Confused! Please help! *FOOD*

[whiteleo]

If dogs have evolved over time then their jaws would have also changed over time and they haven't. They only have the ability to open and close, up and down, they cannot move side to side which would be necessary to eat plant material but wait; they also don't have flat molars like cows, horses and the like, that are omnivores that eat grass and plant materials. Dogs teeth are made for ripping and tearing meat like the wolves!

[Jester]

...it supports things that go against my beliefs.

There are a lot of passionate people on here that do believe that raw is best

What is best out of all the options? That is based on ones beliefs completely.

Natalie, sorry to chop up your post, but you are headed in the right direction. This is where a lot of my confusion stems. It just seems like everything is someone's beliefs/opinion. I'm not a dogmatic person, I require evidence to believe something.

I think it depends on what you believe. Do you believe that your dog is a carnivore or an omnivore based on morphological and behavioral characteristics? This takes actually looking at your dog from the inside and out, because you should base your dog's diet on what digestive system they have. Remember that the wolf is the closest extant species to the domestic dog...

Given that a dog is essentially an evolved wolf I have no choice, but to believe that my dog is a carnivore (assuming a wolf is truly a carnivore). I'm not a zoologist however, so this isn't my field of study/expertise, so my opinion isn't what matters. I rely on experts for this knowledge. Unfortunately most of the experts seem to be employed by food companies and most experts seem to be experts in marketing.

If you believe that your dog is a carnivore, then you should feed them as such with a diet based on meat, bones and organs. If you believe your dog is an omnivore, you should feed them as such, with a mixed diet of meat based proteins and plant matter.

I think that basing your answer completely on clinical research is negligent to the whole picture. You have to realize that clinical trials and scientific research is funded and therefore has a "motive" to get desired results. Not to mention, do you know that these trials/studies are based off of good research in the first place?

Understood. I don't know whether the NRC is biased? Isn't it funded by our tax dollars? I would expert unbiased information. I'm completely ignorant to this stuff though, so I'm really glad you guys are helping!

One thing that you must ask yourself is: what do you consider scientifically tested/based information to be?

Scientifically tested means that it's supported by objective evidence (ie facts).

Personally, I think this "holy grail" is full of false information. The article lost all credibility to me when it stated that dogs have a requirement for carbohydrates, which is 100% false. They have absolutely no need for them. They are added into processed dog foods to add bulk and cut down on costs. Nothing more. They are basing their nutrition requirements on omnivore standards which sound great if we were talking about humans, but we are talking about dogs...which I 100% believe are carnivores.

It lost even further credibility when it says that dogs are descended from omnivores, 100% false. The closest extant species related to the domestic dog is the wolf. That is based on DNA comparative studies. The wolf is an opportunistic carnivore, which means that they will eat only meat, bones and organs unless there is not enough available. They will resort to eating vegetation if needed.

I understand this is your opinion, but if their assertions are scientifically proven then shouldn't we believe them (granted, we're getting second hand information which may have been misinterpreted)?

Its confusing to you because its full of false information

1. According to the "holy grail" paper, of course there are quality kibbles that will provide all the nutrition. All kibbles contain meat, carbs, fats, vitamins and minerals at varying amounts depending on quality.

2. If you feed a diet of mostly meat, some raw bones and some organs from a variety of different protein sources, your dog's diet will be complete and balanced. The only supplementation that may be needed is omega fatty acids if grass fed meats are not given on a regular basis.

3. "Good enough" is a hard thing to rate. High quality kibble is good enough to allow your dog to survive of course or those companies will go out of business. It would depend on your opinion on if you think your dog is thriving or not. Big difference between surviving and thriving. I personally think that a diet based on just dry kibble is not "good enough."

4. There is no one reason that causes bloat. It is a multifactorial issue that no one knows enough about. There are numerous things that are known to cause it, but bloat is a whole different subject altogether and I could write a lot about it. IMO wetting food down could help, but wont prevent bloat from happening.

5. Quality and price tend to go hand in hand, no matter what you are talking about. Usually the higher the cost the better the quality, but that is not a rule. There are some kibbles out there that are really expensive but lacking in true quality ingredients.

6. Variety in any diet is key. The more variety the better, but that doesn't mean that you can't do a diet of just chicken or beef. Just as long as you have all of your bases covered one animal protein source is acceptable. Organs are a necessity in a dogs diet, whether it be raw or kibble. Animal by-products are organs, among other random things, and are good to see in a kibble but only if they are from a named meat source.

You have gotten quite a few of my opinions which I can tell you is from countless hours of research on dog nutrition and genetics. But then again, what I find to be good research might be completely different from what you believe to be good research.

Either way, it sounds like you care about your dog and only want the best and in the end that is all that matters!

Good info, thank you!

[Jester]

It's admirable that you want to base your decisions on a definitive, scientific study. Many of us would like the same thing, myself included. Sadly, nothing exists and the reason why is explained to some degree in my first post on page 9 of this thread (I recommend you read this thread in its entirety but pay particular attention to page 9).

backed by scientific study??

The reason why the book you found, which you refer to as "The Holy Grail", has been dismissed by many of us, myself included, is not only because it starts with the fundamentally flawed premise that dogs are omnivores, but also because at least part of the study was funded by the Pet Food Institute (seriously...look at page II in the front matter).

As I say in my post referenced above...follow the money.

Thank you, I'll read your thread before I reply anymore here.

[Jester]

If dogs have evolved over time then their jaws would have also changed over time and they haven't. They only have the ability to open and close, up and down, they cannot move side to side which would be necessary to eat plant material but wait; they also don't have flat molars like cows, horses and the like, that are omnivores that eat grass and plant materials. Dogs teeth are made for ripping and tearing meat like the wolves!

I think that's flawed logic.

For example, take a look at the skull of a Maned Wolf: Maned Wolf Skull Bone Clones BC-024


Now, compare that to a domestic dog like this Airedale Terrier skull: Airedale Skull Bone Clones BC-127


The jaws are very similar, however the Maned Wolf is an omnivore where most of their food is not protein: The Maned Wolf in Captivity

Maned Wolf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"A large fraction of its diet (over 50%, according to some studies) is vegetable matter, including sugarcane, tubers, and fruit (especially the Wolf Apple (Solanum lycocarpum). Captive Maned Wolves were traditionally fed meat-heavy diets and developed bladder stones."

[DaneMama]

Natalie, sorry to chop up your post, but you are headed in the right direction. This is where a lot of my confusion stems. It just seems like everything is someone's beliefs/opinion. I'm not a dogmatic person, I require evidence to believe something.

I was confused at first too. There seemed to be so many conflicting ideas about what is "true" about scientific research and canine nutrition, to be honest...there always will be. What I have come to terms and conclusion with is that when there is a market for something (ie making money) the "science" is skewed towards the idea of "What can we do to make this cost less?" and not "What is appropriate and logical based on primary research (ie looking at morphological and physiological data)?" This is not good, true scientific research which holds true for the dog food industry. Their goal is to make diets for dogs and cats that will allow these animals to survive on it at the lowest cost to them...*key word survive.

What I have found to be absolute fact and not just opinion is hearing of case histories of people first hand and their experiences feeding raw for 20+ years. I can guarantee you that you will not find an ongoing feeding trial backed by the kibble industry that is so extensive. Unfortunately there is not quantitative data or statistical breakdown of these histories and experiences. So we have to just go off of hoping people will see the logic behind feeding raw rather than hard data.

I am a bio major/chem minor student working on going to vet school. I require science based information as well, heck I have to do a lot of science, but when all the "science" behind canine nutrition is backed by false and misguided ideas, that said "data" becomes irrelevant to me.

Given that a dog is essentially an evolved wolf I have no choice, but to believe that my dog is a carnivore (assuming a wolf is truly a carnivore). I'm not a zoologist however, so this isn't my field of study/expertise, so my opinion isn't what matters. I rely on experts for this knowledge. Unfortunately most of the experts seem to be employed by food companies and most experts seem to be experts in marketing.

You don't have to be a zoologist to see that a wolf is a carnivore...ask a 5 year old if a wolf is a carnivore and they will for sure tell you that statement is fact. Wolves are not "obligate" carnivores like cats, they can survive off of plant matter...but not thrive. They will resort to eating plant matter if their survival depends on it, but if they are not in a famine situation they will hunt and kill prey animals.

Some people will play the "wolves eat the stomach and contents of their prey" card to justify feeding their dogs vegetables and fruit. It has been documented that wolves generally do not eat the contents of the stomach of large ungulates. Of course there are exceptions to this just like any other situation in life. Does it mean that wolves are omnivores? Nope. Does it mean that these things are harmful to feed to your dogs? Probably not.

Understood. I don't know whether the NRC is biased? Isn't it funded by our tax dollars? I would expert unbiased information. I'm completely ignorant to this stuff though, so I'm really glad you guys are helping!

I would hope so too. But any study can be based on false ideas if enough money is involved.

Scientifically tested means that it's supported by objective evidence (ie facts).

100% agreed. So shouldn't the dog food industry be based on the FACT that dogs are carnivores? Not the exact opposite like it is? If the dog food industry was basing their research off of the fact that dogs are carnivores (which is what you and I and a lot of other people believe), they wouldn't make as much money.

I understand this is your opinion, but if their assertions are scientifically proven then shouldn't we believe them (granted, we're getting second hand information which may have been misinterpreted)?

The fact that there is NO requirement for carbohydrates in a dogs diet is supported even by AAFCO nutrient profiles. That is proven fact. A lot of raw feeder's animals would have been dead a long time ago if there was a requirement for carbs. So the fact that this article states that carbs are a requirement for dogs is 100% false.

And since we both agree that dogs descended from wolves and that they are in fact carnivores...makes the statement made by the article that dogs are omnivores 100% false because we are basing that off of morphological, behavioral, and physiological primary research.

So this is not opinion based like some of the other things that I have stated.

Here is a wiki article that covers extensively about wolves (a lot of people don't like wikipedia, but I do...a lot. Its easy to find things and it all is referenced back to the original source, just wish I could use it for papers LOL!).

Gray Wolf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[DaneMama]

I think that's flawed logic.

For example, take a look at the skull of a Maned Wolf: Maned Wolf Skull Bone Clones BC-024


Now, compare that to a domestic dog like this Airedale Terrier skull: Airedale Skull Bone Clones BC-127


The jaws are very similar, however the Maned Wolf is an omnivore where most of their food is not protein: The Maned Wolf in Captivity

Maned Wolf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"A large fraction of its diet (over 50%, according to some studies) is vegetable matter, including sugarcane, tubers, and fruit (especially the Wolf Apple (Solanum lycocarpum). Captive Maned Wolves were traditionally fed meat-heavy diets and developed bladder stones."

It may be flawed if standing alone on that one fact that dogs are carnivores, but if added into all the other "why's" it makes total sense.

One must look at the entire animal's physiology and morphology and behavior to discern what lifestyle they lead. Those two skulls are similar in shape and function, but when looking at everything else for each specimen, like the digestive system, behavior and physiology they lead very different lifestyles and cannot be compared in the whole.

[spookychick13]

Dogs Likely Descended From Middle Eastern Wolf : NPR

[RawFedDogs]

Dogs Likely Descended From Middle Eastern Wolf : NPR

As I understand the article, these were still grey wolves, just grey wolves that lived in the middle east. It said wolves from different parts of the world would have slightly different markers and this is understandable. I don't think it contradicts his previous work.

[RawFedDogs]

The jaws are very similar, however the Maned Wolf is an omnivore where most of their food is not protein:

The maned wolf is an anomaly just as the panda. Like the panda, it is a carnivore that lives on plant material. Just because it eats omnivore food does not make it an omnivore just as us feeding our dogs omnivore food doesn't make them omnivores.

[spookychick13]

As I understand the article, these were still grey wolves, just grey wolves that lived in the middle east. It said wolves from different parts of the world would have slightly different markers and this is understandable. I don't think it contradicts his previous work.

I didn't think it did either, a wolf is a wolf (aside from the freaky maned ones) and I thought it was if anything proving the carnivore point.