Raw feeding

[Maxi]

The colony I looked up that is being fed the food in the link is the RCC Beagle colony established in 1982. The dogs are monitored for health very closely since they are used for health research. The health of these dogs; therefore, can essentially be used for very long term feeding trial information.http://www.harlan.com/download.axd/5d9a4f7d7ddd43f1a8a2c3904c9b1f24.pdf?d=3896 Harlan RMS Datasheets Beagle v2

While I'm sure the Harlan Beagle colony is healthy you cannot directly extrapolate thie diet used to all dogs. To quote the Merck Vet Manual (link in my earlier post)

'Dietary modifications are required by changes in life stage, environment, body weight and condition, and disease. Energy density varies from 2,500 to >5,000 kcal/kg dry matter for dog foods.... Therefore, general feeding recommendations cannot be given for all dogs and cats on any particular food. Instead, feeding recommendations should be individualized. The best feeding method is one that maintains optimal body weight and condition, bearing in mind that disease conditions may require dietary changes......

The caloric needs of working or stressed dogs may exceed the levels of a maintenance diet, depending on the animal and extent of work performed. Most diets designed for work or stress have increased levels of animal fats, with the other nutrients appropriately balanced to the increased energy density. At extreme levels of stress (eg, an Alaskan sled dog requiring 10,000 kcal/day), many recommend not only increasing the percent ME (metabolizable energy) from fat but also from protein, while minimizing the contribution of carbohydrate.". Apparently, the information provided in this quote underwent full review/revision September 2013 by Sherry Lynn Sanderson, BS, DVM, PhD, DACVIM, DACVN

[Mark Billadeau]

I agree, there is no one nutritionally ideal diet for all dogs or even all individuals within any species. The ideal diet for each individual is based upon the health and body condition for that individual. The only way to have a long term feeding trial (as suggested in an earlier post) is to have a large group of similar dogs with similar nutritional needs which is why I posted about the research colonies.

 

So much of our concepts on what is an appropriate diet for our dogs is influenced by "ideal" human diets (which are not likely appropriate for other species) and by pet food advertising which is trying to sell their food as the ideal diet.

 

The one I find amusing is:

 

feed your dogs what their wolf cosins eat in the wild because this is the ideal species specific diet

 

1. wolves are a different species

2. wild wolves don't eat what is nutritionally ideal; they eat what is readily available in their habitat

3. what is nutritionally ideal for feeding 1-3xs every day may not be the same as what is ideal for feeding <1x a day (like what happens in the wild)

4. human refuse is on the wolf menu when readily available

[D'Elle]

My childhood dog, who was part collie of some sort but we never knew what, ate cheap canned dog food from the supermarket every day of his life. At that time, none of the healthy or grain free diets were even available, and it never occurred to me or my family that one should feed a dog anything but canned dog food. That stuff was full of by-products and corn and god knows what else, and I wouldn't let any of my dogs near something like that now. But that childhood dog of mine had great teeth, a shiny coat, was an athlete, sharp as a tack, and lived without illness until he was almost 15 years old. So did our cats, who also ate food that I would never give to a cat these days.

 

Not saying that the better food is not better, of course. And I would probably feed raw if I could. Heck, if money were no object everyone in this household would eat nothing but the best fresh food, including me! But I do think it really depends on what works best for the individual. TOTW, for instance, which is supposed to be so good, gave my border collies dull, dry coats that shed like crazy. They do great on the Costco grain free food.

[simba]

Mark Billadeau- the one I find interesting is that fibre is considered to be bad. A "filler" that just makes the stools bigger. But fibre is so necessary for humans, and can be an enormous help for dogs with constipation. They might not have a strict dietary need for it- they're not going to die without it- but there's no question it can add to comfort.

 

Although perhaps not when they decide to steal a kilo of kale and eat it in one go. That takes away from my comfort at least.

 

We'd never think of categorizing a macdonalds hamburger as 'great' and a plate of lentils, vegetables, and brown rice as 'mostly filler, cheap (and therefore bad) grains.' The fibre makes our stools bigger as much as it does the dogs', goes right through us, but we don't take "we didn't digest it! Some of it's still there!" as "It didn't do us any good."

[Maxi]

So much of our concepts on what is an appropriate diet for our dogs is influenced by "ideal" human diets (which are not likely appropriate for other species) and by pet food advertising which is trying to sell their food as the ideal diet.

 

The one I find amusing is:

 

feed your dogs what their wolf cosins eat in the wild because this is the ideal species specific diet

 

1. wolves are a different species

2. wild wolves don't eat what is nutritionally ideal; they eat what is readily available in their habitat

3. what is nutritionally ideal for feeding 1-3xs every day may not be the same as what is ideal for feeding <1x a day (like what happens in the wild)

4. human refuse is on the wolf menu when readily available

I guess you have seen this? (Unfortunately, I can only access the abstract) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v495/n7441/full/nature11837.html

 

The genomic signature of dog domestication reveals adaptation to a starch-rich diet

 

Erik Axelsson, Abhirami Ratnakumar, Maja-Louise Arendt, Khurram Maqbool, Matthew T. Webster, Michele Perloski, Olof Liberg, Jon M. Arnemo, Åke Hedhammar & Kerstin Lindblad-Toh

 

Nature 495, 360364 (21 March 2013)

The domestication of dogs was an important episode in the development of human civilization. The precise timing and location of this event is debated^{1, 2, 3, 4, 5} and little is known about the genetic changes that accompanied the transformation of ancient wolves into domestic dogs. Here we conduct whole-genome resequencing of dogs and wolves to identify 3.8 million genetic variants used to identify 36 genomic regions that probably represent targets for selection during dog domestication. Nineteen of these regions contain genes important in brain function, eight of which belong to nervous system development pathways and potentially underlie behavioural changes central to dog domestication⁶. Ten genes with key roles in starch digestion and fat metabolism also show signals of selection. We identify candidate mutations in key genes and provide functional support for an increased starch digestion in dogs relative to wolves. Our results indicate that novel adaptations allowing the early ancestors of modern dogs to thrive on a diet rich in starch, relative to the carnivorous diet of wolves, constituted a crucial step in the early domestication of dogs.

(my emphasis)

ETA. A 'ScienceNews' (magazine of the society for science and the public) comment about this research paper can be found here

 

[etlai]

2. wild wolves don't eat what is nutritionally ideal; they eat what is readily available in their habitat

 

Is this not an over-simplification? While wolves do scavenge, they are clearly hunters and classified as such. They seek out prey that would (logically) hold the nutrients they require for survival.

 

EDIT: OT: As much as I would love to read that Nature article, I was verbally reprimanded for spending so much time at work with others talking about border collies (no more water cooler discussions for me), that I dare not do anything that looks like a literature survey on anything related

[Mark Billadeau]

If there is insufficient food to be scavenged in their habitat at the time they need food, wolves hunt. In wilderness areas hunting is the more readily available way to get food; this may not be the case where there are more humans. Look into the diet of European wolves.

[Mark Billadeau]

I've read the Nature article; based upon this and the feeding studies involving sampling what nutrients are left after digestion using ileal cannulas I have no problem believing starch (cooked grains) are species appropriate food sources for dogs.

 

If you search the Nature article title using google scholar you will find this link: http://www.geology-biology.eu/downloads/dogsandwolves.pdf which is the full article.

[GentleLake]

This animal nutritionist doesn't agree: http://www.dogsnaturallymagazine.com/dog-obesity-starch/

[simba]

From the article: "Fat is not the problem. This has been known for over 100 years, and it has been proven unequivocally by the scientific community. People on a low carb diet can eat all they want yet lose weight, and have a healthier blood lipid profile."

 

So do people on an all-potato diet. If you cut down variety, and cut out a major food group or two, you'll lose weight. I know someone who loses 14lb a year eating mostly potatoes and vegetables (they cut out meat, chocolate, coffee, and dairy every year for a short period to lose weight).

 

 

I think the person has taken a legitimate and very real observation (that people eating the way we're designed to ate lower-calorie food they had to work a hell of a lot harder for) and ran with it to come up with 'carbs are bad'. You can have a slim dog on a low-fat high carb diet, or a fat dog on a high fat low carb diet. It's all about how much you give the dog. Fat is also difficult to come in nature by in the quantities we like to eat it in, it takes a lot of energy to get it.

 

"Consider that there are eight hormones that raise blood sugar, yet only one that lowers it. From this, we can conclude that nature saw a great deal of importance to keeping blood sugar held up to a minimum safe level, and relatively little need to lower blood sugar." Or it could be just random. I mean, we have only one pharynx for access of air, water, and food to our bodies- just one, and it's the same one. That doesn't mean those functions are unimportant, or that it's a good idea to mix them (hence why we choke).

 

They have provided no clear evidence establish that dogs should not be fed a high-starch diet, or that establishes it's in any way bad for them. On the other hand we have evidence that dogs can live long and healthy lives eating kibble, so I think I might believe my lying eyes on this one.

[Mark Billadeau]

As four billion years of evolution adapted all creatures to their surroundings, constant high levels of starch and sugar were never encountered. If you analyze anything that might constitute food or nourishment, anywhere in the world, it will be low in starch and sugar.

It didn't take long to find contradictory information about this statement. All I did was search for "medieval diet" to find examples high in carbs.

 

http://people.eku.edu/resorc/Medieval_peasant_diet.htm

 

This site seems to indicate that food portions (caloric intake) and exercise (caloric output) are the major differences between medieval and modern "peasants".

[Maxi]

This animal nutritionist doesn't agree: http://www.dogsnaturallymagazine.com/dog-obesity-starch/

Well I'm not convinced about his logic regarding hormones..,but perhaps more relevantly, the book ( which he authored) that he quotes in his article seems to have been published in 2010 ..http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ruined-Excess-Perfected-Lack-Nutrition/dp/1904761720/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1423765753&sr=8-4&keywords=Richard+Patton

 

the research paper that Mark and I referenced was from 2013. This work shows that the dog genome has several (functional) genes that enable the dog to metabolise starch.

 

An eminent physician once told me that '50% that we currently believe to be true in medicine is probably incorrect. The problem is that we don't know which 50% is wrong'. I have heard others say similar things, and, no doubt, we all can probably think of examples of how 'medical best practice/advice'has changed over the years...and so I would suggest that perhaps this nutritionist may need to modify his scientific arguments to take the more recent research into account.

 

I am no animal nutritionist, but it seems to me that it makes sense that in order to keep my dogs healthy, they should get a balanced diet that suits their individual lifestyle, age etc. The recent research indicates this can include some starch.

 

JMO YMMV

[Mark Billadeau]

If as this author starts, "all mammals have remarkably similar metabolic machinery", why do we constantly have discussions about herbivores, omnivores, carnivores, and obligate carnivores?

[Maxi]

 

If as this author starts, "all mammals have remarkably similar metabolic machinery", why do we constantly have discussions about herbivores, omnivores, carnivores, and obligate carnivores?

..well I do find some of his scientific logic and sweeping generalisations somewhat 'odd'....I guess it depends on how reductionist (simplified) you (generic you) want to make things... Edited February 12, 2015 by Maxi

[GentleLake]

..well I do find some of his scientific logic and sweeping generalisations somewhat 'odd'....I guess it depends on how reductionist (simplified) you (generic you) want to make things...

 

Since it's a short article for the popular press, I wouldn't expect it to be as specific as if he were writing a scholarly article

 

 

does make me wonder what subject the author gained his PhD in.

 

From his website (http://pattonanimalnutrition.com/):

 

EDUCATION

• B.S., Pennsylvania State University, 1968. Animal Science.
• M.S., Purdue University, 1970. Reproductive Physiology.
• Ph.D., Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 1972. Ruminant Nutrition.

 

I guess since it's not in canine nutrition he's not qualified, even though his resume includes:

 

1972-1974 Theracon. Topeka, KS. Director of Research. Responsible for animal nutrition research lab of 500 dogs, 200 cats and miscellaneous monkeys, horse and gerbils. Supervised staff of six. Designed and executed numerous experiments in animal nutrition and pet food technology as well as drug efficacy experiments for FDA approval. Theracon and Mark Morris Associates were closely related and both in place to support the Prescription Diets and Science Diet that the Morris family invented. (ibid.)

 

Too long ago, I'm sure, for it to be of any consideration to folks here, or even to suggest the possibility that he may keep up on other species' nutrition.

 

Back into my hidey hole now.

[Maxi]

Thanks for providing a link to Dr Patton's website. From his blog (Nov 2014).

 

'The person I want to listen to, intently, is the one who says, I dont know the answer. But, I can tell you this The person willing to admit ignorance on a subject, indeed compelled to, is the one who has studied it carefully and deeply, and the one best able to inform others. Sadly, we are surrounded by evidence of the myopia of establishment thinking and dogma. You dont have to cite the world-is-flat doctrine or the Spanish Inquisition for proof. For example, according to the all-knowing authorities in the 1960s, butter would kill you and margarine would prevent death by butter. Today, exactly the opposite is known to be true. Butter is a rich source of anti-cancer nutrients, while margarine is proven to be full of carcinogens. Simple total blood cholesterol is now understood to predict nothing, but for decades entire societies remade themselves at the altar of cholesterol.'

 

So it seems to me from this quote that Dr Patton is in agreement with my earlier post (#87) about how our understanding In 'what is good for us' changes over time.

 

IMO this approach to ideas means that we should be open to take new research results into consideration, even if they 'go against the grain' of our preconceptions.

 

YMMV

[etlai]

So it seems to me from this quote that Dr Patton is in agreement with my earlier post (#87) about how our understanding In 'what is good for us' changes over time.

 

Today's headlines:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/old-cholesterol-warnings-steeped-in-soft-science-may-be-lifted-in-u-s-1.2953462

 

Key areas of note:

For decades, health organizations and governments have encouraged people to limit how much fatty foods they eat. Now, it looks like the U.S. government is slowly retreating from its low-fat diet crusade to realign its views with modern science.

"Modern science". I laugh, as a scientist (well, engineer).

 

The U.S. government issued its first low-fat diet recommendation in the 1980s.

 

Recent studies have shown a diet that restricts carbohydrates is more effective in fighting obesity, controlling diabetes and managing heart disease, she says.

Yet, these studies are decades, almost a full century old, even. Back to the 'modern science' quip: science is rife with selective listening.

 

EDIT: More food woes from today's headlines

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/02/fda_inspections_fraud_fabrication_and_scientific_misconduct_are_hidden_from.single.html

[Maxi]

EDIT: More food woes from today's headlines

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/02/fda_inspections_fraud_fabrication_and_scientific_misconduct_are_hidden_from.single.html

 

etlai,

This link seems to be more about scientific fraud rather than 'food woes' in general and Yes, there have certainly been issues with some scientific publications and with several drug trials.

 

However, with regard to the current thread, do you have specific concerns about the research study entitled 'The genomic signature of dog domestication reveals adaptation to a starch-rich diet' that Mark and I were citing in earlier posts?