# Fats and oils from animals, not plants..



## StaffyDaddy (Mar 28, 2009)

*Dogs & cats are carnivores, so it should come as no surprise that fat (not carbohydrate) is essential to their health, and that the best fat source is from animals, not plants.*

*FATS vs. CARBOHYDRATES - AN ENERGY PERSPECTIVE*
When it comes to dealing with fat, a dogs' metabolism is much more effective than the human metabolism. And while fats and carbohydrates can both provide energy, they function very differently in the body of a dog or cat.

It is important to note that while fats are essential in the diets of dogs and cats, carbohydrates are not.

Dogs metabolize fat the way humans metabolize carbohydrates. In other words, fat is their fuel - not carbohydrate, and fat (not carbohydrates), provides them the ability to function at their greatest peak of health.

*UNDERSTANDING OMEGA 3 FATTY ACIDS*
While many people understand the importance of essential fats such as Omega 3 in their pet's diet, fewer know the importance of the Omega 3 source.

There are the three kinds of Omega 3:


EPA (Eicosapentaenoic acid), from animal sources
DHA (Docosahexaenoic acid), from animal sources
ALA (Alpha-linolenic acid), from plant sources
 Although similar in appearance, these Omega 3 fatty acids are, in fact, very different. EPA and DHA are 'long chain' Omega 3s that are typically derived from oily fish, such as salmon or herring. Easily absorbed by the body, EPA and DHA are highly bio-available and are the Biologically Appropriate choice for dogs & cats.

ALA is a bit different. Extracted from plants such as flax, canola or coconut, ALA is a 'short chain' Omega 3 that is *not* readily absorbed or utilized by carnivorous animals, like dogs & cats.

Although reputable sources like the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition report that Omega 3 from plants (ALA) is of little nutritional use to dogs & cats, conventional pet food makers continue to use sunflower, flax, coconut or canola oils, largely due to lower cost and longer shelf life.

*ORIJEN USES ONLY OMEGA 3 FROM ANIMAL SOURCES*
Because your companion dog or cat not only biologically craves fat sources from animals but also processes them with greater ease. The result is outstanding physical conditioning and a lustrous skin and coat that reflects peak inner health.

Orijen Pet Foods: About ORIJEN:


----------



## t1dirty (May 21, 2009)

so the omega 3 fatty acids in blue wilderness r from herring Oil..so this is good right r i'm i reading wrong


----------



## StaffyDaddy (Mar 28, 2009)

it's definitely good


----------



## MY MIKADO (Apr 7, 2006)

Oz are you going to post up the importance of Omega 6 and 9 too?


----------



## StaffyDaddy (Mar 28, 2009)

* FATTY ACIDS in the dog and cat diet... these essential dietary ingredients are often overlooked when it comes to pet foods. 
Learn more about Omega Fatty acids and pet nutrition...*​ You have read about them, seen advertisements about them and maybe even have taken some yourself; but what do you really know about * FATTY ACIDS and nutrition*? What happens if too much is ingested... or too little? Did you know that over 70 have been discovered in nature? You have heard them be called "essential" Fatty Acids and that is exactly what they are&#8230; essential for you and your pets to consume in the diet in order to achieve good health. Let's pretend we know nothing about these fats... on this page we'll give the subject a good study to find out why we need to be aware of the significant role Fatty Aids play in our zofamily's health. (Pronounced like "So Family", a zofamily is the term used for any human family that considers its pets to be a part of the real family.)Pets and humans eat to live. It also just happens to be enjoyable. Humans and dogs are Omnivores, that is we and dogs can utilize either plant or animal sources exclusively and still survive. Cats are true Carnivores because they HAVE to consume meat to survive and will not live long on plant-only sources of food. One of the necessary elements of a health promoting diet for us humans, for dogs, and for cats is fats. There are all kinds of biologically active fats and each one plays a role in the biochemical pathways within us that keep us (the zofamily) alive. Some fats can be digested and split up into smaller fat items and those smaller fat items contribute their fair share in the health of the individual. Without Fatty Acids in proper ratios, we're all in trouble!​ *WHAT ARE ESSENTIAL FATTY ACIDS?*Fatty Acids (there are over 70 of them!) are important for a wide array of cell structure components and for many chemical reactions in the body including hormonal and energy activities. Fatty Acids play a vital role in establishing a healthy lipid barrier in the skin to block irritants and infections. In an animal's body (and ours) the liver and other tissues can make many of the fatty acids that are required for the body's chemical factory to operate. In dogs, though, there is one that they cannot make... Linoleic Acid (also called Omega6 Fatty Acid). So THAT is called an ESSENTIAL FATTY ACID because the dog needs to consume it from dietary sources. With adequate Omega6 in the dog's diet the other fatty acids needed for metabolism can be created internally. In cats there are two ESSENTIAL FATTY ACIDS, Linoleic and Arachidonic Acids. And since Arachidonic Acid is only present in animal tissues, cats must consume meat as a source for this chemical. See an interesting article on cat nutrient requirements and how they are different from a canine's.
*Fatty Acids have a long Carbon atom backbone 
to which are attached Hydrogen atoms and few Oxygen atoms.*​ Let's take a look at the structure of the two most important Fatty Acids that the zofamily needs, Omega 3 and Omega 6 Fatty Acids: The word Omega is a chemistry term indicating where the unsaturated (missing a Hydrogen atom) double bond is on the long chain of carbon atoms making up the backbone of the Fatty Acid molecule. Omega 3 means the unsaturated double bond is three carbon atoms from the end of the long molecule and Omega 6 means the double bond is 6 carbon atoms from the end of the Fatty Acid molecule. What seems to us to be an insignificant difference between structures of a chemical can really make a huge difference in the chemical's activity&#8230; just like changing one single letter's placement in a sentence can change the entire meaning of the sentence.








​ 







​ *CAN THEY BE OVERUSED?*
Yes, because Fatty Acids do have specific effects on the body; consuming too much and in an incorrect ratio may lead to clotting problems and relative deficiencies of Vitamin E and other vitamins. It has been







determined that Omega Fatty Acids need to be consumed by dogs and humans (and presumably by cats) in an optimum ratio for the ideal health benefits to be active. Too much of one, not enough of another, and the zofamily will pay the price with less than optimum health. The Iams Company has pioneered Fatty Acid research in animals and they have found that supplementing a diet with large amounts of Omega3 fatty acids (for example, a diet with nearly equal amounts of Omega6 to Omega3 fatty acids) may lead to health problems in dogs and cats. They have determined that a higher amount of Omega6 than Omega3, in a ratio of from between 5:1 to 10:1, has the optimum observable health effects. 
*HOW DO I KNOW WHEN A DEFICIENCY OCCURS?*
 If enough Linoleic Acid (Omega6) is present in the dog's diet, the other fatty acids can be synthesized within the dog. The simplest way to assess the possibility a deficiency is to take a close look at your pet... really up-close!







If the skin is dry and flaky and the coat actually feels greasy and dull and has a coarse texture, there's an excellent chance the pet is not getting high quality fats in the diet. Remember, the coat may actually feel oily or greasy and have a rancid odor and yet dog may have a fat intake deficit. This effect is common in dogs on cheap "reducing" diets because the first thing a manufacturer does in formulating a "reduced calorie diet" is to cut the total fat content of the diet to reduce total calories. The dog or cat may not even loose weight but the potential for a Fatty Acid deficiency is quite probable.
This photo on the left is typical of a dog that has a Fatty Acid deficiency in its diet. It has been fed a generic, cheap, corn-based food for a long time and the dog did not look good, the coat was dull and coarse and the poor dog was always itching and scratching. You can easily guess how it must have felt, too. Within two weeks on a high quality diet (meat is the first ingredient listed) this dog will look entirely different! Supplemental fatty acids can speed recovery from these deficient states. Many types of dermatological problems are avoided if the dog or cat is consuming an optimum diet. In some cases, adding a supplement such as *DermCaps*, a popular Omega Fatty Acid supplement with a number of beneficial ingredients, is the key factor in avoiding repeated episodes of Hot Spots and other skin afflictions. If your dog or cat seems to lack good coat and skin health, consider upgrading the diet to a meat-based ingredient formula and adding a supplement such as *DermCaps*.



*Some of the defects attributed to Fatty Acid deficiencies are the following:* Eczema-like skin eruptions  Loss of hair  Behavioral disturbances  Kidney degeneration  Susceptibility to infections  Failure of wound healing  Liver degeneration  Arthritis-like conditions Heart and circulatory problems  Drying up of glands  Sterility in males  Miscarriage in females  Growth retardation  Weakness  Impairment of vision and learning ability ​
*Sources of Omega 6 Fatty Acid...*
*







*Plants are an excellent source of Linoleic Acid. Because of the first double bond occurring at the 6th carbon atom, Linoleic Acid is sometimes referred to as Omega6 Fatty Acid. Omega6 is found in safflower, sunflower, corn and evening primrose oils and Borage oil.It is also present in poultry fat and pork fat but very little is present in beef or butter fat. Found in common pet food ingredients such as corn and chicken fat, it is a required nutritional component of the canine and feline diet. It cannot be synthesized within a dog or cat's body so it must be consumed in some form of food so that other fatty acids can then be synthesized internally. It is essential for normal skin and coat health, for growth, cell membrane integrity and fat-soluble vitamin interactions. 

*Sources of Omega 3 Fatty Acids&#8230; *








Because of the first double bond occurs at the 3rd carbon atom, Linolenic Acid is sometimes referred to as Omega3 Fatty Acid. It's exact role in canine and feline nutrition is still not completely understood. It is very unstable unless kept cool and away from light and oxygen. Fish oils, especially cold-water fish such as salmon, mackerel, halibut, and herring, and in animals that feed on these fish, are the primary dietary source of omega-3 fatty acids. Omega-3 fatty acids are also found in oils from some plants (canola and flax). Flaxseeds are rich in omega-3FAs. Walnuts and soybeans also contain significant amounts as well as freshly ground wheat germ.
*Sources of both Omega 3 and Omega 6 Fatty Acids*
Dried beans, such as great northern, kidney, navy and soybeans are inexpensive sources of both Omega6 and Omega3 Essential Fatty Acids. Certain fish are very rich in EFAs. The body can convert EFAs from fish more easily than from other sources.
*Sources of Arachidonic Acid&#8230;
*This essential fatty acid for felines is present in some fish oils, pork fat and poultry fat.


----------



## StaffyDaddy (Mar 28, 2009)

*Definitions*:
To help understand all this Fatty Acid dialogue, here are some definitions to which you can refer when a precise meaning is required:
*Linolenic Acid* has 18 carbon atoms and is called Omega3 Fatty Acid.
*Linoleic Acid* has 18 carbon atoms and is called Omega6 Fatty Acid.
*Arachidonic Acid* is has 20 carbon atoms and is present only in animal fats.
An* OIL *is a lipid substance that is liquid at 25° C which is 77° Fahrenheit. *Oils *are liquid at room temperature and usually are polyunsaturated.
A* FAT* is a lipid substance that is solid at 25° C which is 77° Fahrenheit. *Fats* are solids at room temperature and are usually saturated.
*EFA* stands for Essential Fatty Acids.
An *Essential Fatty Acid* is one that an individual must ingest in order to survive.
*Saturated Fatty Acids* are those that have no chemical bonds left unattended, that is, they have no "double bonds" between their carbon backbone waiting to trap such atoms as hydrogen.
*Unsaturated Fatty Acids* are those that have chemical spaces that will attract more hydrogen atoms and do have "double bonds" along their carbon backbones. 
*Monounsaturated Fatty Acids* have only one place where there is a "double bond" along the carbon backbone.
*Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids* have more than one place where there is a "double bond" along the carbon backbone. All the essential fatty acids are polyunsaturated.
*GLA *is gamma linoleic acid which is the active form of Linoleic Acid.
Linoleic Acid (Omega6) maintains skin and coat condition in dogs and cats. Without enough linoleic acid dogs and cats may experience dull, dry coat, hair loss, greasy skin and increased susceptibility to skin inflammation. When the skin is already irritated due to insufficient high quality fat sources in the diet, any additional irritant such as pollen, dust, bacteria or dampness can trigger intense itching. That's why supplements that contain Fatty Acids can often have very noticeable beneficial effects in alleviating itching in pets. Cats also require another fatty acid, Arachidonic Acid, for normal skin and coat health. Therefore, in cats Arachidonic Acid is an Essential Fatty Acid; as mentioned earlier, dogs can make their own Arachidonic Acid from Omega3 Fatty Acid.
Linolenic Acid (Omega3) also acts as an anti-inflammatory agent by stimulating the production of certain hormone-like substances called prostaglandins. Omega3s are found in fatty tissues of all wild animals but appear to be somewhat deficient in domestic livestock such as beef cattle.
Over 2,000 studies have been done on Omega3 Fatty Acids and their effect on human and animal health. It appears that sufficient amounts of Omega3 can lower blood pressure, reduce the clotting of blood platelets and therefore reduce blood clots, and reduce abnormal heart beating (arrhythmia). Proper ratios of Fatty Acids in the diet appear to be important in optimal health of the individual.


----------



## StaffyDaddy (Mar 28, 2009)

For many years, pet owners have given fatty acids to their dogs and cats to change a dull, dry hair coat into a more glossy one. More recently, veterinarians have found that fatty acids play important roles in other areas of skin and coat health such as allergies, the control of inflammation, joint health, and the function of other body organs in dogs and cats. 
What are fatty acids? 
Fatty acids are specific types of polyunsaturated fats. 
The two main classes of fatty acids we will be discussing are the omega-3's and the omega-6's. These classifications are based on molecular characteristics. (For you biochemistry buffs out there, check out the text box at the end of this article.) You may also have heard about omega-9 fatty acids. Omega-9's actually decrease the concentrations of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids in the blood and skin. 
Which fatty acids do pets need? 
Animals can produce some of the fatty acids they need, but not all of them. Those fatty acids which they can not produce themselves, but must be obtained through their diet, are called 'essential' fatty acids. Interestingly, what is 'essential' for one species of animal is not necessarily essential for another. For example, the fatty acid, arachidonic acid is essential for cats but not for dogs. 
In some disease conditions, certain enzymes which convert one fatty acid to another may be deficient, or the animal may not be able to adequately absorb fatty acids from the intestine. In animals with these conditions, some of the 'nonessential' fatty acids actually become 'essential,' that is, required in the diet, and in higher amounts. Deficiencies of fatty acids may also occur with the use of fat-restricted diets in overweight dogs. 
Fatty acids in foods are subject to degradation. Overcooking can destroy fatty acids. Improper storage or a suboptimal amount of antioxidants in dry food may result in rancidity and a subsequent deficiency in fatty acids. 
Omega-3 fatty acids 
Omega-3 fatty acids include: 


Alpha-linolenic acid (ALA)
Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA)
Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)
 ALA can be converted into EPA, however, this conversion does not occur in the skin. EPA is the workhorse of the omega-3 fatty acids and is incorporated into the cell membrane. 
Omega-6 fatty acids 
Omega-6 fatty acids include: 


Linoleic acid (LA)
Gamma linolenic acid (GLA)
Dihomo-gamma-linolenic acid (DGLA)
Arachidonic acid (AA)
 LA can be converted into GLA, but not in the skin. However, DGLA can be made from GLA in the skin. 
LA is important because it optimizes water permeability in the skin. AA, on the other hand, in increased amounts, is the troublemaker among the fatty acids. 
Ratios of fatty acids 
Research is being performed to determine the optimal ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids that should be consumed. Previously, it was thought that the ratio should be approximately 15:1. Current recommendations are for ratios of 10:1 to 5:1. 
Most pet foods contain far more omega-6 fatty acids than omega-3's. Some pet food companies have added omega-3 fatty acids to their foods to lower the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids. It is important to realize that although the ratios may be a guideline, the actual concentration of EPA in the omega-3's is what is most important. 
Sources of fatty acids 
Fat may contain fatty acids, but in extremely varying quantities. For example, beef fat will have a very low percentage of fatty acids, whereas, sunflower oil and fish oil will have much larger percentages. 
Fatty acids are found in different quantities in many plants and cold water fish. Marine oils are good sources of EPA and DPA. The other fatty acids are found in higher quantities in certain plants and grains. Sunflower oil and safflower oil are especially high in LA. 
For animals allergic to fish, the seeds of the _Salvia hispanica_ plant provide a rich source of omega-3 fatty acids. The seeds of the plant contain their own antioxidants. 
As mentioned previously, most pet foods contain far more omega-6 than omega-3 fatty acids. It has been found that cattle and poultry fed increased omega-3 fatty acids will produce meat and eggs higher in omega-3 fatty acids. In the future, the use of these products in pet food may help to optimize the omega-6 to omega-3 ratio in the diet. 
How fatty acids function in inflammation


----------



## StaffyDaddy (Mar 28, 2009)

EPA, DHA, and DGLA decrease the harmful effects of AA. 
Both AA and EPA can be incorporated into cell membranes. When a cell is damaged, AA is released from the cell membrane and is metabolized by enzymes into substances which increase inflammation and pruritus (itching). EPA is also released when a cell is damaged. It competes with AA for the same metabolic enzymes. EPA results in the production of less inflammatory substances. DHA also results in the production of less inflammatory substances. So DHA and EPA decrease the harmful effects of AA. 
DGLA also competes with AA for enzymes. In addition, DGLA causes the release of prostaglandin E1 (PGE), a substance which inhibits the release of AA from the cell membrane. 
Indications for the use of supplemental fatty acids 
From that complicated description, we hope you can see that by supplementing with EPA, DHA, and GLA (which the body can easily convert to DGLA) we may be able to lessen the effects of inflammation. Fatty acids affect a number of body systems and conditions, as described below. 
Allergies and Autoimmune Conditions: Allergies and autoimmune conditions occur because the immune system over-reacts. Certain fatty acids can lessen the harmful effects these diseases can have on the body. 
Arthritis: Research is showing that omega-3 fatty acids, especially EPA, may be helpful in reducing the inflammation associated with arthritis. 
Other Inflammatory Diseases: Other diseases which are accompanied by inflammation such as ulcerative colitis, inflammatory bowel disease, and rheumatoid arthritis may respond to the anti-inflammatory effects of certain fatty acids. 
Dull and Dry Hair Coats: Haircoats which are dull, brittle, and dry often respond to supplementation with essential fatty acids, especially LA. It has also been found that in some cases of seborrhea, there is a deficiency of LA in the skin. In these cases, supplements high in LA are useful. The addition of EPA and GLA is also beneficial in that it would help negate the release of AA from cells damaged because of this skin condition. 
Yeast Infections: Fatty acids have been shown to slow down the growth of _Malassezia pachydermatis_, a common yeast infection in dogs and cats, in the laboratory. It is thought, these fatty acids may play a beneficial role in the treatment of this yeast infection on the skin and ears in dogs and cats. 
Preventing Atopy: Some researchers have suggested that fatty acid supplements may be useful to prevent atopy (allergies to inhaled substances such as pollens and molds) from developing in young animals. The theory is that pregnant atopic mothers have a decreased amount of PGE in their systems. PGE is necessary for the development of a healthy immune system in neonates. If the mothers are deficient in PGE, their offspring may be more likely to develop abnormal immune systems which would make them more prone to atopy themselves. Since GLA, when converted to DGLA, causes the release of PGE, giving GLA to a pregnant female in the last month of pregnancy and during lactation may increase PGE and decrease the incidence of the offspring developing atopy. 
Eyes: In addition to their effects on the developing immune system, omega-3 fatty acids are also essential for the proper development of the retina and visual cortex. 
Heart Problems: Evidence suggests, omega-3 fatty acids may prevent certain cardiac problems as well. Ventricular arrhythmias in dogs have been prevented and high blood pressure has been reduced in dogs supplemented with fatty acids. Animals prone to thromboembolisms may be helped by the anti-clotting effect fatty acids have on platelets. 
Cancers: Omega-3 fatty acids have been shown to slow the development and metastasis of certain cancers. Omega-6 fatty acids, on the other hand, have been shown to stimulate tumor development. 
Plasma Triglycerides and Cholesterol: Fish oils have been shown to decrease levels of triglycerides and cholesterol in the blood. Animals receiving retinoid therapy (synthetic vitamin A derivatives) for various skin problems may develop hyperlipidemia. Fish oils may benefit these patients. 
It should be obvious that fatty acids are necessary for the normal function of many systems of the body. It is also obvious that not all fatty acids are equal. Because the different fatty acids have different effects, the choice of a fatty acid supplement needs to be based on the specific condition we are trying to manage. 
The sources and uses of fatty acid supplements are shown below. 

Abbreviation Essential for Cats Essential for Dogs Source Indications for Use Omega-3 Cancer, cardiac problems, inflammatory conditions, eye development
Alpha-Linolenic ALA X (?)
X (?)
Flax seed, pumpkin seed, soybean oil
-- Eicosapentaenoic EPA Marine fish oil Atopy, arthritis, autoimmune disease, retinoid therapy, seborrhea, decrease cholesterol Docosahexaenoic DHA Marine fish oil Atopy, retinoid therapy Omega-6 Linoleic LA X
X
Sunflower oil, safflower oil, soybean oil, corn oil, evening primrose oil Dry skin, dull hair coat, seborrhea Arachidonic AA X
None - Can make inflammation worse Gamma-Linolenic GLA Evening primrose oil, borage oil, black currant seed oil Atopy, autoimmune disease, seborrhea, reduce development of atopy in neonates Dihomo-gamma-Linolenic DGLA 
Choosing a fatty acid supplement 
Animals being treated for atopy should have supplements with high amounts of EPA, DHA, GLA, and vitamin E. 
Animals with seborrhea and other keratinization disorders will benefit from supplements high in LA. Zinc, folic acid, and other additives may also be helpful. Dry, dull hair coats are also an indication for supplementation with LA. 
The polyunsaturated fats in fatty acid supplements increase the need for antioxidants. Fatty acid supplements should be fortified with vitamin E. 
There are numerous brands of fatty acid supplements with different quantities of vitamins and minerals, as shown in the table below. You can see that the amount of various fatty acids and additives varies considerably. If one brand of fatty acid supplement is not beneficial, another one may be since the ratio of the various fatty acids differ from brand to brand.


----------



## StaffyDaddy (Mar 28, 2009)

My sources:

Omega Fatty Acids: Sources, Effects, and Therapeutic Usesin Dogs


----------



## Proud Marine Dad (Apr 1, 2009)

StaffyDaddy said:


> *Dogs & cats are carnivores, *


*

Dogs in the wild were carnivores but domestication of them has turned them into more of an omnivore.

Good post though Oz and very informative although it sounds a bit like an infomercial for Origen.*


----------



## StaffyDaddy (Mar 28, 2009)

Proud Marine Dad said:


> Dogs in the wild were carnivores but domestication of them has turned them into more of an omnivore.


no no no no no! im sorry but you need to get over that, because if a dog eats primarily meat, then it is a carnivore. if its more of a mixed balance, like humans eat, then they would be omnivores. dogs in the wild or dogs in our households both need primarily meat with no added carbs from plants, because they GET ENERGY FROM ANIMAL FAT... maybe if you read through the whole post, you'd see that. This is why wheat oats barley rice and corn do little or nothing to the dogs. you might say well my dog isnt as active.. the choice action would be to not feed that dog as much, as it does not need as much protein or animal fat. veggies and fruits are added to supplement vitamins that promote a healthy immune system, and amino acids are the building block of muscle and the primary source of energy. no matter how domesticated your animal might be, grains in food are passed almost undigested.


----------



## Proud Marine Dad (Apr 1, 2009)

StaffyDaddy said:


> no no no no no! im sorry but you need to get over that, because if a dog eats primarily meat, then it is a carnivore. if its more of a mixed balance, like humans eat, then they would be omnivores. dogs in the wild or dogs in our households both need primarily meat with no added carbs from plants, because they GET ENERGY FROM ANIMAL FAT... maybe if you read through the whole post, you'd see that. This is why wheat oats barley rice and corn do little or nothing to the dogs. you might say well my dog isnt as active.. the choice action would be to not feed that dog as much, as it does not need as much protein or animal fat. veggies and fruits are added to supplement vitamins that promote a healthy immune system, and amino acids are the building block of muscle and the primary source of energy. no matter how domesticated your animal might be, grains in food are passed almost undigested.


Well I disagree and I am sure Lisa will as well. 
I eat primarily meat, am I a carnivore? oke: :rofl:

When I said dogs are omnivores I was talking about physiologically, not diet.
An animals diet does not necessarily classify it's physiology. 

I believe that wolves and dog ancestors that live in the wild are carnivores because they have shorter intestinal tracts whereas domesticated dogs have adapted and grown longer intestinal tracts to where carbohydrates are readily absorbed.


----------



## StaffyDaddy (Mar 28, 2009)

Proud Marine Dad said:


> Good post though Oz and very informative although it sounds a bit like an infomercial for Origen.


Actually the first small portion of it is off the orijen website. i even included the link, but i speak with people that feed it and a 60 dollar bag lasts twice as long as a 40 dollar bag of something that isnt grain free. point is our dogs dont need grain, and yes too much protein is bad if not metabolized, so if you have a less active dog you simply feed less


----------



## StaffyDaddy (Mar 28, 2009)

The natural diet for a wild dog would consist mainly of small animals. This would include raw meat, bones, and a small amount of fruit/grains found in the small animals intestine. The healthiest diet for a dog, would most closely resemble their natural diet. Most commercial dry dog foods have about 55% grain in them, because the dog food is cheaper to make. Grain is a cheap filler, but is not a healthy diet for your dog, and can eventually cause bad health and even disease. In fact, dogs do not even have a requirement for carbohydrates. Canine and Feline Nutrition "The fact that dogs and cats do not require carbohydrate is immaterial because the nutrient content of most commercial foods include (carbohydrates).(2)

Small Animal Clinical Nutrition III, written by the founder of Science Diet (Mark Morris Sr.) and his son (Mark Morris Jr.): "Some question exists regarding the need of dogs and cats for dietary carbohydrate. From a practical sense, the answer to this question is of little importance because there are carbohydrates in most food ingredients used in commercially prepared dog foods."(3)

The Waltham Book of Companion Animal Nutrition: "There is no known minimum dietary requirement for carbohydrate..."(4)​Many of us, including our dogs are victims of slick advertising campaigns put out by commercial pet food companies. They would like you to believe that your dog will not be healthy unless you force them to eat an unnatural diet of mainly grains, along with inferior quality meat, highly processed with a generous sprinkling of preservatives and added synthetic vitamins.


----------



## Proud Marine Dad (Apr 1, 2009)

StaffyDaddy said:


> Many of us, including our dogs are victims of slick advertising campaigns put out by commercial pet food companies. They would like you to believe that your dog will not be healthy unless you force them to eat an unnatural diet of mainly grains, along with inferior quality meat, highly processed with a generous sprinkling of preservatives and added synthetic vitamins.


I am not advocating the crap Science Diet and the others sell which are mainly grains and low quality grains at that. I am saying some high quality grains in foods like Innova and others are actually good and yes they do benefit from them.



> In fact, dogs do not even have a requirement for carbohydrates.
> 
> Canine and Feline Nutrition "The fact that dogs and cats do not require carbohydrate is immaterial because the nutrient content of most commercial foods include (carbohydrates).(2)


Huh?



> Small Animal Clinical Nutrition III, written by the founder of Science Diet (Mark Morris Sr.) and his son (Mark Morris Jr.): "Some question exists regarding the need of dogs and cats for dietary carbohydrate. From a practical sense, the answer to this question is of little importance because there are carbohydrates in most food ingredients used in commercially prepared dog foods."(3)


Isn't that saying exactly what the former quote said?



> The Waltham Book of Companion Animal Nutrition: "There is no known minimum dietary requirement for carbohydrate..."(4)


All this seems to be saying is that they do not know what the minimum requirement is. To me that says the jury is still out on that question.

How old is that research? Are there conflicting views by other clinical canine nutritionists? I have read sites that say the opposite and they were not dog food sites.

Not trying to start a big debate with you my friend, I just think there is not enough proof there to pass this off as the final saying on the matter do you?


----------



## StaffyDaddy (Mar 28, 2009)

I'm not going to answer anything you post about this subject. You take every little thing that a vet tells you to heart trusting that their "medical opinion" is the best for your dog. How do you know that a grain is good quality? How is it beheficial for your dog?!


----------



## Proud Marine Dad (Apr 1, 2009)

StaffyDaddy said:


> I'm not going to answer anything you post about this subject. You take every little thing that a vet tells you to heart trusting that their "medical opinion" is the best for your dog.


Wow! No offense meant but you kind of sound like a kid that picks up his toys out of the sandbox and goes home when he doesn't get his way.

Please show me where I mentioned anything a "vet told me?" 
Red Herring arguments don't fly with me dude.

Tell me, what makes you think what you post is of any more viable means?



> How do you know that a grain is good quality? How is it beheficial for your dog?!


I have researched it as well and I have found people that say many grains are indeed beneficial and a dog can uptake them as protein sources as well!

How the hell do you think vegans survive? They get proteins from non animal sources. Dogs can do the same.

Maybe Lisa can help out here as I have seen her post arguments similar to mine in the past in regards to dogs not being carnivores after so many years of domestication.


----------



## StaffyDaddy (Mar 28, 2009)

Proud Marine Dad said:


> How the hell do you think vegans survive? They get proteins from non animal sources. Dogs can do the same.


Yes and youre speaking of humans. Humans can break down proteins from plants A LOT MORE THAN A DOG CAN!

I think youre confusing carbohydrates with fiber. Fiber is needed in digestion. Pumpkin and potatoes help add fiber to the diet, and it is a lot more beneficial to your dog then rice or wheat because it is digested easier. And TOO much fiber (that includes "wholesome grains") can make for messy, looser stools.


----------



## Proud Marine Dad (Apr 1, 2009)

StaffyDaddy said:


> Yes and youre speaking of humans. Humans can break down proteins from plants A LOT MORE THAN A DOG CAN!


OK, show me the proof then. The sources I have read said that brown rice for an example is a good carb in dry kibble for the very reasons I mentioned earlier.



> I think youre confusing carbohydrates with fiber. Fiber is needed in digestion. Pumpkin and potatoes help add fiber to the diet, and it is a lot more beneficial to your dog then rice or wheat because it is digested easier.


Although pumpkin and potatoes are starches or "fiber" as you refer to them, they are still carbs as far as nutrition is concerned. 
There are only three classes......Proteins, Carbohydrates and Fats.



> And TOO much fiber (that includes "wholesome grains") can make for messy, looser stools.


I agree but once again you are setting up a Straw man argument as I never argued that a kibble should be predominantly grains.

Are you reading what I say?


----------



## StaffyDaddy (Mar 28, 2009)

ok so maybe carnivore would be too extreme of a word to label the dogs of today. but that's no matter because even though they eat other foods, grains only help as roughage because theyre not digested (what's that mean? does that mean that nutrients arent absorbed through the intestines... is that what that means?) So if dogs don't digest it, what other benefits do grains offer? Why not feed potatoes beets and other forms of fiber?


----------



## StaffyDaddy (Mar 28, 2009)

Show me proof of this dog that lived 16 years on that. if dogs can live that old on crap, ill just switch to ol roy, stop giving my dog acv for fleas, stop giving him heartworm meds, and we'll just see how long he lives. better food has been created for a reason. it's to stop marketing the crap used to fill our dogs and feeding a better balance of what your dogs eat. Notice dogs several generations back lived longer. Why's that?


----------



## Proud Marine Dad (Apr 1, 2009)

StaffyDaddy said:


> Show me proof of this dog that lived 16 years on that. if dogs can live that old on crap, ill just switch to ol roy, stop giving my dog acv for fleas, stop giving him heartworm meds, and we'll just see how long he lives. better food has been created for a reason. it's to stop marketing the crap used to fill our dogs and feeding a better balance of what your dogs eat. Notice dogs several generations back lived longer. Why's that?


Why are you so defensive dude? It's not me against you and if you look at some of my past arguments on this subject you will see I am on your side. I just don't agree with the whole carnivore versus omnivore thing. I never advocated any crappy kibble so what's the beef? I use Innova and it is a 5-star rated food.

In regards to a dog living long on lousy food, my son's friend from high school had an APBT that lived to almost 16 years eating Purina One. Fact! I tried to get them to change the kibble with their new APBT but he thinks since the last dog lived that long on Purina he is going to continue it. He doesn't realize there are more factors than just food but I am not going to argue with him. I am the only one in our family that feeds high quality kibble as I don't believe in that cheap crap.


----------



## Proud Marine Dad (Apr 1, 2009)

StaffyDaddy said:


> ok so maybe carnivore would be too extreme of a word to label the dogs of today. but that's no matter because even though they eat other foods, grains only help as roughage because theyre not digested (what's that mean? does that mean that nutrients arent absorbed through the intestines... is that what that means?) So if dogs don't digest it, what other benefits do grains offer? Why not feed potatoes beets and other forms of fiber?


They do digest it and absorb it Oz. Why can't you accept that? If they could not absorb the nutrients from grains then how do they live off of Iams, Science Diet, Ol' Roy, etc, etc, etc?
They should have starved to death in a week or so if the grains just passed through the intestinal tract and exited the colon unabsorbed.


----------



## StaffyDaddy (Mar 28, 2009)

Look, im not advocating one specific form of feed.. Hell, blue wilderness has grain but its got the lowest grain count of anything i want to feed in my area. when i have more money available, i am going to make a switch and stock up on something that doesn't have grain in it. 

I can see why you think grain can be beneficial. It can be, but it goes unused otherwise.

1. If you have an obese dog, the grain acts like a filler and keeps your dog from eating as many calories as you would find in a food with no grain (but like i said if your dog is not as active, then the serving amount should be reduced)

2. Roughage and the anal gland. If the stool is too loose, the contents of the anal sac won't be released, so roughage helps to add "pressure" as bowels are expelled. However, too much grain is a contributor for loose stool. So that's only in moderation. 

3. Helps maintain blood sugar levels in diabetic dog. 


Here's my argument:

1. my dog has 2 or 3 outlets for his energy daily and does not need a low calorie diet.

2. blue wilderness contains potato, which contains fiber, so it's enough roughage without adding unecessary grains. Nice solid stools, all the time.

3. My dog is not diabetic and therefore glucose from corn is not needed in his diet.


----------



## StaffyDaddy (Mar 28, 2009)

Proud Marine Dad said:


> They do digest it and absorb it Oz. Why can't you accept that? If they could not absorb the nutrients from grains then how do they live off of Iams, Science Diet, Ol' Roy, etc, etc, etc?
> They should have starved to death in a week or so if the grains just passed through the intestinal tract and exited the colon unabsorbed.


Why can't you accept that there's not enough benefit to keep grain in diet. There's other ingredients in there, by products, vitamins and minerals... It keeps them full so they won't go hungry, but does not contribute to their energy. Tell me what benefits foods with grains offer?


----------



## Proud Marine Dad (Apr 1, 2009)

StaffyDaddy said:


> Why can't you accept that there's not enough benefit to keep grain in diet. There's other ingredients in there, by products, vitamins and minerals... It keeps them full so they won't go hungry, but does not contribute to their energy. Tell me what benefits foods with grains offer?


Dude I am through debating this with you. You state one thing and then contradict it in the next post.

Case in point:

You say:



> grains only help as roughage because theyre not digested (what's that mean? does that mean that nutrients arent absorbed through the intestines... is that what that means?) So if dogs don't digest it, what other benefits do grains offer?


Then follow with:



> I can see why you think grain can be beneficial. It can be, but it goes unused otherwise.


----------



## StaffyDaddy (Mar 28, 2009)

Whatever then Mike stay off my threads if you want to take it from an informative post to a debate. Im not contradicting myself, there are benefits to specific cases, but overall it does not help the well being of our dog. Dogs of the wild did without humanized food, so can the active dogs of today.


----------



## Proud Marine Dad (Apr 1, 2009)

StaffyDaddy said:


> Whatever then Mike stay off my threads if you want to take it from an informative post to a debate. Im not contradicting myself, there are benefits to specific cases, but overall it does not help the well being of our dog. Dogs of the wild did without humanized food, so can the active dogs of today.


Well, you did contradict yourself on more than one occasion but apparently you missed it even after I pointed out one of them. 
Sorry, I didn't see a rule on the forum that said I had to stay off of threads I don't agree with.

Informative? I guess we have a different definition of the word. I only debate when it is warranted and your post lacked any real proofs which is why I questioned it, but instead of being able to logically work through it and try to get to the truth you did as many do and get emotionally defensive.


----------



## StaffyDaddy (Mar 28, 2009)

I got defensive because you think for some reason, that you have proof against what others share with members on here. Where the F**K is your proof? Seriously? This is coming from the guy that said "my worm medicine is 100 percent guaranteed" Come on now!

There is not rule saying you can't post here, but there is a rule for being an asshole... and disagreeing with everything i say is doing nothing but arguing, especially when you have no means to show proof of what youre saying. so that's a double standard. mines not proof enough, but you belittle me by saying my findings are incorrect. like i said mike, where the f**k is your proof?


----------



## Proud Marine Dad (Apr 1, 2009)

Grow up! I guess I will continue to find a good forum where immature people who fly off the handle are not allowed to be given the privilege of being a mod.


----------



## StaffyDaddy (Mar 28, 2009)

Proud Marine Dad said:


> Grow up! I guess I will continue to find a good forum where immature people who fly off the handle are not allowed to be given the privilege of being a mod.


Youre so right. Im off my rocker, and I just post trivial information. None of it comes from veterinarians, it all comes from folklore and Orijen websites. None of my reputation on here has come from saying what needs to be said, or for contributing or showing how much I'm learning. I became a moderator cuz I paid the staff off and even though I'm financially set and have my priorities straight, I have not yet grown up. I am just disagreeing with you to be a dickhead, because you obviously went to school to be a nutrionalist, and your buddy having a APBT does obviously prove a lot of points. I'm sorry to see you go to another forum, because you have shared nothing but useful, unbiased information and you are obviously implementing your techniques with your dog who you can't control. Wish there was a pill for high drive just like there's a pill for the effects of pms.. cuz theyre both to be expected, right mike?


----------



## Proud Marine Dad (Apr 1, 2009)

Hey Oz, go see your doctor dude and ask for Lithium! You have lost it.


----------



## StaffyDaddy (Mar 28, 2009)

does anyone have anything useful to conribute?


----------



## Roxy_Nie (Oct 10, 2008)

Great thread Oz...

Wonderful information and a great read...


----------



## StaffyDaddy (Mar 28, 2009)

Roxy_Nie said:


> Great thread Oz...
> 
> Wonderful information and a great read...


Thank you!


----------



## performanceknls (Apr 4, 2009)

if you boys don't behave I will put you in the corner! lol

I feed a food that has grain in it and I do not have issues with my performance dogs. Sometimes I have had to add crabs to make certain dogs gain weight. I think the food market is one of the biggest rip off in the pet market. I think finding a good food your dog does good on is the most important part of feeding. I have my kennel on Kirkland from costco and my dogs do great. I also have my Boston terrier and Tasha who have to eat grain free. General will get the runs and Tasha will itch. They eat taste of the wild and do great but they only eat that because they do good on it.

JMO but dogs are so far removed from wolves that comparing their eating habits I think is pointless. My Boston terrier is nothing like a wolf and nether is their system. Each has their own nutritional requirements and i do not want to compare apples to oranges. 

I do not remember either of your points because it got argumentative.
PMD you really know how to get under someones skin, and Oz don't let him get to you.
PMD I have seen this many times in a thread where you will keep posting to get the last word and ruin a good thread. Oz again don't let him get to you.

What I'm I going to do with you boys! lol


----------



## StaffyDaddy (Mar 28, 2009)

I wanted to add about kidney failure in this thread, but didn't know if it related enough. What my vet told me is that high glucose levels in dogs can actually lead to formations of "crystals" which i guess turn into stones? She used more advanced terminology but stated that excess sugar in the blood can cause seriously adverse effects, kidney failure being one of them. And that high protein doesn't directly affect the kidneys, but what makes a difference is the quality of the meat. so technically, we absorb less amino acids in red meat then we do in fish, making fish healthier and more easily digested. It's protein sources that arent processed by the body as easily that contribute to kidney failure. Obviously the lack of water will do it as well, but water should be an obvious one.


----------



## StaffyDaddy (Mar 28, 2009)

performanceknls said:


> JMO but dogs are so far removed from wolves that comparing their eating habits I think is pointless. My Boston terrier is nothing like a wolf and nether is their system. Each has their own nutritional requirements and i do not want to compare apples to oranges.


sorry to take this out of context.. you stated it is just your opinion. and from your opinion, pmd went off on the fact that dogs have evolved. I don't believe that they have evolved, but then again that is my opinion.

A boston terrier, just like the majority of dogs today, is just one of the breeds bred from different outcrosses finally achieving the traits desired. Same with a apbt. Except i think that certain breeds are more active, and for that reason, grain is trivial because it adds no energy to the diet. in a dog that is a house pet, a feed with less protein will be a better choice, as the animal does not burn off the calories associated with high fat and high protein. But normally lower levels of protein in foods means the presence of grains. So the dog gets just as full (not as long though), but absorbs less energy because of it. I am not saying that grain free is the best way to go, or that raw is, but what I'm saying is compared to other ingredients, grains are not essential.

The whole point of the thread was to give examples of how fatty acids are obtained. I learned that flaxseed oil isnt absorbed by our dogs as well as fish oil, so i made the switch. the thread was supposed to give members information if they want it, not to be debate!


----------



## performanceknls (Apr 4, 2009)

I can find a study that will say dogs digestion has changed I can also find a study saying that they have not and a Chihuahua is just the same as a wolf. Again you find a study supporting almost anything it just depends on who paid for the study.
But back to the op, too much fish oil can cause birth defects in pregnant bitches. It is too much Vitamin A that really does it. I prefer wheat germ oil but I have posted that before. Not arguing just offering an alternative to fish oil.


----------



## StaffyDaddy (Mar 28, 2009)

thanks lisa


----------



## Proud Marine Dad (Apr 1, 2009)

performanceknls said:


> I do not remember either of your points because it got argumentative.
> PMD you really know how to get under someones skin, and Oz don't let him get to you.
> PMD I have seen this many times in a thread where you will keep posting to get the last word and ruin a good thread. Oz again don't let him get to you.
> 
> What I'm I going to do with you boys! lol


My apologies. Please remove all my posts in this thread. I was up all night working graveyard shift and not thinking too clearly and got argumentative. I am sorry I ruined your thread Oz. 
I am however not going to apologize for my rebuttal of your "facts" as I still think they are incorrect.


----------



## Marty (Dec 10, 2005)

You bet me too it infinity so here's the next Myth


----------



## Marty (Dec 10, 2005)

*Myth: WOLVES INGEST THE STOMACH CONTENTS OF THEIR PREY.*

This claim is repeated over and over as evidence that wolves and therefore dogs are omnivores. However, this assumption is just that--an assumption. It is not supported by the evidence available to us, and is therefore false!

Wolves do NOT eat the stomach contents of their prey. Only if the prey is small enough (like the size of a rabbit) will they eat the stomach contents, which just happen to get consumed along with the entire animal. Otherwise, wolves will shake out the stomach contents of their large herbivorous prey before sometimes eating the stomach wall. The following quotations are taken from L. David Mech's 2003 book Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation. Mech (and the others who contributed to this book) is considered the world's leading wolf biologist, and this book is a compilation of 350 collective years of research, experiments, and careful field observations. These quotes are taken from chapter 4, The Wolf as a Carnivore.

"Wolves usually tear into the body cavity of large prey and...consume the larger internal organs, such as lungs, heart, and liver. The large rumen [, which is one of the main stomach chambers in large ruminant herbivores,]...is usually punctured during removal and its contents spilled. The vegetation in the intestinal tract is of no interest to the wolves, but the stomach lining and intestinal wall are consumed, and their contents further strewn about the kill site." (pg.123, emphasis added)

"To grow and maintain their own bodies, wolves need to ingest all the major parts of their herbivorous prey, except the plants in the digestive system." (pg.124, emphasis added).

This next quote can be found on the Hunting and Meals page at Kerwood Wildlife Education Center.

"The wolf's diet consists mostly of muscle meat and fatty tissue from various animals. Heart, lung, liver, and other internal organs are eaten. Bones are crushed to get at the marrow, and bone fragments are eaten as well. Even hair and skin are sometimes consumed. The only part consistently ignored is the stomach and its contents. Although some vegetable matter is taken separately, particularly berries, Canis lupus doesn't seem to digest them very well."

From the mouths of the wolf experts themselves, who have observed countless numbers of kills: wolves do NOT eat the stomach contents of their large prey, and are carnivorous animals. Additionally, Neville Buck from the Howletts and Port Lympne Zoological Parks in Kent, England, notes that virtually no small carnivore (which includes varieties of cats, wolves, wild dogs) eat the intestinal contents of their large prey. The contents are spilled in the enclosures and are often rolled in by the animals, but very little is eaten (if any is eaten at all). His observations can be found in Appendix B of Raw Meaty Bones.

Myths About Raw: Do wolves eat stomach contents of prey?


----------



## Marty (Dec 10, 2005)

And more...

*Myth: DOGS ARE TOO FAR REMOVED FROM WOLVES/HAVE BEEN CHANGED TOO MUCH, AND THEREFORE CANNOT HANDLE A RAW DIET .*

This is MOSTLY false. The only truth found in this statement is that humans have changed dogs. BUT, we have only changed their external appearance and temperament, NOT their internal anatomy and physiology. The claim that dogs cannot handle a raw diet because they are so domesticated is only true in that we have been feeding them commercial diets for so long that a dog's system is not running up to par. The result of feeding dogs a highly processed, grain-based food is a suppressed immune system and the underproduction of the enzymes necessary to thoroughly digest raw meaty bones (Lonsdale, T. 2001. Raw Meaty Bones). This does NOT mean, however, that the dog does not "have" those enzymes. Those enzymes are present, and once the dog is taken off the grain-based, plant matter-filled food those enzymes quickly return to the proper working level that allows for optimal digestion of raw meaty bones.

Dogs are so much like wolves physiologically that they are frequently used in wolf studies as a physiological model for wolf body processes (Mech, L.D. 2003. Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation). Additionally, dogs and wolves share 99.8% of their mitochondrial DNA (Wayne, R.K. Molecular Evolution of the Dog Family). This next quote is from Robert K. Wayne, Ph.D., and his discussion on canine genetics (taken from www.fiu.edu/~milesk/Genetics.html).

"The domestic dog is an extremely close relative of the gray wolf, differing from it by at most 0.2% of mDNA sequence..."

Dogs and wolves can freely interbreed and produce fertile offspring-even little dogs like Westies and Chihuahuas are capable of this! This is a dramatic indication that dogs and wolves are very closely related and are compatible in terms of genetics (incompatible animals do not produce viable, fertile offspring, such as donkeys and horses. Their offspring-the mule-is a sterile animal.). The genes for different coat colors, lengths, conformations, and structural differences are present in the wolf population to a certain degree (otherwise wolves would not have been able to give rise to the different dogs we have today. In order for a phenotypic change to occur, there has to be a genetic basis off which to work. If the genes are not there, then the phenotypic change is not going to "magically" occur), but are selected against by nature because they are not advantageous to wolf survival. Humans are the ones that manipulated the breedings to "create" smaller dogs and dogs of varying colors, shapes, and sizes.

Additionally, dogs that are left to their own devices in the wild will form packs and hunt other animals, exhibiting a similar range of behaviors like those seen in wolves. Phenotypic differences like size, ears, etc. will often return to a more "wolf-like" state as the animals outcross and breed freely (for example, Chihuahuas will increase in size if left to breed without specific human selection for size); breed characteristics have been specifically selected according to human whim, and in order to retain those characteristics like dogs must be continually bred to like dogs until the genes for those characteristics are sufficiently 'fixed' within that population of dogs (which is how we came upon the different dog breeds today). One can rightfully question what dogs would end up looking like if they just bred for generations without human interference. Would they gradually look more and more like their ancestral predecessors?

Lastly, dogs have recently been reclassified as Canis lupus familiaris by the Smithsonian Institute (Wayne, R.K. "What is a Wolfdog?" 2. Canid Genetics), placing it in the same species as the gray wolf, Canis lupus. The dog is, by all scientific standards and by evolutionary history, a domesticated wolf (Feldhamer, G.A. 1999. Mammology: Adaptation, Diversity, and Ecology. McGraw-Hill. pg 472.). Those who insist dogs did not descend from wolves must disprove the litany of scientific evidence that concludes wolves are the ancestors of dogs. And, as we have already established, the wolf is a carnivore. Since a dog's internal physiology does not differ from a wolf, dogs have the same physiological and nutritional needs as those carnivorous predators, which, remember, "need to ingest all the major parts of their herbivorous prey, except the plants in the digestive system" to "grow and maintain their own bodies" (Mech, L.D. 2003. Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation.). The next myth will discuss a dog's "changed needs" to cooked food more fully.

What about the argument that dogs may have weaker digestive enzymes than wolves? Some argue that dogs may not be as efficient as wolves in digesting raw meat and bones. This argument has been recognized by wolf researchers (Mech, L.D. 2003. Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation.) but is generally not considered in their dog model studies. Why? From mouth to anus, dog and wolf physiology and basic anatomy are almost precisely the same. What is the significance of this? This means dogs should still be fed a carnivorous diet to meet their needs. What does it matter if they don't have the same digestive capabilities as a wolf? How does that justify feeding them an even harder-to-digest meal of commercial pet food or cooked food? How does that justify feeding them any differently from a prey model diet that has been proven by nature to be completely sufficient?

Let us forget the wolf-dog relations for a moment. Let us just look at the dog itself and listen to what its body can tell us about its diet. The dog has the anatomy and physiology of a predatory carnivore, of a hunter designed to subsist on other animals. It has the skull and jaw design of a carnivore: a deep and C-shaped mandibular fossa that prevents lateral movement of the jaw (lateral movement is necessary for eating plant matter). The jaw muscles are designed for crushing grips and powerful bites, with a jaw that hinges open widely to help gulp chunks of meat and bone. The teeth of the dog are pointed and specialized for ripping, tearing, shearing, and crushing meat and bone. Their saliva lacks amylase, the enzyme responsible for beginning carbohydrate breakdown; instead, they have lysozyme in their saliva, an enzyme that destroys pathogenic bacteria. They have highly elastic stomachs designed to stretch to capacity with ingested meat and bone, complete with incredibly powerful and acidic stomach acid (pH of 1). Their intestines are short and smooth, designed to push meat through quickly so that it does not sit and putrefy in the gut. Their external anatomy also shows development as a hunter. They have eyes situated in the front of their skulls rather than to the side like an herbivore. The body (prior to man-made manipulation of things like size and angulation) is built for chasing down prey, and its senses are acutely developed to help locate prey. By all accounts, this is an animal designed to eat other animals.

Dogs still are carnivores. They still need meat, bones, and organs. They still cannot utilize vegetables as efficiently as meat. Their nutritional needs have not changed much over their years of domestication. Do they need supplemental enzymes, then? The small amount of stool coming out the other end of a raw fed dog clearly indicates that there is no need for extra enzymes (medical conditions requiring extra enzymes not included here). The best, most highly digestible diet for our domesticated carnivores is a prey model diet based on a variety of raw meaty bones and whole carcasses.

Myths About Raw: Are dogs too far removed from wolves to be fed raw food?


----------



## Marty (Dec 10, 2005)

Even more....

*Myth: DOGS HAVE BEEN DOMESTICATED SO LONG THAT THEY HAVE ADAPTED TO COOKED DIETS.*

This is false! Yes, dogs were domesticated from wolves thousands of years ago, and then selectively bred by humans for desired sizes, shapes, and characteristics. However, they have NOT adapted to a cooked food diet, as evidenced by the millions of pets sitting in the waiting rooms of veterinary clinics with periodontal disease, skin diseases, cancers, organ diseases, diabetes, obesity-diseases that have strong connections to cooked and processed foods. No, a cooked diet has not been kind to our animals.

Kibbled foods (which are cooked and highly processed) have only been around for the last 100 years. Evolutionary adaptations require much more time than this. The evolutionary changes-from gross anatomy down to the molecular level-that would be required for the development of such different digestive capabilities would take MUCH longer than the time that wolves have been living with humans.

So what were pets eating before the advent of cooked, processed, kibbled pet diets? They received hardly any cooked food, as food was a precious commodity that very few people would waste on something like a dog (remember, dogs have not always enjoyed the same social status they enjoy now). Instead, they received the human "waste food"-things people would not use or eat, which may have included a small portion of table scraps. By and large, however, the dogs foraged and scavenged on their own, or hunted small prey animals to supplement what little food they received at home.

And before this? Wolf-dogs hunted with their masters and hung around the camps, knowing they would receive whatever raw meat, bones, and offal were left over (Feldhamer, G.A. 1999. Mammology: Adaptation, Diversity, and Ecology. McGraw-Hill. pg 472.). Thousands of years ago, people did not cook for their pets. Why should they? The animals were fully capable of obtaining their own food and moreover were a good "disposal" for unused parts of animals. The dogs ate what they were designed to eat, and until the 1950s (some argue as late as the 1980s and 1990s), dogs were recognized as the carnivores they are.

For more about why home-made, cooked food diets are not a completely viable alternative to raw, please read the Cooked Food myth.

Myths About Raw: Have dogs adapted to cooked diets?


----------



## t1dirty (May 21, 2009)

this was a great read and full of good info...........thanks to all


----------



## StaffyDaddy (Mar 28, 2009)

thanks infinity and marty... hopefully all the information in here is enough to prove a point


----------



## Marty (Dec 10, 2005)

As far as carbohydrates and dogs goes...

*Myth: DOGS NEED CARBOHYDRATES IN THEIR DIET.*

The following text is taken from Holistic Guide for a Healthy Dog, by Wendy Volhard and Kerry Brown. Their discussion of carbohydrates and the functions they perform seem to "prove" that most dogs need additional carbohydrates in their diet, a belief that is very pervasive in most concepts of canine nutrition.

"In addition to providing energy, carbs maintain the health of the thyroid, liver, heart, brain and nerve tissue. They regulate how much starch and fat will be broken down and utilized. Once in the digestive tract and assimilated, they are stored in the liver in the form of glycogen, which controls energy balance. Low carb intake may cause cardiac symptoms and angina. The central nervous system requires carbohydrates for proper functioning as does the brain. The brain can't store glucose and is therefore dependent on the minimum supply of glucose from the blood. With insufficent carbs in the diet, protein and fat are converted to energy, weakening the immune system and preventing the body from building enough antibodies to fight disease. Poor hair growth and constant shedding are symptoms of carbohydrate deficiency.

Thyroid function is also dependent on the correct amount of carbohydrates in a dogs diet. B compounds found in many grains and strach producing veggies is needed so the amino acids phenylalanine and tyrosine can produce T3".

But do most dogs really need carbohydrates? In the Waltham Book of Dog and Cat Nutrition (2nd edition, 1988), we read that

"There is no known minimum dietary carbohydrate requirement for either the dog or the cat. Based on investigations in the dog and with other species it is likely that dogs and cats can be maintained without carbohydrates if the diet supplies enough fat or protein from which the metabolic requirement for glucose is derived."

How can this be? Let us discuss just how the dog and cat are able to fulfill their requirement for *glucose* through a diet of raw meat, bones, and organs.

Carbohydrates do provide quick and easy energy. However, it is not 'carbs' that maintain the health of the organs listed in the quotes above, but *glucose*. Glucose can be obtained from protein through a process known as gluconeogenesis, where amino acids (not fatty acids; those use a different cycle) are "converted" to glucose. Fat can also be used for energy; fats are broken down into Acetyl CoA and are fed directly into the Citric Acid Cycle, bypassing the process of glycolysis (the first stage of carbohydrate metabolism). Thus, glucose and energy can be obtained from other sources. However, if carbs are present they will be converted to energy first before protein and fats because they are easier to use. This is the reason that carbs regulate how much starch and fat will be broken down and utilized. If there is a plethora of carbohydrates, fat will be stored instead of used. If there are not enough carbs to fulfill energy needs, then fat will be converted to Acetyl CoA and used. If no carbs are present, then fat and protein are used to fill energy needs.

Excess carbohydrates are stored in the liver and the muscles as glycogen AND in the body as fat. However, since carboydrates are not the only source of glycogen (which also comes from proteins and fats through a process known as glyconeogenesis), they are not _absolutely_ necessary. Human athletes commonly perform 'carbo loading' techniques where they eat huge carby meals of things like pasta to rapidly replenish their glycogen stores in their muscles and liver before a competition. The carbohydrates, when in excess, are more rapidly converted and stored as glycogen compared to fat and protein.

HOWEVER, once again, fat and protein can also be stored as glycogen, which makes carbohydrates unnecessary unless you want to perform 'carbo loading'. I believe it is Purina that has capitalized on this and now has "energy bars" of complex carbohydrates for the canine athlete to help them recover more quickly between events. But, carbohydrates do not rebuild spent muscle tissue, etc. *Protein* does that. Fat is also easily utilized for quick energy, too, and provides more energy per gram that carbohydrate does (9 kcals/gram of fat compared to 4 kcals/gram of carbohydrate).

It is not low carbohydrate intake that causes things like cardiac symptoms and angina; it is low blood glucose. If there is not enough glucose in the blood system, then you run into many problems including black outs, cardiac symptoms (like arrhythmia), and angina (chest pain). Of course, it is interesting that wolves can go without food for weeks and still survive well enough. How do they do that without eating carbs? Simple-they use up fat reserves and may even dip into their own muscle to get the necessary proteins and fats to provide glucose and energy for their bodies. So carbohydrates themselves are not actually necessary; *glucose* is necessary, and that can be obtained from sources other than carbohydrates.
What about the brain? The brain is preferentially given glucose above all other organs. Glucose in its ready form, at that. But does this mean carbohydrates are necessary? Since glucose can be had from protein and Acetyl CoA from fat, then no.

What about the claim of protein and fat-when converted to energy-weakening the immune system? This seems to be taken from human research where athletes in intensive training had suppressed immune systems which could be improved by consuming proper amounts of carbohydrate. Additionally, white blood cell production in humans seems linked to glucose production. More glucose present means the body is better able to mount an immune response-until there is "too much" glucose around and insulin spikes and starts suppressing all other pathways in the body except for those needed to force the glucose into cells (fat cells). High amounts of simple carbohydrates and sugars are known to suppress the immune system. If this is the case, though, one could wonder how a diet high in grain affects our pets-overstimulation of the immune system due to high concentrations of glucose from the grain? Perhaps this is why many pets suffer "allergies" while on grain!
One other comment I have here is that as long as the animal is receiving appropriate fat and protein, glucose production will not be an issue. And for carnivorous animals like dogs, I cannot help but wonder if their white blood cells are more sensitive to glucose than ours--meaning, less glucose is needed to "stimulate" canine white blood cell (WBC) production compared to human WBC production.

Using protein and fat for energy does not weaken the immune system unless there is not enough to go around, so to speak. If someone is starving, then using protein and fats for energy-while necessary-is a little 'cost-intensive' on the body. But it is not the lack of carbs that is hurting them; it is the simple lack of enough food. Similarly, a human athlete in intensive training may overwork their body to the point that using protein and fats for fuel becomes too cost-intensive to their body.

What about poor hair growth and constant shedding resulting from a lack of carbohydrates? Can these indicate a 'need' for carbs? Maybe, but more likely it indicates a need for better overall nutrition. I personally have NEVER heard of 'carbohydrate deficiency' in any animal. Why? Because there is NO SUCH THING as a "necessary carbohydrate," just necessary glucose. Our bodies, and our dogs' bodies, can do without carbohydrates (although I would say our dogs would fare better than humans, since we are omnivores who do well with fresh vegetables in our diet-except for some cultures that eat mostly meat!). Fats and proteins can be converted easily to Acetyl CoA and glucose, respectively. Poor hair growth and constant shedding are linked to an overall poor diet, poor consumption of essential fatty acids, biotin deficiencies, some vitamin and mineral deficiencies, AND a lack of good fats and proteins in the diet. PROTEIN, not carbohydrate, is the building block for hair and skin and all other parts of the body. Carbohydrates do nothing for building and maintaining the body structures except provide easy glucose to fuel the rebuilding process.

What about thyroid function? Thyroid function is dependent upon the correct amount of GLUCOSE produced by the dog's body, not by the correct amount of carbohydrates in the diet. Too much glucose from easily available carbohydrate energy sources can cause just as many problems as not enough glucose. Since we have already established that glucose can be produced from protein (or even skipped during fat metabolism, where Acetyl CoA is used instead), then it would again seem that carbohydrates are actually unnecessary provided that there is enough protein and fat to go around (and a raw diet has PLENTY!).

B compounds, or B vitamins, are found not only in the dog's own intestine (bacteria produce some B vitamins) but also in the meat and organs of prey animals. Feeding a variety of organ meats as part of a proper raw diet will cover the B-vitamin requirement quite easily. One has to wonder--how much of the B compounds in grain and starch and veggies is actually available to the dog? Compared to something more bioavailable like liver, then I would say 'not much.'

Myths About Raw: Do dogs really need carbohydrates?


----------



## Hirihat (May 5, 2009)

WOW! Some people seem to get real heated about stuff! LOL And nothing against PMD, but I have seen his "graveyard shift/no sleep" excuse a LOT on another forum he was banned from for being a "nickname for Richard" but I think most of the people on that forum are atrocious so being banned from there may not be a bad thing! LOL 

Anyways, we feed kibble here mainly because we are lazy. Honestly, I do not have the time to prep and feed raw. I will say, even if we did go raw, we would continue giving small amounts of raw fruits and veggies. There are nutrients in veggies and fruits that are very beneficial. My case-in-point, my Catahoula has severe hip dysplasia. She is on Glucosamine/Choindroitin/MSM supplement but I also feed her small amounts of cuke & bell pepper regularly because of the anti-inflammatory effects. If there is a storm coming and I feed her these items she appears to be less sore. Her orthopedic specialist has a nutritionist in office who recommends this sort of "natural supplementation" vs using pills or vitamin oils, etc. A lot of the available animal diet information is contradictory no matter what species of animal you look into! We try to work with what seems to work for them.


----------



## StaffyDaddy (Mar 28, 2009)

Hirihat said:


> WOW! Some people seem to get real heated about stuff! LOL And nothing against PMD, but I have seen his "graveyard shift/no sleep" excuse a LOT on another forum he was banned from for being a "nickname for Richard" but I think most of the people on that forum are atrocious so being banned from there may not be a bad thing! LOL
> 
> Anyways, we feed kibble here mainly because we are lazy. Honestly, I do not have the time to prep and feed raw. I will say, even if we did go raw, we would continue giving small amounts of raw fruits and veggies. There are nutrients in veggies and fruits that are very beneficial. My case-in-point, my Catahoula has severe hip dysplasia. She is on Glucosamine/Choindroitin/MSM supplement but I also feed her small amounts of cuke & bell pepper regularly because of the anti-inflammatory effects. If there is a storm coming and I feed her these items she appears to be less sore. Her orthopedic specialist has a nutritionist in office who recommends this sort of "natural supplementation" vs using pills or vitamin oils, etc. A lot of the available animal diet information is contradictory no matter what species of animal you look into! We try to work with what seems to work for them.


:goodpost:

Haven't heard from you in a long time!


----------



## performanceknls (Apr 4, 2009)

This talks about the digestion of a wolf is not the same a dogs, it also compares the skeleton and teeth. The teeth are not the same because they do not do the same job as a wolves teeth, their for the diet should not be that same.
I told you that you can find a study to support both points.
Differences Between Wolves and Domestic Dogs

And my secret weapon this article that proves dogs are different than wolves when they digest food. http://www.woodhavenlabs.com/barf-myth.html

This proves my point about the people promoting BARF are making up their own info and making it sound good to sell or promote their products.

BARF Diet Mythology
A very small segment of pet owners have accepted the opinions of a vocal fringe minority of individuals who are currently proponents of feeding raw foods. The diet is commonly called the BARF diet, (Bones And Raw Food). Individuals within this group often make unsubstantiated claims that sound plausible but are typically unsupported in fact. The barf diet is extolled based primarily upon several myths claimed to justify the feeding of this diet.

Myth 1 - Claimed similarities between modern wild canids and the domestic dog, and thus modern domestic dogs therefore have identical genetic development and nutritional needs as wild canids.

Myth 2 - Claims of increased disease levels and shortened life spans in pet dogs versus claimed lack of disease and increased life spans in wild ancestral canids like wolves and coyotes.

Myth 3 - Claimed reduced levels of parasites.

Myth 4 - Claimed reduced levels of food intolerance, adverse reactions to foods, and or "allergies".

Myth 5 - Claims that feeding "raw meaty bones" are good for domestic dogs.

Myth 6 - Claimed increased value of uncooked foods versus cooked foods and subsequent loss of trace micro-nutrients by the cooking process.

Popular discussion of BARF in the US is based to a large degree on myths promoted by superficial and hyperbolic promoters of one product or another, or those selling the latest version of video tapes, books, supplements, foods and other materials. Barfers' typically denigrate any information that is derived from solid scientific studies as having been "tainted" by some supposed conspiracy of involvement between commercial pet food companies, veterinary teaching universities, the FDA, USDA, CDC, WHO, and any other evidence knowledge based organization. At the same time Barfers accept at face value opinions promoted by purveyors of Barf products and scaremongering media. No level of competence or proof is demanded of those who state facts in favor of Barf feeding; while multiple, peer reviewed published university research studies are often denigrated by Barfers'.

This paper seeks to examine some of these myths. As a confirmed Barfer once noted, the decision to feed BARF is an emotional one, not a science based decision. As we shall see, making decisions based on emotions can lead one astray.

Evolutionary Divergence - Myth 1

Eight million years ago in what is now the Great Plains of North America two archetypes of early canid ancestors competed. Epicyon was a larger powerful carnivorous animal the size of a modern wolf. It's primary prey were large ancestors of today's modern deer and elk. Another early canid named Eucyon shared time and space with Epicyon. Eucyon was about the size of a modern fox and concentrated its efforts on much smaller prey, scavenging any edible nutrient. The larger Epicyon followed its very large prey into extinction. Adaptable Eucyon, with teeth suited for eating both meat and plants survived. Eucyon migrated into the Old World and eventually evolved into modern wolves. About 800,000 years ago wolves migrated back across the Arctic to North America.1, 8

Robert Wayne PhD, geneticist at the University of California at Los Angeles examined DNA in dogs and wolves. Wayne's recent genetic work suggests dog ancestors of some sort broke away from wolves about 100,000 years ago. Wayne's work included 147 dogs representing 67 breeds and 162 wild canids of all species from around the world. Wolf and human remains have been discovered in early fossils from over 400,000 years ago, but dog and human fossils date back only 14,000 years. Prior to this study, domestic dogs were thought to have originated only 14,000 years ago. In this new study, Wayne and his associates studied patterns in the mitochondrial DNA from dogs, wolves, coyotes and jackals. This type of maternally passed DNA changes at a specific rate. Wayne's study showed so many DNA changes that dogs must have diverged genetically from wolves about 100,000 years ago.

"We expected to find DNA sequences in dogs that were closely related to those in wolves, perhaps even indistinguishable from those in wolves," Wayne said. "We expected to find a few different sequences in dogs; instead, we found 26." Wayne found no evidence to support dogs evolved from jackals or coyotes.

The researchers found four distinct genetic groups in the dog world. This suggests that dog ancestors domesticated several times within the +100,000 year window, or at different places, and that no single wolf ancestor is common to all dogs.3, 5, 28. In a similar study conducted by Vila and Maldonado at the Department of Evolutionary Biology, Uppsala University in Sweden, maternal DNA showed a separation of 135,000 years between modern domestic dogs and wolves. 33

Coyote, fox, and jackal DNA differ greatly from that of modern dog. This separates modern coyotes, jackals and foxes from modern domestic dogs by more than 400,000 years of evolutionary history. Any comparison to this group of wild canids with domestic dogs is without merit, leaving the wolf as the only closely related wild canid .3, 5 It is also interesting to note that DNA hybridization shows that the canine family diverged about 50 million years ago from other members of the carnivora family.33 The carnivora genus also includes purely herbivorous animals like the Giant Panda Bear (Ailuropoda melanoleuca).

In a suggested symbiotic relationship, domestic dog predecessors must have gathered around the campfires of early man to scavenge from the left over trash. Individual animals that were less threatening, or provided value to man by aiding in the hunt would have survived better than those which were threatening or provided no value. As a consequence of natural selection those animals which survived also passed on a specific pool of genetic material. The genetics passed on were influenced by the ability of the animal to inculcate itself into human life. Less and less threatening animals, more and more helpful animals, and animals better suited to survive on scavenged human trash would be the winners in the DNA lottery. Over a period of 100,000 years of cohabitation the separation of genetic material continued toward the present day and created animals with friendly dispositions, various sizes, shapes, coats and markings and distinctly different primary food resources.

Evolution and mutation of the actual genetics of the wild canid ancestor were required to begin the process of domestication. The idea of "taming" a wild animal and then proceeding from there is neither factual nor plausible. Some genetic mutation was required. Coppinger and Coppinger stated in their book Dogs "A basic change, a genetic change has occurred." If not, then today's wild wolf puppies tamed from birth would be capable of domestication.

Proponents of BARF claim that domestic dogs and wild canids are alike in their nutritional needs. Such claims are without foundation in scientific fact and exist only as opinions. Barfers' would have you believe that while the domestic dog developed eating anything and everything man threw away over the last 100,000 years, no variation in nutrient needs or digestive abilities developed. The vast and incredible array of externally visible differences between 4 pound Chihuahua's and 150 pound Great Danes occurred in less than 14,000 years. The separation between wolf and domestic dog occurred 100,000 years ago, and yet Barfers choose to believe no internal changes occurred between the domestic dog and the wild wolf. Such an assumption is patently false.

One of many good examples of internal changes that natural selection wrought is a significant difference in the eye of modern wolves and modern domestic dogs. The topographical distribution of retinal ganglion cells in seven breeds of dog (Canis lupus f. familiaris) and in the wolf (Canis lupus) was studied. A prominent feature of wolf retinae was a pronounced "visual streak" of high ganglion cell density. By contrast, a moderate visual streak was found in dog retinae. The estimated total number of ganglion cells averaged about 200,000 cells in the wolf and 115,000 in the dog.10 Evolutionary natural selection reduced the domestic dogs eyesight to almost half that of the wolf. Yet Barfers' would have you believe there are neither biological nor physiological differences between the two.

Further evidence of evolutionary changes in the dog compared to the wolf abounds in the literature. In a study of 2,959 dogs across 40 different breeds Genetic mtDNA variations in domestic dogs show a much higher level of heterozygosity when compared to wolves.33 Differences in musculature, tendon strength, gut wall arterials and many other distinct differences in the internal organs and abilities are described.11, 16

The Barfer emotional decisions to compare the feeding habits of wild canids to domestic dogs is without scientific foundation and places the domestic dog at risk.

Comparing the needs of the current wolf to domestic dogs is not based in fact and certainly not based on 100,000 of years of natural selection and mutation inexorably forcing genetic change. No creature stands still in evolutionary time. The ancestors of today's domestic dog excelled at living on human trash that contained both raw and cooked meats, vegetables and grains. Those that survived were naturally selected. Those individuals that did not survive and excel were unable to pass on their genetic code. Since the modern wolf was not exposed to 100,000 years of eating human trash the development of its' nutritional needs was not altered in the same manner. To expect these two different species to have the same nutritional needs is simply not substantiated in history, science or logic.


----------



## performanceknls (Apr 4, 2009)

Lifespan and "immunity" - Myth 2

Barfers' frequently infer that domestic dogs are plagued with disease and live miserable lives when fed a commercial food. They compare wild canids like wolves, coyotes, jackals and others to domestic dogs and decry what they believe is a much increased level of disease in domestic animals. The majority of such purported increased disease they attribute to domestic animals eating a prepared food and not eating a BARF diet.

The domestic dog's lifespan has increased monumentally over just the past fifty years. Primarily due to better veterinary care, vaccines and nutrition, all of which come under attack by Barf proponents. Barfers' would suggest that we should imitate the food intake of wild wolves and other canids. As we have already seen, the coyote, jackal and fox have nothing genetically or evolutionarily in common with today's domestic dog. The wolf on the other hand separated from the domestic dogs 100,000 years ago and is a distant ancestor. The disconnect in Barfers' logic becomes apparent when you examine the average lifespan of today's wolf.

· Grey Wolf lifespan 8 years in the wild, slightly more in captivity when fed commercial foods. 

· Mexican Wolf lifespan 15 years in captivity, less in wild. 

· Red Wolf lifespan 4 years in the wild up to 14 in captivity (fed commercial foods).

Obviously a multitude of factors influence lifespan. Breed size of domestic dogs is a very significant factor. Smaller breeds typically live longer among both domestic dogs and their wild cousins. While wolves have an average life span in the wild of 4-8 years the smaller coyote is claimed to have a lifespan of as much as 15 years in the wild. 

It is interesting to note that feeding commercial pet foods to wild canids is the recommendation of the American Zoo and Aquarium, Nutritional Advisory Group. This same group also suggests raw meat in "carnivore logs" should only be used for the purposes of administering medication like wormers, enticing animals to move through cages or doorways, and getting the wild canid accustomed to eating commercial diets.35 While the Barfers are busy claiming domestic dogs should mirror the feeding habits of wild wolves, the very people who know the most about caring for wild canids recommend the feeding of a "commercial pet food" to wild canids. One of the reasons wild canids survive longer in captivity is that they are being fed a commercial diet instead of the BARF diet they would have eaten in the wild.

It's important to recognize that as more common causes of death are reduced, other forms of death must necessarily increase. We have reduced the number of traumatic deaths (i.e. hit by car) by enforcement of leash laws and fencing laws around the US. Death by trauma is still the single biggest cause of death among domestic dogs, but it has been radically reduced over the past 20 years. Common diseases like distemper, parvovirus, and others are responsible for fewer deaths each year as a larger and larger population of immune animals exists to slow the transmission of these diseases by reducing the pool of possible victims. As our domestic pets live longer and longer lives they are necessarily more likely to suffer from cancer, heart disease and other predominantly geriatric illnesses.

Domestic dog life spans have been rapidly increasing over the past half century. Dogs living much beyond previous ordinary life spans for any given breed are now common. 25 year old Yorkies, 25 year old cats, and 15 year old Rottweilers are no longer astounding and amazing rarities.

Evidence is also mounting of other issues relative to BARF feeding. Renal failure is the 3rd most common cause of disease death in dogs and the 2nd most common in cats. In a large study conducted by Dr. Joe Bartges, Dr. Jean Dodds and Dr. Susan Wynn, they looked at blood work from over 200 BARF dogs, and compared it to 75 dogs eating 'normal' diets and used by the lab for reference values. Mean BUN (blood urea nitrogen) was indeed significantly higher in dogs eating the BARF diet. Increased BUN is one of the most critical values examined when looking for renal failure. While it is incorrect to state that increased BUN might cause renal failure, it certainly is a significant warning of impending danger in older geriatric dogs with undetected renal failure. 

Parasites and BARF - Myth 3 

One common comment from the Barfer world details supposed increased "immunity" and freedom from parasites and disease. The literature provides proof of that fallacy as well. In regards to parasites; the wild wolf that eats only a BARF diet is also equally susceptible to internal and external parasites and other canine diseases. Wild wolf scat illustrates significant exposure and infection with various forms of internal parasites. The literature describes cases of tick born disease, parvovirus, rabies, and cancer among species of wild canids throughout the world. Large wolf populations have been decimated by disease, even when the food source was plentiful. 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 15, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27. Eating a raw diet as prescribed by Barfers' didn't help to prevent any of these common illnesses, infections, and diseases. Neither is there any data to support the claim that eating a BARF diet reduces susceptibility to any diseases or parasites.


----------



## performanceknls (Apr 4, 2009)

Food Allergy and Intolerance - Myth 4

Barfers' commonly claim reduced levels of food intolerances or "allergies". True allergies in domestic dogs are very, very rare.29. Still rare, but more common, are food intolerances or adverse reactions, usually presenting in itchy scratchy skin, chronic ear infections, and vomiting and diarrhea. Between 8 and 11% of all dogs elicit adverse reactions to food at one point in their lives. A review of literature encompassing a large number of dogs and published studies covering the US, Australia, New Zealand and Europe was conducted. That study revealed the following proteins in descending order are the major culprits in dogs: Beef, Wheat, Dairy, Lamb, Chicken, Egg, and Soy. These seven items comprise 93% of all adverse reactions.29 Internet mythology, emboldened by unscrupulous manufacturers anxious to create a niche in the market frequently ascribe allergies to corn, yet corn is one of the least likely sources of intolerance. Only 4% of the 8-11% of all intolerant dogs has shown intolerance to corn and rice combined. Part of the problem certainly has to be attributed to the use of ELISA blood tests for allergies, which are well known and well documented to be completely worthless in determining adverse reactions to food. Nonetheless some veterinary clinics continue to order these tests and rely upon them, thus providing poor information to their clients and increasing the perceived level of food intolerances that exist.

Barfers' frequently claim they have resolved these food allergies by switching to a Barf diet. Dogs can show a reduction of symptoms by simply increasing the amount of essential fatty acids in the diet. The question then becomes; was the animals' previous diet simply deficient in these essential fatty acids, or is the current level of essential fatty acids simply covering up the symptoms? There is no way to tell. Did the Barf diet substituting raw beef for the cooked beef change the animals' reaction to the beef protein molecule? No, if the animal was intolerant of beef before, it is still intolerant of beef. What the Barfer may have simply discovered was the prior food source simply had too few essential fatty acids for the individual pet. Raw ingredients are no more likely, or less likely to instill an allergenic response or intolerance.

Barfers' typically eschew grains and vegetable matter as being unimportant and even inappropriate for domestic dogs and concentrate on raw meat as the primary nutrient source. Never mind that Epicyon became extinct following a very similar diet and Eucyon survived by being adaptable and eating anything and everything they could.

Raw Bones - Myth 5

The feeding of raw bones to domestic dogs is an integral part of the Barfer diet fad. Proponents claim that no harm will come to any dog fed a raw bone. Never mind the literature and veterinary clinics that have seen countless cases of impacted bones, torn stomachs, and other internal organs as a result of this practice. What Barfers' fail to recognize is that the wolf and other wild canids have developed a unique process to accommodate raw bones, a process which domestic dogs as a result of 100,000 years of natural selection cannot duplicate. Debbie Davidson, wildlife biologist with the International Wolf Center in Maine describes that process.

"I'm a wildlife biologist in Maine and the Maine field representative for the IWC. Wolves, and likely the other wild canids that you mentioned, have a mechanism that protects their internal organs when they pass the bones of wild animals through their systems. The first feces produced after a kill are very dark and quite liquid-like with little form; it looks to us like diarrhea. Wolves don't necessarily eat everyday and so the subsequent feces often reflect the same kill. The next time they defecate, the feces is still dark but has more form. With each defecation, the feces become lighter in color and contain more substance. Because they often eat the entire animal that they kill, they ingest a lot of hair. Towards the final defecations involving the same kill, hair can be seen in the feces actually wrapped tightly around any bones that are passed through. This seems to protect the organs/passageways as the bones are eliminated."2

Very few Barfers' are feeding whole carcasses complete with the hide and hair. The availability of whole carcasses to most people is severely limited. Even if a Barfer were to find patches of hide to feed along with the raw bone, today's naturally selected evolutionary model of domestic dogs does not have the ability to digest these bones in the same manner anyway. Domestic dogs have not been shown to be able to "wrap bones in hair" to protect internal organs.

Nutrient Results of Feeding BARF. - Myth 6

"One of the most frustrating conditions in both dogs and cats fed raw foods, particularly the yeast, bone meal, muscle and gristle trim tissues and chicken parts such as necks or backs commonly used, is that of digestive disorders and the resulting deeper weaknesses, such as allergies, arthritis, I.B.S., liver, kidney or thyroid imbalance, poor immune responses and other organ issues, including diabetes and seizures."30 This comment from Dr. Lisa S. Newman, ND (Naturopathic Doctor), Ph.D., and Dr. Lee Veith, D.V.M. whom tried using BARF in the treatment of pets.

"All the [BARF] diets tested had nutritional deficiencies or excesses that could cause serious health problems when used in a long-term feeding program. Of equal concern is the health risks associated with bacteria in the raw food diets, especially the homemade diet that yielded E. coli O157:H7. Although owners feeding raw food diets often claim that dogs are more resistant to pathogenic bacteria, we are not aware of evidence to support that claim."31 This from Drs. Freeman and Michel in the work they published in March 2001 in the AVMA Journal.

Barfers' typically concentrate on ingredients and ignore nutrients. This is much akin to not being able to "see the forest because of the trees". Ingredients give the pet owner no clue in regards to an animal's prospective ability to utilize the nutrients the ingredient brings to the animal. An individual pet does not take a molecule of chicken protein and use that molecule to replace damaged muscle tissue. It is the individual amino acids present within that molecule that the animal uses for biological functions. Barfers' often denigrate amino acids, vitamins, minerals and other nutrients derived from one source or another and proclaim some magical value to nutrients from another source. Any nutrient from a grain is presumed by most Barfers' to have lesser benefit than the same nutrient derived from a meat source. Multiple scientific studies have proven this to be a complete fallacy. There is no "traffic cop" in the stomach that refuses entry for some nutrient derived from grain and permits the passage of the same nutrient derived from a meat source. For example a molecule of tryptophan, an important amino acid, whether derived from soy, corn or beef has equal value to the animal. While some nutrients are in greater abundance in some ingredients, the biological value of the given nutrient is not negated simply because of the source.

Barfers' frequently denigrate the value of grains in the diet of domestic dogs. The most commonly used grain in pet foods is corn. About 99% or the starch fraction of the grain is digested in dogs. This holds true of nearly all grains. The starch fraction of any grain contributes carbohydrates which are a source of rapidly available energy that does not require the kidneys to process it before it can be utilized. The protein fraction of corn, which is highly digestible in dogs, contributes valuable amino acid building blocks. Grains like corn also contribute high levels of naturally occurring Omega Fatty acids and the antioxidant lutein, critical for long term health. 100,000 years of genetic mutation and natural selection made it possible for domestic dogs to derive a significant amount of value out of grains.

In the process of proclaiming great value to the BARF diet, the proponents completely ignore one of the most common causes of death in domestic pets - renal (kidney) failure. In most cases the proposed diet recipes are excessive in calcium and phosphorous. While there is no data that shows the feeding of high levels of phosphorous will cause renal failure, there is a mountain of data which clearly shows renal failure can be greatly exacerbated by feeding such a diet. Most veterinary hospitals are unable to detect renal failure until 70% of the kidney is destroyed. Barfers' tend to concern themselves with internet fantasy diseases purported to be caused by artificial antioxidants and totally ignore real disease like renal failure. This is much like standing in the middle of an LA freeway with the cars whizzing by at 70 mph and being worried that you will die as a result of a lightning strike on a sunny California day. Ignoring real disease in favor of internet fantasy diseases is not the best choice for your pet.

Barfers' loudly proclaim the value of "raw" versus cooked. While there is no question that some nutrients are degraded by the cooking process there are also a number of nutrients that are unavailable to the animal unless the given ingredient is cooked. Sometimes there is a trade off. For example, vitamin C is easily destroyed by heat whereas carotenoids are made more available by the softening effects of cooking. Manufacturers can easily add in more vitamin C to increase the levels in the final product. In some cases vegetables must be cooked to be safe to eat. Common starches are a good example of a nutrient that is virtually unusable unless cooked. Cooking tomatoes significantly increases lycopene absorption. Uncooked whole grains are virtually useless to dogs. 18, 19 Digestibility as measured by protein efficiency ratio of raw kidney beans significantly improved when cooked. True digestibility and net protein utilization also showed a significant improvement in the case of cooked kidney beans.32 Trypsin inhibitors isolated from buckwheat seeds are heat stable and can cause poor digestion if they are not suitably cooked before consumption.34

Vitamins were first discovered well over a hundred years ago. The last vitamin discovered was vitamin k in 1946. The rate at which vitamins degrade during any given cooking process is well known and established. Tables of nutrient degradation under various types of cooking, at various temperatures, and various lengths of time have been well known for many years. Commercial pet food producers are well aware of these effects. It is very simple and inexpensive for any commercial manufacturer to add these nutrients into the product mix at a rate high enough to allow for degradation and still contain the needed quantities. In contrast the Barfer has no clue about the digestibility and availability of specific nutrients in the meals they prepare. No controlled feeding trials have been performed, and no testing of micro nutrient levels has been performed for any of the commonly promoted recipes, much less individual alterations to recipes proffered by the Barf crowd

Barfers' sometimes proclaim that there are "trace" nutrients we are not yet even aware of that are present in raw foods and not present in cooked foods. While the progress of science in determining what trace molecules exist in any given ingredient is increasing at a geometric rate there is no question that we may have some left to discover. What the Barfer fails to recognize is that 100,000 years of natural selection have created a domestic pet that is attuned to the effects of cooking and eating human trash. Further there may be just as many "trace" nutrients discovered to exist only in cooked versions of any given ingredient. We already know that many nutrients are not bio-available to the domestic dog unless they are cooked. Certainly we will discover new trace elements in food and how they impact the animal in the future. We will just as certainly discover trace nutrients in cooked foods that are not biologically available in raw foods. Failing to recognize the impact of 100,000 years of natural selection evolution and mutation on the domestic dog can lead to erroneous assumptions.

Because Barf proponents ignore nutrients in favor of ingredients, all such diets end up unbalanced. Perhaps this is why the vast majority of veterinarians oppose Barf feeding, and why not even a single board certified veterinary nutritionist is a proponent of barf feeding. Very few, if any, Barfers' have the technical skills or the equipment necessary to analyze the meals they develop and administer to their pets. An analysis of any Barf diet recipe illustrates the problems this can entail. A commonly recommended Barf recipe provides the animal with 50% more calcium than is appropriate and 22% more phosphorous than an animal should have. Such excessive levels may lead to a number of long-term health problems. It is not uncommon for veterinarians to encounter puppies like Julie, a young puppy whose owner was determined to feed the BARF diet. After a few months the puppy developed osteoporosis and had several fractures, indicative of rickets. Placing the puppy back on a commercial diet resolved the problems an unbalanced diet created. Veterinary clinic observations of mal-nutrition among Barf diet feeders are hugely more frequent than is appropriate for the small percentage of people experimenting with this latest fad in pet food. If this same percentage of failures was found in any current drug or commercial food, it would be the subject of massive media investigations, TV News Show exposes, and the company involved would be spending the rest of its' life defending the lawsuits.


----------



## performanceknls (Apr 4, 2009)

Human Health Concerns

Handling of raw meat is fraught with danger. US consumers have become more careful over the past few years and the incidence of human disease as a result of salmonella, listeria, shigella, and E-coli have been reduced. However the FDA has taken note of increased risks to humans of feeding raw meats to our pets. A draft notice was issued by the FDA December 18th, 2002. It states in part "FDA does not believe that raw meat foods are consistent with the goal of protecting the public from significant health risks, particularly when such products are brought into the home and/or used to feed domestic pets." "…the potential for risk to public health from such products is undeniable, and the magnitude of such risk is likely significant..." 

The feeding of raw diets to dogs and cats may affect the animals themselves or may have unexpected effects on children, elderly or other human inhabitants of the same household. In a Canadian study published in June 2002, Joffe et al studied the shedding of salmonella organisms in the feces of dogs fed raw diets. Salmonella was isolated from 30% of the raw fed dogs37. That means the dogs fed raw diets were spreading salmonella about the back yards and other areas of the household. The bacterial contamination may not affect most dogs and many humans may be relatively safe in a bacterially infected area, but some humans may end up succumbing to the effects of this powerful bacterial infection.

The handling of meats for human consumption nearly always entails cooking and consumers have become accustomed to careful handling. This care goes by the wayside when our pets are fed raw meats. The contaminating bacterium from the meat is spread around the dogs' mouth and face as it consumes the meal. Consumers who pet their dogs anytime after a meal may contaminate themselves or their children. The USDA estimates that salmonella is present in 35 percent of turkeys, 11 percent of chickens and 6 percent of ground beef. Each year, food-borne pathogens like Salmonella, Campylobacter, E-Coli, Shigella, and Listeria cause 76 million illnesses and 5,000 human deaths. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), E-coli O157:H7 kills an estimated 60 people nationwide every year and sickens another 73,000.

Despite vociferous claims to the contrary pets fed BARF diets do succumb to the bacterial species commonly found on raw un-cooked foods. The literature contains numerous examples of such deaths and diseases. An example is a Papillion breeder in Texas who fed a raw chicken based BARF diet. Two dogs developed gastrointestinal signs and died within 48 hours of exposure. Other breeders who used the same sources of food reported similar problems. The species of salmonella found in the gastric mucosa was identical to that found in the chicken. Salmonella Heidelberg was cultured from the dead dogs as well as the chicken food source.36 The BARF myth that dogs can somehow "handle" contaminated foods is simply that; a myth, unfounded in reality, and dangerous in its application. 

Even the lawyers are starting to get concerned about the dangers. Douglas C. Jack LL.B. wrote in his column on veterinary legal issues: "Ultimately, veterinary science will produce sufficient data necessary to determine their (BARF Diets) efficacy. However, until that time, there is some elevated risk of liability for veterinarians who advocate raw foods." "To the extent that there is any body of literature that draws a connection between the feeding of raw diets and the incidence of parasitic zoonotic disease, then there is evidence of causal connection between raw meat and bones and subsequent illness of either the companion animals or its owners". "A report of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicates that such a nexus may exist. (The companion Animal Practice Council also recommended against feeding raw foods in guidelines unveiled in January)".38

Conclusion 

We have found that comparing the diet of wild canids to domestic dogs is fraught with error. We have also discovered that the life span of wild canids is nothing any of us would want to inflict upon our own pets. We have discovered that feeding raw bones unaccompanied by the hide and hair to a domestic dog, unequipped with the ability to "wrap the bones" with hair, is an accident looking for a place to happen. We have learned that BARF fed wild canids are no more immune to disease and parasites than domestic dogs. We have determined that domestic dogs live longer today than they did even 50 years ago. We have learned that micro-nutrients may well be found in raw foods but also may exist only in cooked foods. We have learned that domestic dogs separated from their closest cousins the wolf over 100,000 years ago. We have learned that BARF diets are supported not by science, but by opinion and emotion, by scare mongering media desperate to gain your attention, and by the purveyors of videos, books, products to sell, and websites, each with a financial stake. We have looked at a couple of the hundreds of pets each year who end up as medical disasters in the veterinary clinic as a direct result of feeding the Barf diet. We know that the vast majority of veterinarians oppose Barf feeding and not single board certified veterinary nutritionist is a proponent of Barf feeding. The clearly proven risks of feeding Barf far outweigh its' purported advantages. It's your pet and by right you may choose how to feed your pet. Choose wisely, choose based upon real evidence and real facts. Choose based upon the knowledge of board certified veterinary nutritionists. Refuse to allow internet fantasy and the latest imported fad to rule your emotions and have a devastating effect upon the health of your pet, your children or yourself.


----------



## Indigo Bully Connection (Dec 21, 2006)

great posts ya'll.... If what is said in your article is true about the lack of acids being the only culprit of my sickly girl, then I just can't find the right one. I'm still going to stick with the diet for the dogs, because it works for them. If I found a dog food that would work and be decent on the wallet I would put them on it in a heart beat. It is much less of a hastle to scoup up some kibble than it is to prepare a home made balanced meal.


----------



## t1dirty (May 21, 2009)

another good read thanks


----------



## Mach0 (Mar 28, 2010)

Old thread but I bumped it because its full of great information on fats.


----------



## StaffyDaddy (Mar 28, 2009)

thanks!....


----------

