Nutrient Database!

[DaneMama]

Here is a nutrient database that you can search nearly anything and its nutritional breakdown. I think this is highly useful to us raw feeders to get a good idea of what the nutrient data is on what we feed. Give it a shot!

http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/

[JayJayisme]

Very interesting to compare the raw version of something (like a skin-on chicken breast) with a cooked (roasted) version of the same thing. We take for granted that "cooking kills essential nutrients" but comparing the data here between raw and cooked versions of several meats didn't seem to support that to any high degree. In fact, it seems like the concentrations of most of the nutrients simply increase after cooking, which is likely to be directly proportional to the reduction of moisture in the meat (water and fat) during the cooking process. The only vitamins that seem to suffer significantly from cooking are the D family.

Still, for raw feeders, we know that many essential nutrients come from the bone, which is discarded as refuse for these figures in both the raw and cooked data. Since cooking the bones makes them inedible, it's impossible to compare apples-to-apples here between cooked and raw. But it would really be interesting to see a nutrient comparison between a 100g raw bone-in chicken breast, and a 100g cooked boneless chicken breast. The nutrient content on the meat alone is only part of the story with regards to dogs.

[DaneMama]

Yes, I had the same thought Jay and wished they would include the nutrient data for bones. I think you can contact them and ask for the nutrient analysis to be done on bones...not exactly sure if they would do it but it's worth a shot!

Yes the cooked vs raw nutrient breakdown is interesting, but to me what they consider cooking is not nearly the same as what meats have to go through during the process of making kibble. Maybe this makes sense to the homecooked debate with meats? Who knows for sure what their idea or method of cooking really is...

This does show that raw is actually much lower in protein than most kibbles out there, considering most people assume that raw is much higher in protein than commercial diets.

[dobesgalore]

Is the lower protien a bad thing? It does seem like it would be a higher protien content being raw meat and organs.

[funshine]

Can we assume that the nutritional value of cooked meat for dogs is the same that for people?
Do both "animals" get the same amount of goodness out of cook (or raw)?
I was just wondering is "value after cooked" equals to "can be digestively fully used".

[RawFedDogs]

Cooking destroys enzymes which aren't listed in the database I don't think. Enzymes aid in digestion and bioavailabllity and they basically don't exist in cooked food. Add to that the fact that moisture is cooked out and I assume so is some of the fat. Fat is a very important nutrient to dogs. Then there is the "no bone" problem in cooked stuff.

[JayJayisme]

Yes the cooked vs raw nutrient breakdown is interesting, but to me what they consider cooking is not nearly the same as what meats have to go through during the process of making kibble. Maybe this makes sense to the homecooked debate with meats? Who knows for sure what their idea or method of cooking really is...

This does show that raw is actually much lower in protein than most kibbles out there, considering most people assume that raw is much higher in protein than commercial diets.

I completely agree. Meat in kibble is cooked to death and the nutritional analysis of it would probably be much different than the same type and amount of meat cooked for normal human consumption. I was thinking the same thing as far as this being more relevant to the whole raw versus home cooked meal debate.

The way I see it is that even though cooked meat itself seems to be nearly nutritionally equal to the same type and amount of raw meat, the cooking precludes the inclusion of bones, which as we all know are key components in the PMR diet and provide essential benefits that aren't available elsewhere.

As far as protein, this makes sense since the protein amount is based on a fixed weight and in meat (cooked or raw), much of that weight is simply water. Look at roasted beef (like a tri-tip roast) compared to beef jerky. Per 100 grams of meat, lean roasted tri-tip has about 26g protein while high quality beef jerky (meat and spices w/no fillers) has about 60g of protein per 100g of product. Of course, high quality beef jerky is basically beef that has had most of the water removed.

After feeding my dogs PMR now for almost a year I'm convinced that the water in their meat is as important as anything else in the diet. They drink way less from the water bowl, meaning they are getting a steady supply of water from their food and not waiting until they get thirsty most of the time. I wouldn't be surprised to discover health benefits from water supplied in this fashion over the way kibble fed dogs obtain it, which is after they've eaten a bunch of dry food then eventually get thirsty. I suspect the moisture WITH their food helps with digestion and reduces the incidence of things like kidney stones, etc. even though they are eating a lot of calcium from bone consumption. Just speculation on my part but nature is a wonderful thing if you let her work.

[JayJayisme]

Can we assume that the nutritional value of cooked meat for dogs is the same that for people?
Do both "animals" get the same amount of goodness out of cook (or raw)?
I was just wondering is "value after cooked" equals to "can be digestively fully used".

The nutritional VALUE is the same regardless of what is eating it but yes, the bioavailability may vary depending on what is eating the food.

The utilization and efficiently of a given type of food in a particular animal is a very complicated subject and I doubt if many thoroughly comprehensive clinical studies have been conducted on this in humans, let alone animals.

I think in this case it's easiest to rely on nature, evolution, and observation for the most plausible answer. I know when I feed my dogs kibble, even one meal, their daily output is staggering. When I feed them people food (cooked meat, cereals, and fruit/veggies), it is less but still quite high. When I feed them raw meaty bones and organs, their output is very little. I'd say over 75% LESS than when they eat kibble and 30-40% or so less than when they eat people food.

If that doesn't tell you all you need to know, I don't know what does. They obviously process raw meat and bones very, very efficiently.

[Samble]

Here's another nice nutrition fact site.

Nutrition facts, calories in food, labels, nutritional information and analysis – NutritionData.com

I find it quite useful for recipe research. =)

[nykea]

Hello and many thanks for these web sites, they are just GREAT! I was searching for egg shell nutrients, as this is our main source of calcium now, and I found this paper:
Mineral, amino acid, and hormonal composition of chicken eggshell powder and the evaluation of its use in human nutrition -- Schaafsma et al. 79 (12): 1833 -- Poultry Science

I don't know if it's generally available (working from Uni has certain privileges ;) ), but this is the mean table with mineral composition of egg shell: