Evaluation of raw food diets for dogs

[MARYDVM]

Published in the March 1 2001 issue of the Journal of the AVMA by Lisa Freeman DVM,PHD,DACVN and Kathryn Michel, DVM,PHD,DACVN.
3 homemade diets, and 2 commercially prepared diets were sampled and subjected to nutritional analysis. The homemade diets were prepared and supplied by clients who were feeding their dogs raw food as their only food source.
Homemade diet #1 was being fed in accordance with the BARF regimen,
Homemade diet #2 was being fed in accordance with the Ultimate diet regimen(developed by Kymythy Schultze).
Homemade diet #3 was being fed to a growing puppy in accordance with the Volhard regimen.
Commercial diet #1 was a grain and supplement product formulated to be mixed with raw meat and water.
Commercial diet #2 was a complete raw food sold frozen and intended to be fed without additional supplement.
Nutritional analyses of homemade diets #1+2 and commercial diets 1+2 were compared to AAFCO nutrient standards for adult dogs. Homemade diets 1 and 2, and commercial diet 1 were low in calcium and phosphorus and had an unbalanced Ca/P ratio. Homemade diets 1 and 2 were deficient in zinc. Other imbalances found in various ones of the tested diets were low iron, low potassium, and low manganese.
Homemade diet#3 and both commercial diets were compared to AAFCO nutrient standards for growth. Homemade diet#3 was low in sodium,iron and zinc, and high in calcium with a high Ca/P ratio. Commercial diet #1 was severely deficient in calcium, with a Ca/P ratio of .15(ideal is 1). Both commercial diets had various mineral imbalances.
The paper is obviously too long to copy here in its completeness. Anyone interested in reading it in full can ask their vet to make a copy from the journal. I imagine this paper may generate some controversy. This was not a big funded study, so only a single sample of each diet was analyzed. Still, it might behoove proponents of raw feeding like Dr. Billinghurst to generate some long term nutritional analyses to support their feeding programs.

[frontierrots]

BIG hoop-a-la about this on the nutrition list. Steve's food released a statement that they were at the seminar where these researchers presented their intial findings and they have their figures wrong, badly wrong. Using his diet as an example they said his diet had too much Vit D. Same lab and 2 others analyzed his food and actually found it low! No one seems to know how they came up with their figures not even the labs.

As far as the homemade raw meal they could not say if the meal contained bone or not- they had no clue and they only tested a single meal, when everyone who feeds raw believes in "balance over time not every meal"

Speculaltion is that it is meant to "bash" raw food diets so that vets will not assist their clients who wish to feed raw.

A REALLY good example of don't believe what you read in this case

[frontierrots]

Here is the whole post from Steve the owner of Steve's real food for pets. He provided it for interested dog owners
____
Steve Brown wrote:
> The article "Evaluation of raw food diets for dogs" by Dr. Lisa Freeman and Dr. Kathryn Michel in the March 1 issue of the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association contains inaccurate data about Steve's Real Food and the BARF diet.
>
> Our first concern is to correct this misinformation. We worked very hard from the beginning to ensure that Steve's meets AAFCO nutrient requirements. Even more, we see the results when dogs are fed Steve's Real Food or the BARF diet. We get testimonials daily from veterinarians and dog owners. We can not let misinformation prevent people from properly feeding their pets.
>
> Below are the facts and more information about this article. Please forward this message to interested dog owners.
>
> Steve Brown
>
> Steve's Real Food, Inc
>
> www.stevesrealfood.com
>
>
>
> Background
>
> This article was originally a talk presented at the 6th Ralston Nutrition and Regulatory Workshop, October 2000, in St. Louis. In the audience was probably every professor of nutrition of every veterinary school in the nation, as well as most AAFCO regulators.
>
> Lisa Freeman presented her talk on Saturday > morning. She did not submit a full paper, > just an abstract. I was also a presenter at > the workshop, and presented a talk "The > growing market demand for properly prepared > raw meat-based diets" on Sunday AM, with > Dr. Richard Hill presenting "Raw, what > about it" after my presentation.
>
> During her presentation, Dr. Freeman said, among other things, that BARF was calcium deficient and Steve's Real Food exceeded AAFCO maximums for Vitamin D. At this workshop, only a few questions are asked after every talk. One person asked "BARF is a feeding system, everyday different. How do you test that?" Dr. Freeman's response was that the BARF feeders she knew fed about the same thing everyday, so it's okay to analyze that day. She did not state if bones were fed. (In the published paper she states that "the exact recipes were not provided to us." How does one draw such strong conclusions as hers without knowing what she was testing? How does one state that the diet has insufficient calcium if one does not know if bones were fed?)
>
>
>
> During my talk the next day I corrected both inaccuracies about Steve's Real Food and BARF. I showed Steve's Real Food's nutrient chart with the proper Vitamin D, and stated that Steve's Real Food meets the AAFCO nutrient requirements for all life stages. I also said that BARF is an excellent "complete and balanced" feeding program.
>
> The real facts
>
> We have tested our chicken product for Vitamin D three times. These tests were conducted at Woodson-Tenant Laboratories Inc. in Memphis, TN. (the same lab that Dr. Freeman used), and at Food Products Laboratory, Inc. in Portland, OR. All of our tests show that Steve's Real Food Vitamin D content is well below the AAFCO maximum. It appears that it is impossible for Steve's Real Food to reach the AAFCO maximum for Vitamin D.
>
> In October of 1998, Food Products Laboratory, Inc. in Portland, OR found 574 IU/kg (2300 IU/kg on a dry matter (DM) basis and 523 IU per 1000 kcal) of vitamin D in our food using the FDA HPLC method. In November, 2000, in response to her talk, Woodson-Tenent Laboratories, Inc. in Memphis, TN tested our chicken dinner twice for vitamin D using an AOAC HPLC method appropriate for low level content. The first test result fell below the detection threshold of 100 IU/kg (400 IU/kg DM). The second test found a content of 115 IU/kg (460 IU/kg DM and 104.5 IU per 1000 kcal). All values are given on an "as fed" basis unless otherwise noted. Given the above results we are extremely skeptical that our chicken dog food exceeds the AAFCO maximum of 5000 IU/kg on a dry matter basis. All caloric calculations assume a caloric content of 1100 kcal per kilogram. All dry matter calculations assume 78% moisture.
>
> In addition, Dr. Freeman's report states that Steve's Real Food is deficient in phosphorous and sodium for growth stages. This is also inaccurate. Please see the complete nutrient profile on our web site for the accurate data.
>
> With BARF, it is our belief that a BARF diet contains sufficient calcium. In our opinion, analyzing the BARF diet based upon just one meal is like analyzing a human's daily nutrient content by just looking at breakfast.
>
> For the microbial analysis, the authors never mention how long the food was left out. The longer one leaves raw meat out of the refrigerator, the higher the microbial count will be. If one wants to report a high microbial count, just leave the food out for an hour or so. If you want a super high count, just leave it out for 2 hours or so. For example, we tested an open can of commercial dog food that was left out for a two days. In two days, the bacterial population increased by 15,000 times its original value, to 15,000,000 CFUs per gram.
>
>
>

[RottnKid1]

I have a question that I've been wondering about for some time. People who feed raw meats often say that this is what a dog would do in the wild, therefore, raw meat is good for them (as well as bones). Since the meat we eat these days is "provided" by animals who are often given hormones, etc., and the method of processing the meat can be less than sanitary, it seems to me that dogs are not being fed what they would eat in the wild and would be unhealthy when fed raw. What are the facts on this?

[Barbara Surplus]

Originally posted by frontierrots:
This article was originally a talk presented at the 6th Ralston Nutrition and Regulatory Workshop...

Is this Ralston as in "Ralston Purina"? Well, if it is, that pretty much tells me everything I need to know about the intent behind that conference. :( Not to mention the fact that they're testing food based on one meal. Hardly indicative of something that would make me want to sit up and pay attention to.
Barbara

[AngelBunny]

As far as the study under question, consider the venue in which the study was discussed. The whole paper was an example of "how to lie with statistics."

And weren't we told, for years, by researchers and scientists who were employed by cigarette companies that smoking wasn't dangerous?

RottnKid1:

You're absolutely correct.

What does go into the meat we eat? Many things that don't sound pretty, and probably aren't good for us, in the long run.

Eric Scholsser spent almost 3 years researching the US fast-food industry for his recently-published book "Fast Food Nation."

His research found that nearly 1/4 of the US' gound beef is made from worn-out dairy cattle, the animals most likely to be diseased and riddled with anitiotic residue.

Until about three years ago, he says, most cattle were fed animal waste, incuding sheep, cattle, & cats & dogs from animal shelters--because doing so was cheaper than feeding grain. In 1997 the feds banned these practices because of fear of mad cow disease, but current regulations still permit dead pigs & horses, along w/ poultry & poultry waste & cattle blood to be rendered into cattle feed.

(As a side note, earlier this year, an inspector at a Texas feedlot found some cattle had eaten illegal feed containing meat & bone meal, despite the ban.)

Many BARF proponents feed organic & many premium kibble use hormone-free animals in their products.

Concern over what might be in meat shouldn't deter one from feeding BARF and it's disingenuous to cite these as reasons to avoid BARF.

It's untrue "blanket accusations" have been made that "vets don't know what their talking about or are just out to make money" when it comes to dog nutrition and good foods for dogs vs. less than desirable foods.

There are exceptions to every rule, but *for the most part,* vets *typically* aren't good resources where canine nutrition is concerned because the topic isn't studied in vet school in sufficient detail.

[ March 09, 2001: Message edited by: AngelBunny ]

[MARYDVM]

Some of my thoughts on the subject:
I fed Barf to my dogs for about six months, they have always been healthy, they enjoyed it, but I saw no obvious differences in their activity, health, etc, so partly due to time constraints I've gone back to quality kibble.
If one is truly trying to replicate a natural diet, then the argument against feeding "worn out" or diseased animals is not valid, since these are the kind that are pulled down and consumed by wild predators all the time.
Likewise, the concern about bacterial contamination doesn't impress me, since dogs evolved as scavengers as well as predators. Unlike cats, they willingly consume "aged" meat, and have physiological adaptations in their digeative systems that prevent colonization by food borne bacteria.
I don't think you can claim bias by the Ralston nutrition conference if they had one "anti" raw speaker and 2 "pro" speakers.
In the end, companies like Purina can point to feeding trials that documented hundreds(thousands?) of healthy dogs raised and maintained on their diets. If the raw food proponents want to be taken seriously they need to generate some scientific data to support their claims.

[German Vanegas]

I feed "Canidae" on weekdays. On the week-end I feed raw food made out of a combination of raw meat, broccoli, parsley, cilantro, garlic, plain natural yoghurt, olive oil and honey. My two dogs prefer the latter over the former. They are healthy and doing great. I personally won't go "nuts" over all these studies and reports. I believe I am feeding my dogs with an adequate nutritional diet :)

[German Vanegas]

Originally posted by Hope:
... and their coat is wonderful...

This "shiny coat" concept is misleading though. Many dogs fed with low quality diets have bright coats, the trick is in the ingredient content to produce that illusional effect of good health. So be aware that just because a dog's coat is "glossy", that in itself does not mean the quality of the food is excellent.

[ March 10, 2001: Message edited by: German Vanegas ]

[MARYDVM]

I believe(but can't swear to it)that the reference to canine resistance to food-borne bacteria comes from a paragraph in Ettinger's Textbook of Veterinary Medicine, I'm at home now, the books are at work, so I'll have to try to remember to check next week. The book mentions 2 defense mechanisms: fast rate of passage through the gut, and a biochemically "charged" membrane on intestinal cells that repels bacteria and prevents colonization. Of course, any protective mechanism can fail, but wild canines are known to consume rotted meat with impunity. Some foxes will bury a fresh kill and return to it after a few days when it is well "seasoned".
As to hormones, beef cattle get a hormone ear implant while on the feedlot - it's not part of their diet. The implant is cut out at a predetermined time before slaughter so that there is no measurable amount of hormones present in the tissues when the animal is killed. It's also been theorized that young girls may be reaching puberty earlier because they are fatter than in the past. It has been demonstrated in animals that high planes of nutrition will bring on sexual maturity earlier.

[Jeff Stanley]

The combination of speed and strong enzymes enables dogs to eat things that would, at the very least, make us very ill.

When food enters a dogs system, it is hit with a very potent mixture of digestive enzymes, which do a very good job of breaking down fats, carbohydrates and protein. The time from eating on one end to expelling on the other is hours. These two things allow dogs to eat meat of any age.

Veggies are are different, because dogs are carnivores their digestive system is different than omnivores (humans) in that dogs can’t digest cellulose. That’s why veggies have to be blended to break down the cell wall of plants.

The dog’s stomach is designed for meat. Anything else they would eat in the wild, like plant material and such, would be from another animals stomach and already broken down.

One thing I believe should not be done is to mix raw meat and kibble, harmful bacteria may enter the kibble, and because the kibble takes longer to digest, there is the chance of the dog getting sick because it will stay in the stomach longer.

[RottnKid1]

The dog’s stomach is designed for meat. Anything else they would eat in the wild, like plant material and such, would be from another animals stomach and already broken down.

We have blueberry and black raspberry bushes and I've often seen the dogs picking them right from the bushes and eating them.

[Jeff Stanley]

Dogs will drink anti-freeze, doesn’t mean it’s good for them.

I would not let my dog eat berries or any kind of fruit that I don’t prepare for them. There are plants and berries and parts of fruits that are very harmful, if not fatal to dogs. Blackberries will not hurt a dog but mistletoe berries, berries from the Chinaberry tree, apple seeds, balsam pear seeds & rind, milkweed, and peach pits just to name a few will kill a dog.

I will give raw pieces of apple and bananas, but like I said, veggies have to be blended to break down the cell walls for the dog. If you don’t, most of it will pass through undigested.

Here's a site with a long list of poisonous plants:
http://www.kerryblues.org/KB/POISONOUS.HTML

[ March 10, 2001: Message edited by: Jeff Stanley ]

[Hope]

Man, all this over dog food, it really gets ridiculous. I will say this, If I had the guts, the time, the confidence, and the resources to feed total barf, I would. I have some fears, and I allow these fears to stop me from feeding a total raw diet.

BUT!!!! If you ask me, if you feed a food like Canidae, Innova, Wellness, any of these "type" of super premium, and your dog loves it, and their coat is wonderful, and their acitivity level is correct, then why go nuts trying to change all the time. I have finally come to this conclusion, after tearing myself apart about raw, after changing my dog's food a few times, and finally I found that he does incredibly well on Wellness, and not so great on Innova, but I may like to see how he does on Canidae.

I think it comes down to this, not all dogs do great on a particular food. Some dogs may not like one, may not even like the raw diet, but if they are healthy, and you are not running to the vet to correct problems due to their diet, then too worry excessivly is just a waste of time. God knows I have done enough of that.

[RottnKid1]

If one is truly trying to replicate a natural diet, then the argument against feeding "worn out" or diseased animals is not valid, since these are the kind that are pulled down and consumed by wild predators all the time.

But the animals being hunted and pulled down in the wild aren't fed hormones. The meat is not going through processing and heaven knows what else. Though I can't supply the source (I saw this on either Dateline or 20/20), there've been studies done on the effects of hormones fed to animals whose meat was then consumed by humans. It's thought that this may be the reason that many girls are developing at a younger age. Of course, all of my concern over hormones and processing are probably ridiculous anyway, since the meat which goes into kibble would contain the same things ;).

Is it a proven fact that dogs aren't susceptible to salmonella, e-coli, etc., or is it a theory?

Hope, I know all this seems ridiculous. I study and research anything I can to learn more about dogs, but I've somewhat neglected this area and would just like to hear different opinions, take what best suits my dogs and pocketbook :) and incorporate it for the betterment of my dogs' health.

[ March 10, 2001: Message edited by: RottnKid1 ]