Human(ish) Grade Dog Food

dogs are not strict carnivores. Dogs have evolved to be omnivores that have a carnivore preference. They can digest plant based food but their system is not as efficient at it. If need be, they can survive on plant material. Don't get me wrong, I am not dissing on fans of a raw diet. I throw my dogs raw stuff every now and then. I just really hate that myth that dogs can't digest or extract nutrients from plants. They can and they do.

Jewlieee

Dogs have evolved to be omnivores that have a carnivore preference.

Dogs have not "evolved" to be omnivores.  They are and always have been carnivores.  You cannot create an omnivore by feeding a carnivore plant matter.  Many people like to try to convince others that dogs are omnivores so they can feel better about feeding their dogs omnivore food.  There are physical characteristics that determine what an animal is ... either a carnivore (like wolves/dogs) or an omnivore (like humans and opossums) or herbivores like cows and horses.  Yes herbivores can digest meat but no one would think of feeding a cow or horse or goat or rabbit meat.

There are physical charateristics that make an animal a carnivore or omnivore.

1.  Carnivores have large mouths as they eat other animals.  Omnivores/herbivores have smaller mouths.

2.  Omnivores have flat teeth in the back of their mouths.  This is used to crush and mash plant material.  All plant material has each cell coated with cellulose.  You must mash and crush this shell to extract nutrients from the plant.  Humans have these flat teeth.  Carnivores don't have flat teeth.  They can't get through the cellulose to get to the nutrients.  Carnivore teeth are designed to kill prey(front teeth) and to rip and tear meat and crush bones(back teeth).

3.  When omnivores/herbivores chew, they move their lower jaw not only up and down but also sideways in order to crush the cellulose.  Carnivores don't have the ability to move their lower jaw from side to side.  Only up and down.  This is a characteristic that omnivores & herbivores must have.  Dogs have no lateral movement of the lower jaw.

4.  Omnivores/herbivores have an enzyme called amylaze in their salava and stomach juices.  Amylaze is used to digest plant material and digestion begins in the mouth for these animals.  Carnivores don't have amylaze in their salava and very little in their stomach.  They don't make the enzymes necessary for digesting plant material.

5.  I don't know how to explain it with words but there is a difference in the way the lower jaw is hinged  in omnivores/herbivores and carnivores.  Feel your own jaw bone.  It begins at the joint with the skull and goes down then angles toward the front.  Carnivores jaws start at the skull and go straight toward the front.

6.  Carnivores have very acidic stomach juices to kill bacteria on meats and to digest bones.  Omnivores/herbivores have much less acidic stomach juices.  A dog's digestive juices are 10 times more acidic than humans.

7.  Omnivores/herbivores have relatively long intestinal tracts.  Carbs must ferment in the gut for a long time during digestion.  Carnivores being meat eaters have a very short intestinal tract in order to get the meat through the body quickly before it rots.  With their short intestinal tract they are not able to have carbs in the intestines long enough to digest.

8.  Omnivores/herbivores chew their food into a mush before they swallow it.  Digestion in an omnivore begins in the mouth.  Carnivores only rip, tear, and crunch their food  until it is small enough to fit down their throat.  They can fit some amazingly large pieces down their throat.  Much larger than an omnivore is capable of.

So there you have your biology lesson in a nutshell.  There is no arguing the fact that dogs are carnivores.  They have all the physical characteristics of a carnivore and none of the omnivores characteristics.  To try to argue otherwise is either self deception or sheer foolishness.  I really do hate the myth that dogs are omnivores.  It is a marketing ploy by the dog food industry to convince you to buy their carbohydrate based "food". Anyone with any ability to think with logic and reason can see that.

I will agree that dogs can SOMEWHAT extract a few nutrients from plants but not enough for the dog to be healthy and the plants MUST be processed ... either pureed or cooked.  That alone is enough to tell you that dogs have no nutritional need to eat plants.  If plants were a necessity, dogs could digest them without processing.  There is no animal in the world that requires processed food to be healthy.

There is no authoritaritive document anywhere that can give you the minimum daily requirement nor the average daily requirement for carbohydrates in a dog's diet.  Thats because there is no such requirement.  Dogs have no nutritional need for carbs.  Carbs are bad for dogs.

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/learning-to-love-cereal-was-key-to-the-evolution-of-dogs/2013/01/23/30c47500-6510-11e2-85f5-a8a9228e55e7_story.html

Of course species can evolve in what they eat and how their bodies digest it.  Why would that not be possible?  It happened to humans and happens to dogs too.  FWIW I feed raw so I have nothing against it but you can't say that a species cannot evolve in what it eats and digests.

Yes, I've read that article and several similar ones in which the authors are trying to make this to be some great new knowledge.  It has been known for decates that dogs have the ability to produce a small amounht of amylase in their pancreas.  This is not news and it doesn't make a dog an omnivore.  In the first place, the amount of amylase produced is very small and its only in the stomach and upper gut, not in saliva where it really is useful to an omnivore.  And what does amylase do?  It helps convert starch to sugar.  Man, thats all dogs need is sugar in their systems.  Just because a dog is capable of producing sugar doesn't mean they should or that it's beneficial to them.  Starch is bad for dogs.  Starch is bad for humans.  Sugar is bad for dogs.  Sugar is bad for humans.  Sugar is worse for dogs than for humans.

So by your resoning, possibly we should start eating pine trees because eventually we would evolve to be able to digest them and at that point pine trees would help feed the world.  Sounds ridiculous doesn't it?  No more rediculous than dogs eating plant matter they can't digest in order that thousands of years down the road their descendents could digest plants that humans would feed them.

Go back and re-read my previous post and see why dogs cannot digest unprocessed carbohydrates.  It has to do with jaw structure, dentation, GI tract length, etc.  These things have not changed in a million years.  Dogs cannot digest unprocessed plant material.  I can't stress that too much.  If they can't digest it and have no way to process it in the wild, then there is no need for it in their diet.  There is no way in the world that carbs improve a dog's diet.  Quite the opposite.  Carbs harm the health of our dogs and should be eliminated from their diet.  I haven't fed carbs to my dogs in any form for over 10 years with absolutely no indication of any nutritional deficiency.  My vet says they are very healthy.  I met a vet one time without my dogs with my dogs and told him I feed a PMR diet and his reactions, "I bet your dogs are very healthy."

I will repeat, "You can't create an omnivore by feeding by feeding a carnivore omnivore food." He will still be a carnivore and therefor should be fed only animal parts.

RawFedDogs

The thing you miss is that dogs are carnivores and as such they have no need for carbs.  No need for any plant matter whatsoever.  Their bodies were not designed to eat, digest nor extract nutrients from plants.

DougB

This may not be accurate.

Ok, then please explain to me how the cellulose covering of every cell in a plant is crushed in order that the dog may be able to extract nutrients.  Also, it would be helpful to know how plants when eaten by dogs stay in the dogs short gut long enough to ferment.

DougB

Dogs are more accurately called opportunistic feeders.

There is no such classification as "opportunistic feeders" in the scientific world.  There are carnivores, omnivores, and herbivores.

DougB

The modern dog has evolved away from the wolf, with different behaviors and needs. The dog is better able to digest carbs, especially processed carbs

Thats just not true.  In order for that to happen, dogs  would have to grow flat teeth and a lower jaw hindged in such a way as to allow lateral movement.  The gut would have to lengthen considerably to allow the carbs to ferment.  Much more amylase would have to be produced and it would have to find a pathway to the saliva glands.  None of these changes have occured.  All these things are requirements of an omnivore or herbivore.

DougB

Their association with humans has led to body changes that allow them to eat and use carbs more efficiently than wild carnivores do, and may be part of the cause of the difference between dogs and wolves.

The behavioral changes are explained by the Russian fox experiment held many years ago and as far as I know is still ongoing. Google "Russian fox experiment" or search for it on youtube. This explains all the physical differences between dogs and wolves. BTW: these "new" foxes are still called foxes. No one has tried to claim that they are a different species.

Othen than the capabliity to produce "A LITTLE" amylase, I would be interested in knowing what these digestive system changes are. You see, articles like the one linked a few posts back work good with people who don't have a great knowledge of the digestive system.  If you understand how it actually works, you know immediately that all the claims made in the article just can't be accurate.

DougB

Some of the processed garbage is perfectly healthful, as proven by testing on dogs, and by the life spans of dogs fed good processed garbage.

Spefically what tests are you refering to dogs as far a proving their health?  IF there is any lifespan increase (I don't think there is), it would be attributed to better medical care, not diet.  You see, I am not a young person.  I remember dogs before kibble became popular.  There were no digestive issues, no allergies, no pancreas or liver problems.  Taking a dog to the vet for a dental was unheard of and their teeth were in great shape.  Bad breath was unheard of in dogs.  You didn't have dogs with "sensitive stomachs".  You didn't have owners constantly searching to find a food their dog could tolerate.  All these things happened after the appearance of the processed garbage and there is no measure that shows it's healthful. 

I challenge you to find a nutritionist who doesn't work for a dog food company to tell you that a highly processed food is healtheir or even as healthy as fresh raw whole food.

You're kind of preaching to the choir with me, the only kibble I feed my dogs cost more than their raw diet (and when I feed raw I feed muscle meat, bone, organ material...I'm not adding in sweet potatoes or rice or beans), but I can't believe that dogs cannot survive on carbs since so many of them do.  Now what is better/best for a dog is one thing but obviously domestic dogs are capable of surviving on some of the crappiest diets humankind can think up because they have been.  When I switched to raw there was no change in my dog's appearance, health, coat, etc because my dog is already extremely healthy, athletic, fit (he's involved in nearly a dozen sports and performance events) I mostly switched because it's now cheaper to get raw since I can often get various forms of venison for free and can get lots of chicken parts for under $1/lb and my friend gave me a chest freezer.  If dogs truly could not survive on carbs we wouldn't have this supposed "pet overpopulation problem" since the majority of pet dogs would be keeling over by now.

 The study that has been linked twice in here clearly shows that dogs have a greater taste for and capacity to digest carbs. I think raw diets are great but I don't think that ignoring facts you don't like is responsible or scientific.  Rawfeddogs you would sound much more rational - less extremest - if you didn't propose to know more than everyone else including scientists.

Suggesting that Darwin was incorrect and that living organisms don't evolve with their environment further erodes my ability to listen to what you say.

Additionally there is way too much evidence available that states dogs are omnivores (or opportunistic feeders - which they are). I know of someone who discovered the only way they could keep their working border collies at a decent weight was to add carbs. No matter how much raw they were fed they were underweight during high work times. Adding potatoes, sweet potatoes, and the evil corn they dogs were able to maintain a healthy weight.

Some dogs don't do well on high protein diets. Mine does and that's what he gets. Before you suggest otherwise, I think raw is great and feed raw as often as possible and use a high quality high protein no grain kibble as a base diet. But I am not willing to dismiss science, Darwin and anecdotal evidence that not all dogs NEED a raw diet to live well

kpwlee

Rawfeddogs you would sound much more rational - less extremest - if you didn't propose to know more than everyone else including scientists

 I couldn't agree more.  I don't think anyone who has posted in this or other related threads has stated they are opposed to feeding raw. Discussing how dogs and wolves have diverged is interesting to me and to others.  Disregarding studies and scientific research because it doesn't fit someone's personal agenda is a sure sign of a close minded person.  To be spoken to as though we are all idiots is getting a little tiresome. Rational, intelligent discussions allow everyone to state opinions and to share knowledge whether we all agree or not.

 Extremists usually manage to alienate more people than they convert. 

Liesje

I can't believe that dogs cannot survive on carbs since so many of them do.  Now what is better/best for a dog is one thing but obviously domestic dogs are capable of surviving on some of the crappiest diets humankind can think up because they have been.

If you are talking about kibble, it is only about 40% to 50% carbs.  The balance is protein, fat, water, & ash.  Also, they are surviving, not thriving.  I can't tell you how many people have told me that they thought their dog was healthy before they started feeding raw but now they know what a healthy dog looks & acts like.  Dogs can survive on most anything ... even sawdust which is in some of the cheapest kibbles.  Cows and horses COULD survive on ground meat but who in the world would even think of feeding them that.  Problem is that the fantastic marketing departments of the kibble companies have spent hundreds of millions of dollars convincing people that their dogs are omnivores and they have done a magnificent job of that.  If I ever start a company selling a new product, I want some of those guys working for me. :)

Liesje

When I switched to raw there was no change in my dog's appearance, health, coat, etc because my dog is already extremely healthy, athletic, fit (he's involved in nearly a dozen sports and performance events)

I strongly suspect that your dogs were that healthy not because of the crappy diet you fed them but because of the exercise they got.  A human or dog can eat the healthiest food out there but if they don't exercise their health will eventually go to pot.

Liesje

If dogs truly could not survive on carbs we wouldn't have this supposed "pet overpopulation problem" since the majority of pet dogs would be keeling over by now.

 Again, thankfully, there is more stuff in kibble than carbs but it's the carbs that are causing most of the health problems that dogs of today have. One thing that tells you how low or high quality the food is that you feed them is the size of their stools. Think about it. Stools are the part of the food that was useless to the body. It is the unusable part of his diet. I have an 8 year old Great Dane who poops 2 or 3 little logs about the size of my thumb A DAY. Some days he doesn't poop at all. I have seen 6 week old lab puppies poop about 2 or 3 times the volume as my full grown Great Dane.

JackieG

kpwlee

Rawfeddogs you would sound much more rational - less extremest - if you didn't propose to know more than everyone else including scientists

 I couldn't agree more.  I don't think anyone who has posted in this or other related threads has stated they are opposed to feeding raw. Discussing how dogs and wolves have diverged is interesting to me and to others.  Disregarding studies and scientific research because it doesn't fit someone's personal agenda is a sure sign of a close minded person.  To be spoken to as though we are all idiots is getting a little tiresome. Rational, intelligent discussions allow everyone to state opinions and to share knowledge whether we all agree or not.

 Extremists usually manage to alienate more people than they convert. 

Exactly.  Like I keep saying I do feed raw (and kibble), but this thread screams "agenda" and that pushes my buttons ;)

RawFedDogs, my dogs' stools on kibble are very firm and small and almost have no smell.  They don't even smell like "poop".  I switched kibbles over the summer to one that is more local (made in the USA, family owned) and my dogs had the nastiest, smelliest poop ever.  With three large dogs and a rotating door of fosters I felt like I was cleaning up bucketfuls of poop waste daily.  I switched back to the kibble I'd been using and their stools went back to being very small, firm, and not smelly.  If I miss picking up one, they turn white and break down within a day or two just like their stool when they are eating only raw.  In fact now that they are eating raw their stool is about the same amount but not quite as firm and a little more smelly, if you must know, lol.  People who's dogs have huge stools are most likely overfeeding their dog.  Also you cannot paint all kibble with the same brush. The kibble I tried was supposedly better and I knew right away it was not.  I give my dogs what they thrive on without my own agenda and I look at their overall health (including coat and teeth), activity, and longevity as indicators for whether the diet is appropriate whether it meets some optimal prey model formula or not.

You also can't have it both ways.  If my dogs are healthy, active, and athletic whether I feed them their kibble or their raw (or both) then you can't say that dogs are healthier on raw *except* the ones that aren't, lol.  As someone with working and performance animals diet is very important to me.  Just because I have not been feeding 100% raw for a few years does not mean my dogs are eating that rainbow colored big chain store crap that is full of corn and gluten.  You can't come here making these statements about raw diets and then tell me that my dogs are healthy because they exercise not because of diet (and FWIW one of my dogs is a lazy couch potato who doesn't even like to go for a walk more than twice a week but yet he's shiny and healthy, he's my oldest dog and people can't believe he's older than 2).  My dogs are healthy because 1) genetics, 2) diet, 3) proper exercise, and 4) upkeep like grooming and clean living conditions.  A healthy dog is not just about going to the store and buying some cheap antibiotic fed chicken backs.  I'm sure there are top of the line kibbles that contain better meat sources than what a lot of "raw fed" dogs are getting.

kpwlee

The study that has been linked twice in here clearly shows that dogs have a greater taste for and capacity to digest carbs.

The "study" that was linked to in this thread is not a study.  It is an examination of the DNA of dogs.  It was conducted by a group of DNA experts.  There was not a canine nutritionist nor a biologist in the group.  The DNA people don't care about those things, only about DNA.

kpwlee

Rawfeddogs you would sound much more rational - less extremest - if you didn't propose to know more than everyone else including scientists.

Actually I do know more that most everyone including many scientists.  I have spent over 11 years studying this stuff and I know what I'm talking about.  You see, when people don't like what I say but have nothing to refute it, they resort to personal attacks which is all they have.  Kinda like one particular community organizer in the last election.  For example, I listed 8 reasons a dog is a carnivore and no one has refuted any of them.  They claim dogs are omnivores but can't explain how dogs can break the cellulose shell around all plant cells.  They can't explain how carbs ferment in such a short gut.

kpwlee

Suggesting that Darwin was incorrect and that living organisms don't evolve with their environment further erodes my ability to listen to what you say.

I didn't say anything about Darwin.  He was correct but anyone who says dogs "evolved" into omnivores just doesn't understand the workings of a canine digestive system.  There is nothing about a dog that says "i am an omnivore".  Do dogs eat plant material?  Yes, but they have no choice.

kpwlee

I know of someone who discovered the only way they could keep their working border collies at a decent weight was to add carbs. No matter how much raw they were fed they were underweight during high work times. Adding potatoes, sweet potatoes, and the evil corn they dogs were able to maintain a healthy weight.

I would say that they don't know what their dogs should look like.  There are so many obese dogs in this country that most people who see a dog of the proper build think he is emaciated.  They think dogs should actually be that fat.  You said no matter how much raw they were fed, they were underweight.  Think about that.  You can feed enough of anything and make a dog fat.  However, when you feed a lot of protein (muscle meat) you build muscle.  When you feed carbs you build fat.  Thats just a fact of life.  You can't build muscle with carbs.  You ever see a body builder eat a lot of carbs?  A NFL player?  Heck no.  They eat a diet of almost exclusively steaks with very few carbs.  They don't want fat, they want muscle.  So if your friends dogs were adding weight, they were adding fat which is almost never desirable.

Well in fact, a PMR (Prey Model Raw) diet is not really a high protein diet.  It's actually lower in protein than the average kibble.  A PMR diet is about 20% protein.

kpwlee

Some dogs don't do well on high protein diets. Mine does and that's what he gets.

ALL dogs would be healthier on a properly fed PMR diet than a diet of any kibble made.  You mentioned studies a little earlier.  Let me ask you this.  Dogs have eaten a diet of raw meat, bones, and organs for millions of years.  Kibble has been popular for about 50 years.  Why on earth don't you ask the kibble companies to prove their diet is even close to as healthy as a raw diet?  Kibble is the new kid on the block and there is virtually NO studies proving that it is a healthy alternative to raw.  Why don't you ask for those studies?  I know why.  The marketing departments have convinced you that there is no need for them.  Why don't you ask for science to back up kibble?

kpwlee

But I am not willing to dismiss science, Darwin and anecdotal evidence that not all dogs NEED a raw diet to live well

About Darwin:  Show me where he said that dogs "evolved" into omnivores.  I don't remember Darwin even suggesting dogs are omnivores.  The evidence I gave you that dogs are not omnivores is not anecdotal.  I don't remember seeing anything were Darwin suggest anything about the proper diet of a dog.  You are just bringing up Darwin to throw up smoke and mirrors because you are loosing on the facts.

1.  Dogs don't have flat teeth that is necessary to grind up plant matter is not anecdotal.  It's a scientific fact.

2.  Dogs don't have the necessary lateral lower jaw movement to grind plant matter is not anecdotal.  It's a scientific fact.

3.  Dogs have no amylase in their saliva is not ancedotal.  It's a scientific fact.

4.  Dogs gut is too short to leave carbs in the gut long enough to ferment is not ancedotal.  It's a scientific fact.

5. Dogs have large mouths like other carnivores is not ancedotal.  It's a scientific fact.

6.  Dogs don't chew their food into a mush like omnivores and that is not ancedotal.  It's a scientific fact.

7.  Dogs have much more acidic stomach juices than an omnivore and that also is not ancedotal.  It's a scientific fact.

So looking at those 7 SCIENTIFIC FACTS, I don't see how any knowledgable person can say a dog is an omnivore. Show me one physical attribute of a dog that says it's an omnivore. If you think you are not dismissing scientific fact, I think I have shown you otherwise.  What you are trying to use as proof is what people have been forcing dogs to eat, not what their body says they SHOULD eat.  Yes, dogs can live off of something other than a pure carnivore diet but their body says that is not optimal.  To have optimal health you MUST eat an optimal diet.

JackieG

Disregarding studies and scientific research because it doesn't fit someone's personal agenda is a sure sign of a close minded person.

The problem is that the "study" being referenced in this thread is not a study.  It is observation by some DNA researchers and even in their "non-study" they use the disclaimer that they don't say that dogs SHOULD eat starches, only that they are capable of digesting them. Disregarding this "non-study" is simply knowing what real scientific research looks like.  This is not it and what my knowledge is regarding the subject has nothing to do with it.

Here we go again and believe me, I'm used to it.  When a person is light on facts they must resort to personal attacks to help prop up their view.  As with most discussions I get involved in, I have given many scientific facts which go completely ignored because they don't agree with your beliefs. I don't know why you feel talked down to because I haven't done that.  I have presented facts and people don't want facts if they discredit what they already beleive to be true.

The number of people I have "converted" is in the high hundreds.  I get emails almost daily asking for information or help about raw feeding a dog.