - pH of a dog's stomach destroys most salmonella ingested. Unless there's a puncture or blood borne factor I'm less concerned about dog salmonella poisoning than humans not practicing safe food handling, which they should be doing anyways.

As an aside, I would see if you can pull evolution stats - evolving to better facilitate a different diet doesn't just happen in 50 years for a WHOLE entire genus - so maybe find some stats about wolf populations and phenotype variations? See when kibble first came about and what was in it at first?

There's also the nutrional value of raw material versus "cooked" material or byproduct material... Like Sharon said, substitutes could be affecting horomone, sugar, and fat levels differently than "true" meats... Look at aspartame in humans... I'll see if I can't pull some stuff tomorrow...

Also, my vet isn't behind me feeding raw however she cannot argue the fantastic changes in my dude since we switched. Believe it or not she told me to feed him boiled chicken with the bone in it. .... Face palm. Most vets think it's bad because 1) bones cause punctures in the GI, 2) it's not balanced for optimal nutrition, 3) it poses a risk to humans handling it, and 4) they don't understand nutrition well enough themselves. Just because there's no scientific paper saying explicitly "raw is good" doesn't mean there's no evidence, nor that if such a paper existed there wouldn't be fifty more disproving it.

Also allergies - I see more dogs with things like "allergic to wheat, corn, and soy" and I'm struck by the sheer craziness of that statement. What in the world are we putting in dog food/treats to cause a % of the dog population to be allergic to SOY (I mean really... Does that sound ridiculous or is it me and late night posting?).

Could you use the tenements of the "clean eating" vs. the SAD as an approach (if studies on RAW are lacking), and then pull in references from other species whose health has suffered from veering off their natural (clean) diet?

Example--primates: those who either legally or illegally own them feed them LOTS of foods their bodies aren't meant to consume (out of convenience, or humanizing them, or wanting to "share" or...), causing a myriad of problems--namely diabetes. (Hmmm...now I'm wondering if there are studies on this, or if it's just something we all know to be true but not backed by research. Crap. If interested in this, I have a go-to person I can ask. Let me know.)

P.S.: SAD=Standard American Diet

Owned-By-Hendrix wrote:Salmonella argument is silly - pH of a dog's stomach destroys most salmonella ingested.

Ding, ding, ding.

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

A review of overall risks of RAW: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3003575/

Review of feeding strategies and contamination: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4501809/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4152787/

pH values: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19177514
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22531871

http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/full/1 ... 43.11.1549

My one argument is that everyone is concerned with shedding of Salmonella and such... but no one does the same for chefs, butchers, or zoo workers who work with meat constantly. Aren't safe food handling practices as well as waste disposal an important factor? No one is taking that into consideration. Yes it's shed but is it alive in big enough populations that the risk is the same as leaving chicken out on your counter and then licking it?

PCR methodologies (pending on protocols used) can give false-positives from non-vialble cells. I also want to know the CFUs of the cultured bacteria from these stool samples - how big of a "risk" are we talking or is it picking up dead/weak cultures/just there?

Most of the studies I have seen that are pro-raw seem to be owner surveys which, while accurate, can also be misleading.

http://www.foodsafety.gov/poisoning/cau ... almonella/

Even the Food Safety Admin notes pet food and treats as possible salmonella sources.

Thank you!

Owly wrote: 1) That dogs have evolved to eat scientifically formulated dry kibble, and that they are no longer wolves so should not eat raw meat.
2) That there are many health risks involving food contamination like salmonella poisoning.

1) This is partly true. Dogs do have the ability to digest and utilize carbs. The issues are the amount of carbs and the amount of processed carbs. The second part of this - that they should not eat raw meat - is false. see #2 below.

2) False. The dog's digestive enzymes and Ph in the stomach handle raw meat, bone, and Salmonella just fine. When you hear about Salmonella recalls on kibble, it's not for the benefit of the dogs...it's for the humans.

For the record, kibble in-and-of itself isn't bad or evil. It's a) the manufacturer, b) what is in it, and c) the processing. Overly processed kibbles with sub-par ingredients are bad, but minimally processed kibbles with well-sourced, high quality ingredients are just fine. I feed raw, but I also have Orijen on hand that my dogs get at least once a week (my husband typically feeds them on Saturday mornings and kibble is easier for him) and they are all perfectly healthy. Many people on this forum feed high quality kibble/canned and have perfectly healthy dogs.

I guess my questions for you are:
1) Why is your vet pushing Science Diet specifically? Does your dog have allergies or health issues?
2) Why are you trying to change their minds? Unless you have a vet who is at least open-minded to raw, you aren't going to change their minds. Nutrition in vet school is a) elective, not mandatory, and b) typically taught by dog food manufacturers (Purina, Hills, etc).

They push sci

They push Science Diet because it makes them $$$$$$$. The Military uses it because it is cost effective. That's an Oxymoron. Its cheap and the Vet marks it way up and its cheap and the Military keeps costs down.
Vet's know almost next to nothing about "husbandry" as it relates to K9s. The best vet I ever used to care for my dogs was one who was a Horse vet by practice but, treat dogs as well

Thanks for your input, Roger, but I was asking Owly the "why" as it relates to her dog and situation specifically, not veterinarians in general.

Stacy_R wrote:

Owly wrote:
I guess my questions for you are:
1) Why is your vet pushing Science Diet specifically? Does your dog have allergies or health issues?
2) Why are you trying to change their minds? Unless you have a vet who is at least open-minded to raw, you aren't going to change their minds. Nutrition in vet school is a) elective, not mandatory, and b) typically taught by dog food manufacturers (Purina, Hills, etc).

1) They sell it straight out of the practice, so he pushes to make as many orders as possible. My dog does not have any food allergies or health issues. (This goes for anything that is pet related. He prefers that we purchase as much product as we can straight through the practice)
2)My vet(the one that runs the practice) is my boss, and coincidentally signs my paychecks. The other veterinarians are my coworkers. It sucks being the oddman out when the "people in charge" are using the above logic to explain why raw feeding is bad. While I may also be a biology student, I don't exactly have the same level of education that they do... so I don't feel like I can say my piece on the entire matter without tripping over the wrong feet. I don't want to change their minds, I would just prefer to have facts at my disposal when I have to discuss my dog's diet. If I ever have to discuss my dog's diet.

Sticky situation...I see. They can't fire you for not buying the product that they sell. If it were me, I would just tell them that I feed a "well-researched homemade diet" and leave it at that. Good luck.

Hi there
New to the forum, want to learn more about the DS. However I do know about the whole food/raw diet.
I would look at studies done for humans about eating whole foods and why they found it to be healthier for humans NOT to eat packaged food.
There were animal studies used.
Also if we as humans can feed ourselves and our families a wholesome diet without buying a 100 percent balanced package diet, then surely we can do it for our carrion eating companions.

welcome to the forum! you could introduce yourself in the new members announcements if you like?