Myth: DOGS ARE OMNIVORES.
This is false. Dogs are carnivores, not omnivores. Dogs ARE very adaptable, but just because they can survive on an omnivorous diet does not mean it is the best diet for them. The assumption that dogs are natural omnivores remains to be proven, whereas the truth about dogs being natural carnivores is very well-supported by the evidence available to us.
1.) Definition
Look into your dog or cat’s mouth. Those huge impressive teeth (or tiny needle sharp teeth) are designed for grabbing, ripping, tearing, shredding, and shearing meat (Feldhamer, G.A. 1999. Mammology: Adaptation, Diversity, and Ecology. McGraw-Hill. pg 258.). They are not equipped with large flat molars for grinding up plant matter. Their molars are pointed and situated in a scissors bite (along with the rest of their teeth) that powerfully disposes of meat, bone, and hide. Carnivores are equipped with a peculiar set of teeth that includes the presence of carnassial teeth: the fourth upper premolar and first lower molar.

This is the skull of a weasel (also in Order Carnivora), courtesy of Centennial Museum. The carnassial teeth are marked with black arrows. You can find these same teeth in the mouth of your dog or cat or ferret.

Contrast this with your own teeth or the teeth of a black bear. A black bear is a true omnivore, as are we. We have nice, large, flat molars that can grind up veggies. Black bears, while having impressive canine teeth, also have large flat molars in the back of their mouth to assist in grinding up plant matter. Dogs and most canids lack these kinds of molars. Why? Because they don’t eat plant matter. Teeth are highly specialized and are structured specifically for the diet the animal eats, and the difference between a bear’s teeth and a dog’s teeth (both species are in Order Carnivora) demonstrates how this can be (Feldhamer, G.A. 1999. Mammology: Adaptation, Diversity, and Ecology. McGraw-Hill. pgs 260.). To see a visual comparison of the teeth of a dog to the teeth of a black bear, please click here. One can logically ask: If a dog (or cat or ferret) has the dentition of a carnivorous animal, why do we feed it pelleted, grain-based food?

2.) Musculature and external anatomy
Dogs (and cats) are equipped with powerful jaw muscles and neck muscles that assist in pulling down prey and chewing meat, bone, and hide. Their jaws hinge open widely, allowing them to gulp large chunks of meat and bone. Their skulls are heavy, and are shaped to prevent lateral movement of the lower jaw when captured prey struggles (the mandibular fossa is deep and C-shaped); this shape permits only an up-and-down crushing motion, whereas herbivores and omnivores have flatter mandibular fossa that allows for the lateral motion necessary to grind plant matter (Feldhamer, G.A. 1999. Mammology: Adaptation, Diversity, and Ecology. McGraw-Hill. pgs 258-259.). Consider this quote from the previously-cited Mammology text:
“Canids, felids, and mustelids subsist mainly on freshly killed prey. These families show correspondingly greater development in ‘tooth and claw’; they also have greater carnassial development and cursorial locomotion.” (pg 260)

This translates to a simple fact: everything about a dog or cat’s body design says they were designed for a carnivorous, hunting lifestyle geared toward killing prey. However, humans have done some major tinkering with this body design (resulting in varying sizes and conformations), but we have done nothing to change the internal anatomy and physiology of our carnivorous canines.

3.) Internal anatomy and physiology
Dogs and cats have the internal anatomy and physiology of a carnivore (Feldhamer, G.A. 1999. Mammology: Adaptation, Diversity, and Ecology. McGraw-Hill. pg 260.). They have a highly elastic stomach designed to hold large quantities of meat, bone, organs, and hide. Their stomachs are simple, with an undeveloped caecum (Feldhamer, G.A. 1999. Mammology: Adaptation, Diversity, and Ecology. McGraw-Hill. pg 260.). They have a relatively short foregut and a short, smooth, unsacculated colon. This means food passes through quickly. Vegetable and plant matter, however, needs time to sit and ferment. This equates to longer, sacculated colons, larger and longer small intestines, and occasionally the presence of a caecum. Dogs have none of these, but have the shorter foregut and hindgut consistent with carnivorous animals. This explains why plant matter comes out the same way it came in; there was no time for it to be broken down and digested (among other things). People know this; this is why they tell you that vegetables and grains have to be preprocessed for your dog to get anything out of them. But even then, feeding vegetables and grains to a carnivorous animal is a questionable practice.
Dogs do not normally produce the necessary enzymes in their saliva (amylase, for example) to start the break-down of carbohydrates and starches; amylase in saliva is something omnivorous and herbivorous animals possess, but not carnivorous animals. This places the burden entirely on the pancreas, forcing it to produce large amounts of amylase to deal with the starch, cellulose, and carbohydrates in plant matter. Thus, feeding dogs as though they were omnivores taxes the pancreas and places extra strain on it, as it must work harder for the dog to digest the starchy, carbohydrate-filled food instead of just producing normal amounts of the enzymes needed to digest proteins and fats (which, when fed raw, begin to “self-digest” when the cells are crushed through chewing and tearing and their enzymes are released).
Nor do dogs have the kinds of friendly bacteria that break down cellulose and starch for them. As a result, most of the nutrients contained in plant matter—even preprocessed plant matter—are unavailable to dogs. This is why dog food manufacturers have to add such high amounts of synthetic vitamins and minerals (the fact that cooking destroys all the vitamins and minerals and thus creates the need for supplementation aside) to their dog foods. If a dog can only digest 40-60% of its grain-based food, then it will only be receiving 40-60% (ideally!) of the vitamins and minerals it needs. To compensate for this, the manufacturer must add a higher concentration of vitamins and minerals than the dog actually needs.
Is the dog an omnivore? Its dentition, internal and external anatomy, and physiology say it is not. Even its evolutionary history (discussed later) says the dog is a carnivore. So when people tell you the dog is an omnivore, ask: “What about this animal makes you think it is an omnivore?” Make them explain their position to you before you explain yours. Chances are they’ll cite this next myth as “proof”.
________________________________________

Next Myth: WOLVES EAT THE STOMACH CONTENTS OF THEIR PREY»

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.
________________________________________

Next Myth: DOGS ARE TOO FAR REMOVED FROM WOLVES»

Previous Myth: DOGS ARE OMNIVORES«
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?” www.fiu.edu/~milesk/Genetics.htm), 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.
________________________________________

Next Myth: DOGS HAVE ADAPTED TO COOKED DIETS»

Previous Myth: WOLVES EAT THE STOMACH CONTENTS OF THEIR PREY«

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.
________________________________________
Myth: DOGS ARE LIVING LONGER LIVES BECAUSE OF THE BETTER NUTRITION PROVIDED BY KIBBLE.
This is false logic. Dogs are living longer today because of improved social status and advances in medical care. “Back in the day” dogs were not considered the valuable family members and companions they are now. Dogs were left outside to brave the elements. They were guardians of house, possessions, and livestock. Dogs had a purpose, a job, and when they could not do that job, they were retired or disposed of. Medical care for dogs was scant and typically unimportant, as more prestige was gained from being a livestock vet than a canine vet. Very little notice was given to the dog’s health as long as it could still do what was asked of it.
Nowadays, dogs enjoy a better life, one that is easier and less taxing (except for the great injustices that are kibble and excessive vaccination). They sleep inside with their owners. They enjoy the social status of family companions. People care more about their welfare. They receive the benefits of improved health care—much of which has evolved in the last 50 years because of the ailments caused by processed foods—and the added bonus of people caring about them receiving that care. For example, 100 years ago people would have never paid thousands of dollars to give their dog a hip replacement, or hundreds of dollars to get routine dentals performed on their pets. Nutrition has had a very negligible role to play in increased longevity other than the fact that dogs are no longer starving and do not have to hunt or scavenge (both of which are energetically costly). Instead of contributing to longevity, these “nutritional advances” have contributed to more and more health problems previously unheard of in dogs—diabetes, various cancers, inflammatory bowel syndrome, and bloat, for example. Veterinary medicine has evolved into ‘modern veterinary medicine’ because of the increasing prevalence of processed food-related diseases and the need to treat and fix them (which often involves switching your dog onto a higher-priced “therapeutic” processed diet). Granted, these diseases are diagnosed more frequently today because people actually know what to be looking for, but the amount of dogs suffering from these ailments today as opposed to earlier dogs indicates a VERY strong link to the foods they eat, links that have been proven to exist between humans in developed countries and processed foods.
What about increased longevity? Dogs’ longevity has only recently been determined by ‘research’ performed by the pet food companies. They use these estimates to “show” that their food helps animals live longer. But longer compared to what? No one cared about canine longevity in the earlier days (except the select few concerned with breeding canines), so no one kept records or performed surveys. So this longevity estimate is only valid from when the surveys started. Indeed, kibbled food has been improving from the early prototypes that created a variety of nutritional deficiences (like overgrowth and bone malformations in puppies; this STILL is a problem.), but this “nutrition” has not contributed to longevity in nearly the same manner that increased social status has.
In reality, canine longevity and quality of life has been decreasing for many breeds since the advent of processed food. People who remember the ‘old days’ when dogs were fed raw meaty bones often report their dogs living well through their late teens. Nowadays it is a “miracle” and a testament to the “excellent nutriton” the dog must have received, and vets and pet food companies claim this “miracle” as occurring often enough to become ‘commonplace’. Too bad most of the vets who remember the good old days have now retired or even moved on. It seems this new generation of veterinarians will know nothing but kibbled, processed food and the ailments induced by it.
So they say dogs are living longer. And indeed people can step forward and say they have 16-year-old Golden Retrievers and 14-year-old German Shepherds and 11-year-old Great Danes. But what about the quality of life for these old dogs? They have horrible teeth and rancid breath, severe arthritis or degenerative joint disease, cancerous or benign tumors, diabetes, kidney failure, nasty greasy coats, and soft fatty bodies lacking muscle tone. People say this is just “old age” and that we see this more often nowadays because dogs are living longer. But is this really true? Many of these ailments are caused by or heavily influenced by a lifetime of eating processed food and developing periodontal disease and bacteria-laden teeth (Lonsdale, T. 2001. Raw Meaty Bones.). Those who remember the ‘early days’ remember long-lived dogs enjoying better quality lives until one day they just did not wake up. This slow, accumulating progression of disease is invariably linked with processed foods—something that has been proven time and again in human medicine and is being proven daily by the amount of processed food-fed pets suffering from a variety of these ailments and sitting in vets’ waiting rooms.
If pets are living longer, then why are they being considered “old” at younger and younger ages? A dog is now a senior by the age of 7 or 8; some even say a dog is “old” at 5 or 6. Cats are considered seniors by the ripe old age of 7 (tell that to raw fed cats still going strong at the age of 20!). This premature aging is caused in large part by processed foods (Lonsdale, T. 2001. Raw Meaty Bones.). Cancer, diabetes, obesity, kidney failure, heart problems, and arthritis (among other things) are being seen in younger and younger dogs. Dogs 3 years of age are being euthanized for malignant, systemic cancers! What happened to this “dogs are living longer” claim? It is high time we stop slowly poisoning our beloved friends through commercial diets and excessive “preventative” health care measures!
TIDBIT: The oldest living raw-fed dog is Jerry, an Australian cattle dog-bull terrier mix. He is 27 and lives with his owner in Australia (Outback Mongrel Could Be Oldest Dog. USA Today. 7-13-2004.). To see the full text story, please click here (if this link does not work, please tell me; it may mean the story has moved elsewhere).
________________________________________

Next Myth: WOLVES DO NOT LIVE VERY LONG BECAUSE OF THEIR DIET»

Previous Myth: DOGS HAVE ADAPTED TO COOKED DIETS«

Myth: WOLVES IN THE WILD DO NOT LIVE AS LONG AS DOMESTIC DOGS BECAUSE OF THEIR DIET.
The assumption of this claim is that the diet of wolves shortens their lifespan and that we therefore should not feed this diet to dogs. However, this is another example of faulty reasoning and false logic. Yes, wolves do not live as long in the wild as their domestic counterparts, but this is NOT because of the food they eat. Why would nature design an animal to be sustained on a diet that inevitably kills it? How could eating what it was designed and has evolved to eat decrease a wolf’s lifespan? Its diet is what keeps a wolf alive! If it did not eat, how would it live? These questions aside, we must look at how absurd it is to link wolf longevity solely to diet.
Living in the wild is a tough job. Wild wolves face the brunt of nature and must deal with the bitter elements every single day—heat, cold, rain, storms, blizzards, ice storms, etc. They also must deal with the high energetic costs associated with bringing down huge herbivores like elk, deer, and moose. They also encounter intraspecific competition for food among other wolves in addition to interspecific competition with bears, cougars, and humans. They face predation, habitat loss, and prey loss by humans as well as a decreasing environmental quality in habitat and food. They also must deal with parasites (every wild animal has them and usually coexists quite peacefully with them), with foreign toxic pollutants, with wolf-wolf altercations, with wolf-prey altercations, with wolf-other carnivore or scavenger altercations, and with increasing encroachment and habitat destruction by humans. They face a sporadic prey supply and starvation routinely and may go several weeks without food. In spite of all this they can still thrive well enough to expend precious energy in reproductive forays, producing litters of healthy pups and creating an increased demand for food. These are the reasons a wolf’s lifespan in the wild is shorter, NOT because of its diet. It is precisely their diet and genetic hardiness that keeps them alive, even in the face of disease. It is not that their food is somehow lacking and incapable of sustaining them, but that they cannot always get enough of that food to meet all their metabolic requirements. It is that very food that fills, heals, and sustains them. Hopefully you can now see how ludicrous it is to assume diet is the reason for a decreased lifespan in the wild.
When we look at our domesticated wolf companions—our dogs—this lifespan issue becomes a moot point. Our dogs do not live in the wild and therefore do not face most of the energetically costly factors wolves face. Our dogs live comfortably in our homes where they should always receive enough food and care, and where the raw food they need can be obtained from parasite-free sources. Just look at the example set by Jerry, the 27-year-old raw-fed Australian cattle dog-bull terrier mix of the Australian Outback (Outback Mongrel Could Be Oldest Dog. USA Today. 7-13-2004.). To see the full text story, please click here (if this link does not work, please tell me; it may mean the story has moved elsewhere).
________________________________________
Myth: MILLIONS OF DOGS ARE SAFELY EATING ‘COMPLETE AND BALANCED’ COMMERCIAL FOODS EACH DAY.
This is a statement that is more of an observation, but one that is false on many subtle levels. One can easily point to these millions of dogs and say that kibble is not all that bad. It is then implied that raw diets are not necessary because dogs can eat commercial foods and still be healthy. But let us think about this statement and all its associated issues. Is kibble safe? Is it healthy? Are raw diets really necessary?
Millions of dogs eat kibble. And millions of dogs—at least 85% of all dogs—suffer from periodontal disease by age 3 as a result of eating these processed foods (Penman, S. and P. Emily. 1991. Scaling, Polishing and Dental Home Care. Waltham International Focus. 1(3): 2-8. In Lonsdale, T. 2001. Raw Meaty Bones. pg 110). This translates to teeth covered with plaque and teeming with bacteria. These bacteria get into the gums and provoke the body’s inflammatory response continually for the rest of the animal’s life. Dogs (and cats!) are doomed to have nasty teeth and rancid breath. “It’s normal,” people said. “Dogs are supposed to have bad dog breath.”
But as greater awareness of periodontal disease and its effects on the heart, lungs, kidneys, liver, joints, skin and other systems of the animal grew, so did the industry for ‘alleviating’ the problem. Now you can buy a myriad of dental chews and plaque-scrubbing “bones”—most of which work minimally. Special dental formula foods were formed to clean pets’ teeth, but these effects are inconsequential. Vets hand out toothbrushes, toothpaste, dental washes, and dental bones to their clients’ owners, instructing them to brush their carnivore’s teeth regularly and to schedule frequent dental cleanings for the pets—dental cleanings that cost hundreds of dollars. Instead of treating the problem at its source, veterinarians and pet food companies and pet industries market hundreds of different products and services that are simply band-aids and attempts to cover up the problem. It is not an industry motivated by the welfare of our pets, but by greed and money.
Millions of dogs eat kibble, and millions of dogs fill the waiting rooms of veterinarians, bad breath and all. These pets suffer from dermatitises of all sorts, or from cancers, joint problems, heart problems, kidney problems, digestive problems (“lack of enzymes”), liver problems, pancreas problems, coat problems, tooth problems, anal gland problems, glandular disorders, allergies, and soft doughy bodies brought on by eating a grain-based, artificial, highly-processed, additive-filled food touted as “healthy” for your dog. Thousands of dogs die from diet-induced diseases like bloat each year (and that is not to say all diseases are caused by diet, but many of them link strongly with processed diets and diet-induced periodontal disease. Refer to Raw Meaty Bones for a more in-depth discussion.), and yet the industry keeps on churning out artificial pet foods and vets keep recommending them to their clients.
Most veterinarians do not know any better; most vets receive on average only 8 hours or less education on pet nutrition (in their 3-4 years of study). Much of their nutritional education is sponsored or even administered by pet food companies (to read more about just what goes on in vet school nutrition classes, please read “A First Year Veterinary Student Comments” in the 13 April 2004 RMB Newsletter). In addition, they receive a good deal of revenue by selling special “veterinarian-administered only” commercial diets designed to “fix” and cover up the problems created by artificial diets in the first place. There are weight management formulas for older or obese dogs, special diabetes formulas for diabetics, protein formulas for kidney patients, easily-digested formulas for older patients or those with digestive problems, hypo-allergenic formulas for dogs with allergies. For almost every ailment there is another commercial food designed to help the poor suffering animal, and pet owners are now forced to keep their pets on this expensive, processed food that will “manage” the problem. Ironically, most of these diseases are dramatically improved by taking the pet off a processed diet and by feeding it raw meaty bones—the very food many vets say is unsafe and unhealthy for dogs. Think of how much revenue would be lost if no one bought kibble from their vets, had healthy dogs, and did not need to get doggie dentals done. There would be a lot fewer veterinarians! Granted, veterinarians hold a valuable place in society, but they too need to look critically at these problems caused by processed foods. They need to step up and hold true to their creed of first doing no harm!! For more information about the link between the veterinary profession and the processed pet food industry, please read the Vets and Nutrition myth.
Millions of dogs are eating kibble, suffering from bad teeth and stinky breath, decreased longevity and quality of life, and underlying health problems. Millions of dogs are being maintained on an artificial, grain-based diets containing synthetic vitamins and minerals plus a myriad of chemical preservatives and additives—the collective effects of which have NEVER been researched. The key here is that dogs are merely existing. Sure, kibble (even “premium” kibble) is sufficient for keeping your dog alive, but is it the best, most appropriate food for your dog?
In a roundabout way, this brings forth the ‘complete and balanced’ claim. So many kibbles to choose from, so many proclaiming to be more ‘complete and balanced’ than the others. How can this be possible? Either it is complete and balanced, or it is not. Yet hundreds of brands all carry the claim bestowed upon it by AAFCO—’complete and balanced for the proposed life stage’—but exhibit a tremendous variety in quality. What does this ‘complete and balanced’ claim mean? This means 6 of 8 dogs were kept alive on that food for 26 weeks without any noticeable nutritional deficiencies. That is it. If a dog food does this, then it is considered complete and balanced enough to feed your pet for its entire life—even though nutritional deficiencies can take years to develop! Essentially, this complete and balanced kibble is only guaranteed to keep your dog (and millions of other dogs) alive with no noticeable side effects for six months. Please read the AAFCO Standards myth page for an in-depth look at their feeding trials and their nutrient profiles.
So according to the pet food industry and those in bed with it, millions of dogs are “safely” eating kibble with “no ill effects” caused by these diets (obviously, except for the hundreds of dogs killed or permanently injured by aflatoxins in various commercial foods over the years—Pedigree dog foods, Diamond Pet Foods, etc.). The problems dogs do have are the fault of someone else—the fault of the dog being a dog, or being poorly bred, or being fed a less-than-par kibble—not the fault of feeding a carnivorous animal grain-filled, pelleted, processed feed. Dogs and cats can apparently survive perfectly well on a diet devoid of freshness and life, eating the same processed pet cereal every day for their entire lives. No variety, and heaven forbid you offer table scraps or fresh food! Yet processed food has been deemed unhealthy for humans, and the recommendation is to stick with a variety of fresh, whole foods. The recommendation for our pets, on the other hand, is to never give them fresh whole foods because that could upset their delicately balanced, processed diet. Does anyone else see flaws in that logic?
Please note: raw diets are not a “cure-all”. Many conditions can be improved and possibly even relieved by feeding a raw, species appropriate diet. However, the toxic burden on our pets—accumulated over years of repeat vaccinations, poor diets, pesticide administration, environmental pollution, and genetic chronic disease—is quite large and has undoubtedly contributed to the illnesses we see in our pets. Commercial diets are but one part of this problem, BUT it is a large part. Diet is one of the cornerstones of total health, and if the diet is poor, how can the animal effectively fight off assaults on its system and repair the body? Feeding a species appropriate raw diet provides the animal with the best possible nutrition for total health. For more information on vaccines, homeopathy, flea/tick and heartworm medications, please visit the Vaccines page.
________________________________________

Next Myth: RAW MEAT DIETS ARE NOT BALANCED»
Myth: RAW MEAT DIETS ARE NOT BALANCED.
Yes, all-meat diets are NOT balanced. You cannot feed a diet of just meat to your dog and expect it to do well. Your dog needs bones and organ meat as well to obtain the proper nutrients. This means feeding a prey-model diet based on a whole prey animal. Remember that your dog has no needs for vegetables, and that most of the nutrients in vegetables—even pre-processed ones—are unavailable to your dog (see the omnivore myth and the stomach contents myth for further reference). The alternative? Feed according to the prey model and provide variety. If you are feeding whole animals or a variety of raw meaty bones and organ meats, then your diet will be balanced. Raw foods contain the exact proportions of fat, protein, vitamins, minerals, and enzymes a dog needs.
One other concept of balance that should be addressed is the idea perpetuated by the pet food companies: “Dogs need complete and balanced nutrition in every meal.” This is nothing but propaganda designed to make people buy into commercial dog food. This is not how the canine body—or any other body—operates! Take your own diet, for example. Do you eat a complete and balanced meal every time you eat? No! You eat a variety of foods over a period of time, and yet your body generally does very well and exhibits no signs of nutritional deficiencies. Dogs do not need “complete and balanced” nutrition at every meal. If they did, then any time they did not receive complete and balanced nutrition their bodies would get out of skew and problems would suddenly develop. This is not how it works. This is where one sees the concept of “balance over time” developing. This is the principle that many feel is adequate to explain how all living things obtain the proper nutrition. Nutritional needs are met over a period of time, and balance is achieved through time as the animal eats what it needs at the time it needs it or whenever it can get it. The nutrients the body MUST have and cannot synthesize for itself are supplied in sufficient amounts in the food the animal eats. Nutrients are stored within the body when they are eaten and are not needed, but when the need arises, they are essentially pulled out of storage and used. This is what allows animals (and people!) to fast for sufficient periods of time without starving or dying. They not only have fat reserves and protein reserves in their muscles, but stored up nutrients and vitamins in their tissues (fat soluble vitamins, for example, like A, D, and K).
One can logically ask: ‘What is balance, anyway?’ Balanced vitamins and minerals, carbohydrates, fats, and proteins? Can we ever conclusively know what balance is? How? No, this concept of balance is a myth. We hypothesize, guess, and draw up faulty food pyramids in attempts to define ‘balanced’ diets, yet as a society we are still plagued with obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and ‘rare’ bowel diseases like Crohn’s disease that are becoming more commonplace (oddly enough, vets are seeing the same things occurring in our canine and feline counterparts). The food pyramid is being revamped as specialists argue about appropriate ‘balanced’ diets, which only further illustrates the truth that we do not know what balance is.
What about our pets? The standards for balanced pet food are approximated (and incorrect, I might add, since they are based on the myth that a dog is an omnivore. See the standards myth for more detail), and vitamins and minerals are added in excess to compensate for the decreased bioavailability of these nutrients in kibble. Dogs are fed “balanced” proportions of fats, proteins, and the carbohydrates that they have no need for whatsoever. Honestly, have you ever heard of an essential carbohydrate? There are essential fats, essential amino acids (obtained from protein), but no essential carbohydrates. Yes, an animal’s body needs glucose to function, but glucose is easily made from amino acids via gluconeogenesis. Carbs are not necessary for our carnivorous pets, yet they are listed as part of a ‘balanced’ diet. For further discussion on carbohydrates, please visit the Carbohydrates page.
We can go one step further with this concept of balance. No one except nature conclusively knows exactly what is needed and in what proportions. Why? Well, a million years of evolution should be sufficient enough to show any naysayer that the diet nature provides for her creatures is precisely what they need to function, thrive, and survive. No one but nature knows exactly what the animal can actually use and absorb. We can only guess. So forget ‘balance’ of any kind when it comes to feeding our pet carnivores. There is no such thing as ‘balance’. Think “carcass”. “Carcass” is what sufficiently sustains wolves, dogs, wild cats, and ferrets, and that is what nature has perfectly provided for them. “Balance” is nothing but an insufficient human term, a vague concept that pet food companies employ to make people buy the foods for their pets. When feeding your pet carnivores, always remember the concept of “carcass”.
________________________________________

Next Myth: BONES ARE DANGEROUS AND HAVE NO NUTRITIONAL VALUE»Myth: RAW MEAT DIETS ARE NOT BALANCED.
Yes, all-meat diets are NOT balanced. You cannot feed a diet of just meat to your dog and expect it to do well. Your dog needs bones and organ meat as well to obtain the proper nutrients. This means feeding a prey-model diet based on a whole prey animal. Remember that your dog has no needs for vegetables, and that most of the nutrients in vegetables—even pre-processed ones—are unavailable to your dog (see the omnivore myth and the stomach contents myth for further reference). The alternative? Feed according to the prey model and provide variety. If you are feeding whole animals or a variety of raw meaty bones and organ meats, then your diet will be balanced. Raw foods contain the exact proportions of fat, protein, vitamins, minerals, and enzymes a dog needs.
One other concept of balance that should be addressed is the idea perpetuated by the pet food companies: “Dogs need complete and balanced nutrition in every meal.” This is nothing but propaganda designed to make people buy into commercial dog food. This is not how the canine body—or any other body—operates! Take your own diet, for example. Do you eat a complete and balanced meal every time you eat? No! You eat a variety of foods over a period of time, and yet your body generally does very well and exhibits no signs of nutritional deficiencies. Dogs do not need “complete and balanced” nutrition at every meal. If they did, then any time they did not receive complete and balanced nutrition their bodies would get out of skew and problems would suddenly develop. This is not how it works. This is where one sees the concept of “balance over time” developing. This is the principle that many feel is adequate to explain how all living things obtain the proper nutrition. Nutritional needs are met over a period of time, and balance is achieved through time as the animal eats what it needs at the time it needs it or whenever it can get it. The nutrients the body MUST have and cannot synthesize for itself are supplied in sufficient amounts in the food the animal eats. Nutrients are stored within the body when they are eaten and are not needed, but when the need arises, they are essentially pulled out of storage and used. This is what allows animals (and people!) to fast for sufficient periods of time without starving or dying. They not only have fat reserves and protein reserves in their muscles, but stored up nutrients and vitamins in their tissues (fat soluble vitamins, for example, like A, D, and K).
One can logically ask: ‘What is balance, anyway?’ Balanced vitamins and minerals, carbohydrates, fats, and proteins? Can we ever conclusively know what balance is? How? No, this concept of balance is a myth. We hypothesize, guess, and draw up faulty food pyramids in attempts to define ‘balanced’ diets, yet as a society we are still plagued with obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and ‘rare’ bowel diseases like Crohn’s disease that are becoming more commonplace (oddly enough, vets are seeing the same things occurring in our canine and feline counterparts). The food pyramid is being revamped as specialists argue about appropriate ‘balanced’ diets, which only further illustrates the truth that we do not know what balance is.
What about our pets? The standards for balanced pet food are approximated (and incorrect, I might add, since they are based on the myth that a dog is an omnivore. See the standards myth for more detail), and vitamins and minerals are added in excess to compensate for the decreased bioavailability of these nutrients in kibble. Dogs are fed “balanced” proportions of fats, proteins, and the carbohydrates that they have no need for whatsoever. Honestly, have you ever heard of an essential carbohydrate? There are essential fats, essential amino acids (obtained from protein), but no essential carbohydrates. Yes, an animal’s body needs glucose to function, but glucose is easily made from amino acids via gluconeogenesis. Carbs are not necessary for our carnivorous pets, yet they are listed as part of a ‘balanced’ diet. For further discussion on carbohydrates, please visit the Carbohydrates page.
We can go one step further with this concept of balance. No one except nature conclusively knows exactly what is needed and in what proportions. Why? Well, a million years of evolution should be sufficient enough to show any naysayer that the diet nature provides for her creatures is precisely what they need to function, thrive, and survive. No one but nature knows exactly what the animal can actually use and absorb. We can only guess. So forget ‘balance’ of any kind when it comes to feeding our pet carnivores. There is no such thing as ‘balance’. Think “carcass”. “Carcass” is what sufficiently sustains wolves, dogs, wild cats, and ferrets, and that is what nature has perfectly provided for them. “Balance” is nothing but an insufficient human term, a vague concept that pet food companies employ to make people buy the foods for their pets. When feeding your pet carnivores, always remember the concept of “carcass”.
________________________________________

Next Myth: BONES ARE DANGEROUS AND HAVE NO NUTRITIONAL VALUE»
Myth: BONES ARE DANGEROUS AND HAVE NO NUTRITIONAL VALUE.
Cooked bones are quite dangerous. Cooking changes the structure of the bone, making it indigestible and easily splinterable. Raw bones rarely splinter and are fully digestible, even the collagen proteins that some people claim are “indigestible.” It is mostly the byproducts of the digested bone that form the bulk of a raw-fed animal’s feces. Dogs and cats do not need the fiber from grains and vegetables, and feeding such foods only results in the big, soft, malodorous stools everyone complains about.
Let me repeat this for good measure: raw bones are completely digestible and are not dangerous for your animal. They are no more dangerous than kibble, and the only reasons they are made out to be dangerous are a) people misunderstand that raw bones are fully digestible while cooked are not, b) people want to scare you into thinking you are going to kill your dog if you give them bones, and c) bone-induced problems are blown way out of proportion in an effort to maintain the status quo of feeding kibble. What these people forget to tell you about are the 60,000 dogs suffering from bloat each year—of which nearly 20,000 die (Burrows, C.F. and L.A. Ignaszewski. 1990. Canine gastric dilatation-volvulus. Journal of Small Animal Practice. 35:295-298. In Lonsdale, T. 2001. Raw Meaty Bones. pg 117)—or the number of dogs dying from choking on kibble—which is a more common occurrence than one hears of! They also forget to mention the numbers of dogs that choked on or swallowed tennis balls, rocks, sticks, and a variety of other objects. These incidences FAR outweigh the numbers of dogs that have problems with raw bones. Just take a survey of veterinarians in your area and see what the most common blockage or choking culprits are in their specific practices. Do not forget to ask how many dogs they have treated (successfully and unsuccessfully) for bloat.
Yes, problems can occur with raw bones, just as problems can occur with feeding the “safer” kibble (bloat, choking, telescoping bowel, aspirated kibble leading to pneumonia, etc.). These problems typically occur in dogs that gulp their food or are fed small things like chicken wings and necks (the prime suspects of choking incidences on raw). Other culprits are the large weight-bearing bones of herbivores, things like knuckle bones, femurs, etc. These, ironically, are the kinds of bones pet food manufacturers and some vets recommend dogs receive regularly to help keep teeth clean! These bones chip or break teeth and can have pieces of bone flake off.
If you are concerned about choking or about bones getting stuck or about broken teeth, here are some things you can do:
• Feed appropriately sized pieces. Do not be feeding a dog the size of a Rottweiler a little chicken neck or wing! Feed that dog a whole chicken. Bigger pieces force the dog to slow down and chew. Also, stay away from cut bones; this includes things like cut up neck bones (where they are cut into individual vertebrae), cut ox-tail bones, and cut knuckle bones. The smaller size encourages inappropriate gulping, not to mention the rather sharp edges left over from the saw blade! Feed large MEATY bones that are in as whole condition as possible.
• Feed raw meaty bones frozen or partially frozen. The dog will have to work at it much harder and will be forced to slow down.
• Do not feed the big weight-bearing bones of large herbivores. These are well-known for chipping and cracking teeth! These include the ever popular “recreational bones” like cow femurs and soup bones. They are incredibly dense and hard, and can result in slab fractures and cracked carnassial teeth. Avoid them if you can and stick to MEATY bones that are edible.
• Feed MEATY bones that are surrounded by and wrapped up in plenty of meat. Do not feed bare bones or bones that have hardly any meat on them. Too much bone can lead to constipation, so feeding very bony parts like beef knuckle bones, chicken wings, and even some rib bones can result in some very hard “concrete-like” poops. If you do feed a bony meal like whole neck bones or a slab of beef ribs, supplement with some raw “meaty meat” on the side to compensate for the high bone content.
• If you are still worried, learn the doggie heimelich maneuver and monitor the dog while it eats (which should be done anyway, regardless of what the dog is fed!). And always remember: more dogs die from bloat or from choking on kibble and tennis balls than from choking on raw bones.

As for bones not being nutritious:
“Bones from prey are required by wolves as the major source of calcium and phosphorus for the maintenance of their own skeletons. Bones, in fact, are a surprisingly well-balanced food for canids” (Mech, L.D. 2003. Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation. pg125).
________________________________________

Next Myth: THE BACTERIA IN RAW MEAT IS DANGEROUS TO MY PET»
Myth: THE BACTERIA IN RAW MEAT WILL HURT YOUR DOG.
This is discussion purely about bacteria and your dog. If you are looking for a discussion about dogs spreading bacteria to humans, go here.
Yes, the bacteria in raw meat might hurt your dog IF the dog already has an immunocompromised system or some underlying problem. Raw diets have also been blamed for causing things like pancreatitis and kidney disease, when in reality the underlying disease was already there and was brought to light by the change in diet. Dogs are surprisingly well-equipped to deal with bacteria. Their saliva has antibacterial properties; it contains lysozyme, an enzyme that lyses and destroys harmful bacteria. Their short digestive tract is designed to push through food and bacteria quickly without giving bacteria time to colonize. The extremely acidic environment in the gut is also a good bacteria colonization deterrent. People often point to the fact that dogs shed salmonella in their feces (even kibble-fed dogs do this) without showing any ill effects as proof that the dog is infected with salmonella. In reality, all this proves is that the dog has effectively passed the salmonella through its system with no problems. Yes, the dog can act as a salmonella carrier, but the solution is simple—do not eat dog crap and wash your hands after picking up after your dog.
Even kibble-fed dogs regularly shed salmonella and other bacteria. Most of the documented cases of severe bacterial septicemia are from kibble-fed animals or animals suffering from reactions to vaccines. Commercial pet foods have been pulled off shelves more than once because of bacteria AND molds that produce a deadly toxin. The solution? Use common sense. Clean up well and wash your hands. And think about your dog—this is an animal that can lick itself, lick other dogs, eat a variety of disgusting rotting things, and ingest its own feces or those of other animals with no ill effects. The dog, plain and simple, can handle greater bacterial loads than we can. Can dogs get sick from the bacteria? I suppose they can. But it is rare and usually indicative of an underlying problem, especially when one stops to consider how much bacteria that dog probably comes in contact with every single day. One must ask “Why this dog? Why now? What has made this particular dog susceptible to bacterial overgrowth?” Something is not ‘right’ regarding the dog’s health—a healthy dog does not suffer from bacterial infections or bacterial septicemia. That is just common sense. A dog suffering from “salmonella poisoning” is obviously not healthy, especially when compared to a dog that ate the same food with the same salmonella load but is perfectly healthy and unaffected. The first dog has suffered a ‘breakdown’ in its health that allowed the bacteria to become a problem; if one is talking in homeopathic medicine terminology, this is simply one more symptom that shows the dog is suffering from chronic disease (see the Vaccines page for more information).
I put forth that it is the kibble, not the raw meat, that causes bacterial problems. Kibble in the intestine not only irritates the lining of the bowels but also provides the perfect warm, wet environment with plenty of undigested sugars and starches as food for bacteria. This is why thousands of processed food-fed animals suffer from from a condition called Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth, or SIBO (Lonsdale, T. 2001. Raw Meaty Bones. pg 85). Raw meaty bones, however, create a very inhospitable environment for bacteria, as RMBs are easily digestible and have no carbohydrates, starches, or sugars to feed the bacteria.
Can raw-fed dogs make other dogs sick? If the other dog has a suppressed immune system or some underlying problem, then perhaps a raw-fed dog can make another dog sick. But keep in mind the inordinate amount of bacteria dogs usually ingest anyway, not to mention the plaques of bacteria covering the teeth and gums of the kibble-fed dogs. People recall raw-fed dogs being the only dogs at dog shows that did not get sick with some communicable disease of some sort, and then instantly assume that it was those dogs that got all the other dogs sick. A more plausible explanation is that the raw-fed dogs have a much stronger immune system and are thus better equipped to fight off diseases and “canine common colds” that circulate at shows (and possibly that they have been vaccinated less than their kibble-fed counterparts, which results in a stronger immune system). For a more in-depth discussion of how processed foods suppress the immune system, please refer to Raw Meaty Bones.
Just some final thoughts on bacteria and raw: this is what finds its way into the “sterile” kibbled commercial foods:
“Meat products not intended for human consumption, such as inedible tissues, condemned portions of carcasses, and entire carcasses of condemned animals (eg, animals found to be dead, dying, disabled, or diseased at the time of slaughter), are also used for dog food. Because of the inherent nature of these products and the less stringent handling requirements, compared with products approved for human consumption, these products may contain high levels of bacterial contamination.” (LeJuene, J.T. and D.D. Hancock. 2001. Public health concerns associated with feeding raw meat diets to dogs. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 219(9): 1222.)

And as for commercial foods being “bacteria free” (an assumption that is often inferred when people put down raw diets because of the bacteria):
“Pet foods, commercial or homemade, provide an ideal environment for bacterial proliferation.” (LeJuene, J.T. and D.D. Hancock. 2001. Public health concerns associated with feeding raw meat diets to dogs. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 219(9): 1224.)

So do not be fooled into thinking kibbled, commercial pet food is a sterile, bacteria-free source of food! The starches, rancid fats, and sugars in kibbled foods provide much better food sources for bacteria than the proteins in raw meat.
For further information on salmonella and rawfed pets, please click here (note: AdobeAcrobat Reader is needed).
________________________________________

Next Myth: MY DOG WILL ACQUIRE PARASITES FROM THE RAW MEAT»

Myth: MY DOG WILL ACQUIRE PARASITES FROM THE RAW MEAT IN A RAW DIET.
Yes, there can be parasites in raw meat. But if you are getting meaty bones and carcasses from places fit for human consumption, the parasite factor is negligible. Most parasites are a non-issue and can be safely dealt with by your dog if it is healthy.
The parasite issue is something than non-raw folk use as a scare tactic, telling you that your dog is going to die if it eats raw meat because it will get a weird parasite. They neglect to tell you the very low incidence of these parasites in meat deemed safe for human consumption; nor do they tell you the most “deadly” of these parasites come from things like infected sheep placentas or stillborn calves. Simple solution—do not feed those things to your dog. If the dog looks like it has parasites, simply get a stool sample or blood sample taken. A dog can be wormed holistically or allopathically (the chemical insecticide dewormers). But generally speaking, if your dog has a healthy immune system, it can deal with the parasites before they even get a chance to establish themselves. Parasites hate a very healthy host.
Freezing meat can help kill many parasites (such as the parasite present in salmon that CAN cause a deadly disease in dogs; freezing fresh raw salmon, steelhead, trout, and other salmonids for at least 24 hours before feeding effectively disposes of the parasite. Cooked salmon does not carry the parasite.). As long as one exercises caution in obtaining their meat, parasites are a non-issue. If feeding fresh salmonids or wild game, it is recommended that the meat be deep frozen for at least 24 hours before feeding for salmonids and one month for wild game.
Do not give in to the bacteria and parasite scare tactics. The suggestion of cooking your dog’s food is actually quite harmful! It is the cooked food that causes problems with the dog’s digestive system and that can result in the nutritional deficiencies vets claim they see from raw diets (in reality, most of these nutritional deficiencies arise primarily from home-cooked diets, since cooking destroys many valuable nutrients.). This issue is dealt with in further detail in the Cooked Food myth.
________________________________________

Next Myth: RAW MEAT DIETS POSE A HEALTH RISK TO HUMANS»

Myth: RAW-FED ANIMALS POSE A SIGNIFICANT HEALTH RISK TO HUMANS.
This is a myth made possible by our society’s pathological fear of bacteria. Of the millions of bacteria on this earth, it is estimated that less than 1% are harmful. Media and society as a whole have played up bacteria, painting it as an evil nemesis that must be stomped out with disinfectants, antibacterial everything, and unnecessary vaccination. This has resulted in the emergence of super-bacteria and “super-viruses”, no thanks to the improper use of antibiotics and the plethora of antibacterial soaps and products. Developmental biologists have recently learned that bacterial exposure is absolutely necessary for the development of a healthy immune system, among other things. Humans and dogs have evolved in the presence of bacteria, and insisting on a sterile environment has created more damage than good. So where does this intersect with raw feeding?
Raw diet critics tout this myth as a main reason for not feeding raw. Yes, there is bacteria in raw meat. Yes, this bacteria can harm you. Yes, this bacteria is sometimes shed in dogs’ feces. So if a raw-fed dog licks you, are you going to get sick? I suppose all things are possible, but on the whole: no, you will not get sick. This bacteria does not persist in the mouth of a raw-fed canine. Canine saliva contains lysozyme, an enzyme that lyses and destroys bacteria, but more importantly, the absence of plaque means the dog’s mouth is no longer a hospitable place for bacteria to inhabit. A kibble-fed dog’s mouth, however, provides the perfect environment for bacteria growth: plaque-covered teeth with sugary and starchy complexes provide both food and shelter for bacteria. The bacteria thrive in the mouth of a kibble-fed dog because it provides both a perfect atmosphere and a good food source (Lonsdale, T. 2001. Raw Meaty Bones.). Why does a kibble-fed dog have stinky dog breath? Because of the bacteria in their gums and on their teeth (just like the bacteria in our mouths gives us halitosis). A raw-fed dog’s mouth provides neither food nor a viable atmosphere for bacteria, which is why a raw-fed dog has odorless breath. So which dog would you be more worried about being kissed by and contracting disease from? I personally would be quite leery of the stinky-breathed, bacteria-laden kibble-fed dog. If one is still worried about being licked by a raw-fed dog, one has several solutions. Teach the dog not to lick, or avoid being licked. But if you have a healthy immune system, being licked and in contact with a raw-fed dog will not affect you other than boosting your immune system. This is the same thing for kids: being around and licked by a raw-fed dog will do nothing but boost their immune systems and help them grow up into happy, healthy adults.
As for dogs shedding bacteria in their feces: do not eat dog poo and wash your hands after feeding your dogs or cleaning up after them. Handle the raw meat you feed your dogs the same way you handle your own raw meat (which can get you sick if you eat it raw or do not clean up well enough afterward; do the experts really think that people are not smart enough to figure out that they should wash their hands and countertops after preparing raw meaty bones for their dogs? Apparently so.). If you have kids, teach the children not to eat dog poo and clean up immediately after your dog, and you will not need to worry. Bacteria is absolutely everywhere. You are just as likely, if not more likely, to get sick from your produce or a strange bathroom. You do not need to worry about the dog tracking bacteria through the house; there is plenty of bacteria throughout the house anyway, so any additional bacteria a raw-fed dog might add is negligible. Thousands of people—even immunocompromised people—feed their dogs raw with no bacteria issues and with stronger immune systems as a result.
Anti-raw people protest that raw-fed dogs pose a serious health risk to immunocompromised people and people with auto-immune disorders. Oddly enough, it is these immunocompromised people who have a better understanding of the important role nutrition plays in strengthening the immune system. A quick tour of the Yahoo! Rawfeeding group will reveal quite a few people who have an auto-immune disorder but have been feeding their dogs raw for many years with no ill results whatsoever. Anti-raw people (vets included) make it sound like immuno-compromised people (and most other people) are incapable of properly handling raw meat and cleaning up afterwards. The solution proposed—do not feed raw meaty bones!—is absurdly condescending (they assume we cannot clean up after ourselves and are incapable of feeding our dogs because we lack a credential in pet nutrition), and skips the most logical step: simply observe proper hygiene and use the same precautions you use in preparing your own meat. It is not that difficult, honestly.
People proclaiming this “serious health risk” claim seem to think people are incapable of a) properly feeding their dogs and b) cleaning up after themselves. Use good hygiene practices: clean countertops and utensils used to feed dogs, and wash your hands. Feed the dog outside or inside on a towel or plastic-type tablecloth you can reuse and wash when needed. Or feed the dog in its crate, or on an easy-to-clean surface. By training the dog to eat in one place, you will not have to “worry” about him tracking a mess or bacteria through the house. If you are still concerned about bacteria, clean your dog’s paws, mouth, etc. with a mild, safe antimicrobial like diluted white vinegar. Honestly, as long as proper hygiene is observed, the bacteria are a non-issue. Remember, you are sharing your life with an animal that licks its own rear and eats cat poop before licking your face.
For an excellent article on the risk of salmonella infection and rawfed pets, please click here (note, Adobe Acrobat Reader is needed).
________________________________________

Next Myth: RAW DIETS vs. AAFCO STANDARDS»Myth: RAW DIETS DO NOT MEET THE AAFCO STANDARDS AND ARE INFERIOR TO COMMERCIAL FOODS.
Vets, canine ‘nutritionists’, and pet food companies will tell you that raw diets do not meet the established standards for pet nutrition—the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) standards. AAFCO approval is the “Golden Seal” of quality when it comes to pet foods, and because raw diets do not have this seal of approval, many imply that they are inferior to commercial foods. But what are the AAFCO standards? How did AAFCO come up with these standards? Should they be viewed as the “Golden Seal of Approval?” Is it a valid argument to compare commercial, processed foods and raw foods using these standards?
AAFCO standards and nutrient profiles were established through collaboration between scientific experts in the industry, in academia (such as universities), and in the regulatory commission (National Research Commission, or NRC). These experts looked at the peer-reviewed literature and documented data available to them and then formulated nutrient profiles after collaboration. These nutrient profiles have been updated once and are scheduled to be updated again. At this point I would like to note that Nature’s nutritional standards for dogs and cats has not changed within the past several thousand years since the species’ existence (hundred thousand and even million years if you include their ancestors).
Some argue that AAFCO profiles are the best there is, but others argue that AAFCO profiles are simply ‘better than nothing.’ Indeed, the standards can lull people into a false sense of security about the food they feed their pets. They think it is nutritionally complete, when in reality it may not be truly complete. Additionally, AAFCO profiles have not been tested or reproduced (and one of the biggest principles of science is that the method must be reproducible and the results verifiable.). There are no studies that prove “their adequacies or inadequacies” (Quinton Rogers, DVM, PhD, as quoted in “Alternative Feeding Practices” by Susan Wynn. To see the full article, click here.). It is, at best, an educated guess as to what our animals really need, and is based on less-than-scientific principles.
There are several other things wrong with these standards that AAFCO uses to ensure foods are 100% ‘complete and balanced.’ The standards were developed based on the belief that dogs are omnivores and can be properly maintained on a grain-based diet. They are therefore irrelevant to raw diets. Why? First, to gain nutritional analysis, the food must be chemically denatured, cooked, purified, and otherwise manipulated, meaning that any reading is an inaccurate representation of the raw item. This also means that the interactions between nutrients are overlooked as each nutrient is studied separately rather than in conjunction with the others (and this will be discussed below).
Second, the NRC profiles (which AAFCO used to develop its own profiles) assume 100% bioavailability. However, if a dog is fed as an omnivore, there are good amounts of nutrients unavailable to it that are contained in the indigestible plant matter. Phytates in particular (contained in abundance in grains and soy products—which kibbles often contain in substantial amounts) are well-known for interfering with valuable nutrients like iron, zinc, and calcium. Hence, you have to feed more of these nutrients in order for the dog to get the amount it needs; what the dog actually needs and uses is NOT the same amount of nutrient initially added. This results in skewed and biased standards, as they list the initial nutrient amount added, not the amount absorbed. Thus, bioavailability is less than 100%, and the nutrients in the standards are therefore inaccurate representations of what the dog really needs.
There is a third reason why AAFCO standards are useless for raw foods. This deals with the reason the food is raw and not cooked. AAFCO standards are based on cooked or processed foods (processed in order to be evaluated), foods which already have a decreased nutritional value because of being cooked or processed. Cooking denatures proteins and collagen, destroys important nutrients, and generally makes the food less digestible and less bioavailable (the exception being grains and vegetables, which we have already determined should not be given to dogs anyway). This means essential vitamins and minerals must be added back in. But how much? In what amounts? Research has shown that synthetic vitamins do not work with the same efficiency as those found in their natural state (i.e. in raw foods). Additionally, many vitamins and minerals interact with each other both negatively and positively. For example, vitamin C increases the uptake of iron, whereas Vitamin E inhibits the uptake of iron. Vitamin C also lowers zinc and manganese uptake, whereas Vitamin E helps increase zinc and manganese absorption (www.acu-cell.com/nico.html). Commercial pet foods should contain all of these nutrients, but are they contained in the proper amounts? And just what is a ‘proper amount’? The difficulties for establishing proper amounts have already been discussed. Do they have methods for monitoring the complex interactions of all these nutrients? Since feeding trials simply look at palatability, survival, and the appearance of health, these complex interactions are ignored. Cooking and processing food also kills enzymes that may help with the digestion of the food and the processing of nutrients, so the bioavailability of vitamins and minerals in cooked foods is further reduced (Lonsdale, T. 2001. Raw Meaty Bones. Chapter 4.).
Let us also look at the actual AAFCO feeding trials themselves. Are these really the ‘Golden Seal of Approval’ that pet food manufacturers make them out to be? AAFCO feeding trials consist of at least eight dogs being fed the same diet for a mere 26 weeks (approximately six months). During this time, 25% of the dogs (so, two animals) can be removed from the test and the dogs eating the food can lose up to 15% of their weight and condition; the food will still pass the test and be labeled “complete and balanced.” But extrapolate these figures to the number of animals eating this food for much longer than 26 weeks and you will have much more of a problem! If a food caused dogs to start losing condition over the 26 week period yet still passed, imagine how many animals would fail to thrive in real life while being fed this food for years?
As long as the remaining dogs in the trial appear healthy and have acceptable weights and certain blood values, the food passes and is considered ‘complete and balanced’ nutrition for whatever lifestage for which it was tested (puppy, adult maintenance, geriatric, etc.). So it can now be fed to your pet for a period much longer than the six-month test period. However, AAFCO feeding trials were NOT designed to measure the long-term effects of commercial diets. It says so right in their mission statement (Lonsdale, T. 2001. Raw Meaty Bones. pg 216). AAFCO trials were designed to ensure that pet foods were not “harmful to the animal and would support the proposed life stage” (pg 216, Raw Meaty Bones.) for a period of 26 weeks. The AAFCO protocols were NOT designed to “examine nutritional relationships to long-term health or disease prevention” (pg 216). If a dog lives for six months with no noticeable ill effects on a kibble, then the food is considered 100% complete and balanced nutrition, even though long-term nutritional deficiencies may occur several years down the road.
These “complete and balanced” and “not harmful” pet foods can destroy long-term health and cause disease and yet still be marketed as a healthy food for your pet. This has been PROVEN true. An example would be the lamb and rice commercial diets that had met or exceeded the nutrient profiles of AAFCO, and that had passed the AAFCO feeding protocol yet created a taurine deficiency in the dogs that ate them (Torres, C.L.; Backus, R.C.; Fascetti, A.J.; and Rogers, Q.R. Taurine status in normal dogs fed a commercial diet associated with taurine deficiency and dilated cardiomyopathy. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition. 87 (2003). 359-372.). The dogs suffered from dilated cardiomyopathy; what is particularly distressing is that dogs can synthesize taurine from the readily-available (at least, in raw food) amino acids methionine and cysteine (whereas cats cannot), yet they still developed cardiomyopathy from this AAFCO-approved food! As a result, taurine is added into many commercial diets, but what about the dog owners whose pets became seriously ill and perhaps even died as a result of this oversight? What other “unknown oversights” are waiting to be discovered through more pain and anguish inflicted upon our pets? Other examples of ‘oversights’ would include supplementing cat foods with taurine after cats were going blind and suffering heart problems, or the constant adjustment of calcium:phosphorus ratios in puppy foods to prevent bone malformations and improper growth patterns (which still occur despite all the supplement adjustments). Interestingly, natural calcium in raw bones does not cause these malformations to the same degree artificial calcium does. One has to feed a LOT more natural calcium via bones to get the same degree of skeletal malformations found in commercial fed pets. All the researchers had to do was look to nature for the correct ratios.
When making their commercial processed foods, the pet food companies must often oversupplement their foods with the various vitamins and minerals to fall within the range of accepted nutrient values—the effects of which are NOT monitored past the six months of the AAFCO feeding trials. It should also be noted that pet food companies are not required to divulge the specific results of AAFCO testing of their products; that information is only made public if the company chooses to do so! Additionally, not all foods are required to enter feeding trials (The February 2007 edition of the Whole Dog Journal had an excellent article on this topic as well.). A food can undergo laboratory analysis to determine if it meets the nutrient requirements for dogs and cats. However, those nutrient requirements—expressed as minimum and maximum values—can vary widely! The minimum iron requirement for dogs, for example, is 80 mg/kg. The maximum iron requirement is 3,000 mg/kg! This is an incredible difference, and yet one food on the low end can be just as “complete and balanced” as another food with the maximum amount for iron! How will this affect the dogs over long term? Will one animal show a deficiency while the other shows an excess? The industry does not know, because they have never been required to test this beyond the 26-week mark! Foods can also obtain “complete and balanced” status by being ‘grandfathered in’. If a company can show that one of its new foods bears “nutritional similarity” to one of their own existing products that underwent feeding trials (which allow for the removal of 25% of the dogs and loss of condition up to 15% over the course of 26 weeks), then that food can carry the same claim of ‘complete and balanced’. Yet the actual ingredient combination was never tested! How can this similar yet different food be ‘complete and balanced’ for the *lifetime* of the animal if it was never adequately examined or tested? The entire process is faulty, but it is the best the pet food industry has. If this is the pet food industry’s best, then what does that say about their ‘complete and balanced’ commercial foods? Hopefully one can now see why the AAFCO standards are useless for evaluating raw food diets and why they are incomplete in determining the actual “nutrient standards” needed and utilized by our pets.
Contrast this with a whole prey animal. Raw food’s “best” is a brutal battle for survival over a span of several million years. Species evolved and adapted to their environments, thriving on fresh raw foods. If wolves and dogs have survived the worst of nature while eating fresh raw prey, what does that say for raw diets? A whole raw prey animal (unprocessed and NOT ground), or whole raw foods, contain the exact proportion of fat, protein, vitamins, minerals, and enzymes. One will be hard-pressed to test this in a lab, as the testing itself alters the perfect proportions. Nature’s laboratory is how we know it is perfect. This is the food that keeps wolves, other canids, and felines alive and thriving, even in the face of intense pressures and hardships (many of which are man-induced!). Nutritional deficiencies arise because the animals cannot get enough to eat, NOT because the food is insufficient in nutrients. Who are we to think we can do better than nature? For further reference, please read Raw Meaty Bones.
________________________________________

Next Myth: THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH TO SUPPORT RAW DIETS»

Myth: THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH TO BACK RAW DIETS.
“You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don’t alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views, which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.”
— Dr. Who
The implication here is that because there is “no scientific research” performed by institutions like the American Veterinary Medicine Association (AVMA), raw diets should not be fed. This ‘no scientific research’ declaration is a cop-out claim that has been used to “debunk” raw diets and suppress the truth. But one must realize that there is NO evidence whatsoever to prove that kibbled, processed foods are good for your pets. The only research that has been done into processed foods was performed to see a) if dogs could be fed a grain-based food, b) if dogs could survive acceptably on these processed foods for a short period of time, c) if X brand of food can do such-and-such for the dog (help with kidney disease, help with diabetes, help with obesity), and d) if X brand of food is “better” (more palatable, better liked, less total stool volume, etc.) than Y brand of food. No research has been done to determine the long-term effects of feeding kibble, nor to determine if it is actually healthy for your dog (it is just assumed healthy because it has passed a 6 month feeding trial, and then manufacturers falsely advertise their product as healthy.).
But as for raw diets: one million years of evolution apparently is not enough evidence for those citing lack of research and lack of studies in scientific literature. Neither the anatomical and physiological evidence of dogs, nor mtDNA evidence, nor circumstantial and statistical evidence of diseases in processed food-fed pets, nor anecdotal evidence are enough from those becrying the lack of “studies” and “research”. Anecdotal, eyewitness evidence is dismissed because it is scientifically “unfounded” and anecdotal, even when the evidence is standing right before their eyes in easily seen, wonderful health (It is interesting to note that eyewitness evidence is enough to help condemn a man in a court of law, but is not enough for the “scientific” community composed of pet food manufacturers and their affiliates—which include vet universities and most vets.). People then expect raw feeders to take their anecdotal and eyewitness evidence as truth when they have already dismissed the evidence offered by the raw feeder as anecdotal. “I’ve seen so many dogs come into my clinic with nutritional problems because of raw diets!” (What about all the sick commercially fed pets that come into your office?) “Bones are going to kill your dog” (Oh yeah? Says who? Prove it!). This distinct bias has been used in veterinary literature to “prove” raw diets are not as good as commercial:
“Although there are numerous claims to the health benefits of raw food diets, all are anecdotal…The raw bones included in many of these diets carry risks, and although the actual incidence of complications resulting from ingestion of raw bones is unknown, there are reports of intestinal obstruction, gastrointestinal perforation, gastroenteritis, and fractured teeth…” pg 706, emphasis added (Freeman, L.M. and K.E. Michel. Evaluation of raw food diets for dogs. JAVMA. 218(5): 705-709)

The claims of raw food diets are dismissed as anecdotal, and then the readers are later asked to consider the similarly anecdotal, undocumented “reports” against raw food diets! This is nothing but a head-in-the-sand approach that attempts to maintain the status quo.
There is a lack of “scientific” evidence in the form of research studies on raw diets. Why? Well, who is going to pay for an extensive research study on raw diets when the evidence may be damning? People point to all the studies done by commercial pet food companies and cite the lack of similar studies done on raw diets as evidence that raw diets are bad and inferior. But let us look at how studies actually come about.
First, you must come up with a hypothesis and a purpose. What are you studying? Why are you studying it? What do you expect to prove? After you figure this out you design your study, including methods, control groups, and variables. You draw out everything in great detail, and then you incorporate this into a grant; after all, you need a large amount of money to run your study. So where do you get the money? You look at individuals, corporations, and companies that might be interested in your project. Some of the bigger companies and corporations already have pre-existing grant monies for which you can apply. Other times you have to present the grant to a company and ask for funds that have not already been set aside into a specific grant. How do you ensure the receipt of this money? You appeal to people who will have a great interest in what you are doing. You appeal to the companies that in some way have a financial interest in what you are studying (for example, a biomedical company that wishes to branch out from artificial joints into artificial menisci and artificial vertebral discs—which happen to be what you are studying!), and will therefore fund your project so as to find out more; it just might pay off for them in some way. That is the key: you are approaching companies that may offer you money because there will be something in it for them.
But what happens if the results actually reflect unfavorably upon the product you are testing or the method you are studying, and therefore reflect unfavorably upon the company that makes said product or endorses said method? It depends on how much is at stake. If there was very little at stake initially—perhaps it was a small pilot study with the company looking to see if artificial menisci might even be worth their time—then there should not be a problem. It tells them what they wanted to know and it was not a big loss (Some would argue that perhaps pet food companies did this with raw diets. But if that was the case, they would have all the facts and figures reflecting negatively on raw food readily available; they could simply parade out the results of that study to prove once and for all that raw diets are worthless. But, they do not do this. Why? Because they do not have these results.). But what if billions of dollars and an entire existing superstructure were at stake? What will happen to the results? In human medicine, this has led to the suppression of information, such as the suppression of information regarding the dangers of Vioxx (To read more about how this happens in industry, visit Mercola.com.).
Now let us apply this to the pet food manufacturers and to studies into raw diets. Almost every single study performed on commercial pet foods has been partially or fully funded by pet food companies. An example would be Purina’s own study on extending the life of your pet; they discovered that by feeding smaller amounts of their Purina dog food and thus keeping the dog from getting fat, you could extend the life of your dog by two years. This, of course, supports the already well-known thought that keeping your pets trim is better for their health (once again, scientific “studies” being used to prove what is common sense.). But by using only their food in the study, they can then insinuate that it is Purina dog food that extends the life of your pet—and the little asterisk on the ad or the fine print on the TV tells you that this is only if you feed less than the recommended amount on the bag, thereby keeping your pet trim and not fat. But who reads the fine print?
Let us look at raw diets. Who would support a good, solid study into raw diets? What would happen if the results reflect negatively on commercial diets and positively on raw diets? Think of how much they have to lose!! Personally, I feel the lack of studies and the lack of willingness to do studies on raw diets indicates a desire to hide something, to cover something up that people do not want to be found. And I know of no pet food company that will pay for a raw diet research study. None of their control groups in their own studies are even fed a raw diet! The studies are performed under false assumptions that dogs are omnivores and can be maintained healthfully on grain-based, processed diets. Interestingly enough, it was the scientific research of the pet food companies that helped prove that dogs have no need for carbohydrates. The research in their own files (and in the Waltham Book of Dog and Cat Nutrition) demonstrates perfectly well that they know dogs are carnivorous animals. And yet they continue to mislead the public, the veterinarians, and the vets-to-be.
There have been “studies” done on bacterial content, nutritional analysis (according to AAFCO standards), and parasites in raw meat (using only the old, pre-existing literature on what kind of parasites could possibly be found in raw meat), but there are no studies that go in depth and objectively study the health effects of raw diets. Why would there be? This would involve a long, intense study requiring collaboration of vets nationwide and of multiple pet owners, or undue suffering to hundreds of “test” dogs who must be fed improper raw diets in the name of “scientific objectivity” (and there is the possibility that these poor results would then be used to show that ALL raw diets are bad). Indeed, funding is a huge issue as well, but I feel there are underlying issues: a fear of what may be found, that raw diets will indeed be proven better, that commercial diets will be proven unhealthy. This drastically cuts against the status quo and would destroy pet food companies and the veterinarians who depend on them to provide a clientele.
If raw diets were proven better and commercial diets were proven harmful, there would be a tremendous backlash against the pet food industries and the veterinary profession that is so entrenched with it. Legal rammifications would be a highly probable option: people suing vets for recommending a product that harms their pets; people suing the pet food companies for creating a harmful product without warning consumers of its dangers, for falsely advertising that product as healthy, and for lying and covering up the information that indicated otherwise; and vets suing the universities for providing an inadequate, faulty education. Thousands of people would be laid off, a multi-billion dollar industry would crumble, hundreds of veterinarians would find themselves jobless, and society would no longer have an ‘acceptable’ outlet for disposing of its dead, dying, and diseased meat, its grain waste, and the some 40% of euthanized pets that find their way into rendering plants and kibble, barbituates and all (Lonsdale, T. 2001. Raw Meaty Bones.; Martin, A. Foods Pets Die For.). All of this is what they have to lose if the results of a raw diet study reflect unfavorably on commercial foods. Can one see the incentive in never performing or publishing a proper study that objectively looks at raw diets and their effects on the overall health of the dog? Note: if you are a pet owner, veterinarian, or veterinary student who feels wronged by the pet food companies or their close ties to veterinary universities, please visit the Raw Meaty Bones website to get information on your legal options (click on the “Legal Remedies” link). Additionally, in the UK an organization known as UKRMB has helped spearhead an Early Day Motion against the alliance between pet food companies and the veterinary profession. To read about it, please click here.
This is not the only consideration when it comes to raw food research. To perform an adequate study that would satisfy all the critics, hundreds of dogs would need to suffer needlessly on improperly prepared raw diets, because in the name of ’science’ all the major variations of the diets would be tested. That means dogs will be fed all meat diets, all chicken-back and neck diets, veggie glop and some meat and mostly bone diets, all beef-heart diets, etc. when all the researchers need to do is look to nature, who got it right a million years ago. It is just needless suffering. Next time someone bemoans the lack of scientific studies about raw, ask them if they would like to volunteer their dog for the study.
Instead of pushing for, funding, and advocating an unbiased study (which is a good thing in the sense it spares animals from unnecessary suffering in the name of science), vets and other “scientifically minded” people point out the lack of studies and retreat behind that facade in an effort to save face while ignoring a million years’ worth of scientific studies performed in nature’s laboratory. But there are some cruelty-free studies that could be performed; for example, researchers could start looking at the incidence of periodontal disease in raw-fed and commercially-fed pets. However, even something this simple-sounding can be a difficult thing to do correctly, as there are many variables that must either be minimized/weaned out of the study or that will have to be included. Plus, it requires a large sample size and great collaboration among pet owners, the vets, and the researchers. Once again, though, we come to the main impetus behind the study: who will pay for it, and why?
________________________________________

Next Myth: RAW MEAT WILL MAKE A DOG BLOODTHIRSTY»
Myth: RAW MEAT WILL MAKE MY DOG BLOODTHIRSTY.
What does this mean, exactly? How does feeding a dog what it was designed to be fed make it bloodthirsty? By nature the dog is a carnivorous predator. A dog that chases things (with or without killing them) is just being true to what it is: a dog. Feeding a dog meat is not going to turn a dog into some vicious animal that will attack every living thing that moves.
People fail to understand that dogs are carnivorous predators. They are supposed to “have a taste for meat.” They are supposed to go out and hunt their own food. Dogs NEED MEAT in their food; they are carnivores!! With the domestication of livestock and introduction of smaller pets, hunting and killing on their own became undesirable. People bred and selected dogs that could coexist peacefully with such animals but still retained enough prey drive to do things like retrieve and herd. This is why dogs retrieve balls and chase toys and animals that move quickly. It is interesting to note that herding breeds have coexisted peacefully with the animals they herded without savaging or killing them, even while these dogs were fed raw meat and bones from the very same kinds of animals they were guarding.
The dog is, by nature, a predator, and will chase other animals because it is hard-wired to do so, not because it is bloodthirsty or has a taste for meat in the human definition of the words. Feeding raw does nothing to change this. If the dog is full and happy with the raw meaty bones it is eating at home, why would it go out and kill things? It has no need to. If a dog is going out and killing other animals despite having its nutritional needs met at home, the link exists more strongly between the human-dog relationship and/or the vaccine-dog relationship, rather than the diet-dog relationship (one “exception” to this exists and will be discussed later). Dogs can be trained to not harm or bother prey-type animals. The dog should be respecting its human’s leadership and should be able to sufficiently restrain itself (although with some breeds—like hounds and terriers, for example—and some high-drive individuals, this can be difficult to do regardless of diet. All dogs are individuals; some have high prey drives, and some could care less about moving things.). People would much rather blame the diet (that my dog gets meat with his kibble) than the fact that their negligence and the flaws in their relationship with their dog resulted in the death of another animal, or that the vaccinations they have had so dutifully administered (just like any good pet owner should, right?) could actually have harmed their dog and caused this ‘killing for sport’ behavior.
Yet the “raw meat-dog goes out killing things” link exists very strongly in people’s minds, despite the fact that many commercially-fed animals still hunt or kill small pets. This link has been helped by the “discovery” that dogs are omnivores (which they are not! See omnivore myth). When a dog is being fed an inappropriate, grain-based diet, it will undoubtedly react more strongly to being fed what it was supposed to be fed as opposed to it being fed correctly (a raw prey model diet) from the get-go. So this means that someone who feeds their dogs raw meat occasionally and a crappy kibble the rest of the time might have a dog that will go out and hunt for its own food to eat real meat instead of that crappy kibble. In a sense, yes, they have given the dog a “taste for meat”—a taste for the real food it should be eating. But if the dog was fed appropriately, it would not need to go out and hunt. And it is a dog, so it is supposed to hunt! Does this mean adding raw meat to any dog’s kibble will make it “bloodthirsty” so that it will attack children and other animals? Of course not! There are thousands of people who add raw meat to their dogs’ kibbled food and have no problems with “bloodthirsty” dogs. But if you are going to add meat to your dog’s kibble, why not just go all the way and nix the processed food? On a diet of raw meaty bones, the dog does not have any need to go out and find meat. Additionally, the excessive amounts of carbohydrates in the processed food plus all the additives and strange preservatives can have a negative impact on the dog; people have reported that their formerly aggressive and hyperactive dogs calmed down considerably once they were switched to a more ‘natural’ diet (see the Raw Meaty Bones July 2005 newsletter; scroll down to ‘DOG BITES’).
People are quick to blame the diet of meat rather than investigate the other issues. Does the dog hunt regularly? Why is the dog given opportunity to hunt? Why does the dog feel a need to hunt? Is the dog actively submitting to and respecting the owner’s leadership? What is the dog fed normally? Does this hunting behavior increase in intensity after vaccination (particularly rabies vaccination)? Does the hunting behavior vary with what it is fed, or is it constant? Is there another dog it hunts with? What do they hunt, and how often? Can it be a “behavioral” issue or a relational issue (obviously, a dog left outside and neglected will be more likely to fend for itself)? What about temperament issues (some dogs are confirmed livestock killers or pleasure killers, regardless of diet) or vaccine-related issues (vaccinosis)?
Humans were the ones that deemed the killing behavior as inappropriate and unwanted. Humans tend to expect dogs to exhibit only the delightful behaviors that benefit us, and to act as little humans in fur coats. But when the dog acts in accordance to its canine behavior, some people get upset and think the animal is “messed up” or is a “bad dog.” They do not work through the behavior and do not teach the dog the desirable behavior or get it treated homeopathically for vaccinosis issues (such as excessive fear and aggression), and then chain it in the backyard or dump it at a shelter. Or they do not want to take the time to feed a raw diet or work through the relationship issues, and thus condemn their dog to a lifetime of sub-optimal health or an inadequate relationship riddled with “problems” because they were too selfish to devote the necessary time to improving the dog’s health or improving their relationship.
There are thousands of dogs being fed raw meat and bones with no ill effects. These dogs coexist quite peacefully with children, cats, rabbits, and livestock without even considering a “bloodthirsty” thought. Raw-fed herding German Shepherds are not out there savaging the sheep! Dogs fed raw have no need to go out and hunt to supplement their diet with real food; they are already eating real food. As for the dog eating kibble and meat: it is like giving a kid a taste of steak and then expecting him to continue eating Total cereal every day. I would go looking for the steak, wouldn’t you?
If you are concerned about your dog eating meat and then attacking your cats, children, or small pets, you do not need to worry. Feeding raw meaty bones is not going to turn your animal into this half-crazed bloodthirsty maniac. The dog should recognize the kids, the cats, and the small pets as a) part of its own family, and/or b) under the protection of the alpha leader (which should be you!). In all likelihood, you will see a calmer, happier pet that is more of a pleasure to be around—not only because he is not hyperactive from all the carbohydrates and additives in the kibble, but also because his breath will smell better and his coat will feel and smell softer and cleaner. If people tell you the dog is going to become bloodthirsty or will have a taste for meat, ask them to explain that overused cliche. If you use those cliches, take time to think through what they mean and whether or not that is really a logical thought process. In reality, your dog is much more likely to exhibit behavioral changes of fear and/or aggression after receiving its rabies shot than become a half-crazed bloodthirsty hunter by eating the raw meaty bones it was designed to eat.
To see a brief photo essay that helps debunk the erroneous link between raw diets and aggressive, bloodthirsty animals, please visit Colby the “Killer”.
For more information on overvaccination and the harm vaccines cause our pets, please visit the Holistic Cat webpage (even if you have a dog—the vaccination article is an excellent read), the Dogs on Holiday page, the Natural Rearing site to read an article on rabies vaccinations, and the Vaccines Page on this server. Another excellent site to visit is the Truth About Vaccines webpage.
________________________________________

Next Myth: RAW DIETS MAKE DOGS MORE AGGRESSIVE»
Myth: RAW MEAT MAKES DOGS AGGRESSIVE.
Here is the scenario: the dog has just been switched from kibble and is enjoying a nice meaty bone. When approached while eating, the dog growls and even snaps at the person approaching it. Or it fights over food with the other dogs in the household. Either way, it never used to do this before when it was on kibble, and the owners are beginning to seriously question feeding raw. They often will contact a trainer, who “indentifies” the source of the problem as the meaty bones and will thus take the easy way out—removing the meaty bone “removes” the aggression without addressing the underlying behavioral or relational issues.
View this situation as a child guarding a steak as opposed to guarding a bowl of Cheerios. A juicy steak is a higher value food, just as a meaty bone is seen as something of higher value than a bowl of kibble. Because it is of higher value, the dog will be more protective of it. This is simple canine behavior.
But, if your dog is growling at you, its leader, this indicates a problem in your relationship. He is no longer respecting or trusting in your leadership. He is viewing that bone as his, not yours (which it is), and is telling you that he is willing to defend it at all costs. He needs to learn that you are the bringer of resources and the “alpha”. He should relinquish his bone without fuss when you ask him. And he should also realize that you are not in competition with him for his food. This is a touchy issue, but the basic premise is that if your dog growls and becomes possessive of his food, your relationship needs reordering. Does this mean you run up to your dog while he is eating, slap him in the face or slam him on his back in an attempt to dominate him? Or confronting him and yanking on his collar to ’show him who is boss’? NO!! These only worsen the situation by telling the dog a) you are unpredictable and cannot be trusted, and b) you are trying to compete for his food. The key is to not let yourself get in these situations in the first place. Work on kind, humane obedience training and on teaching him that relinquishing his possessions to you is a good thing. Also keep in mind that some dogs may growl initially because they are afraid this is just temporary and do not want you to take away this high value object. In this case, give the dog time to adjust to its new diet; you may very well see the “food possessive” behavior disappear. If not, it is time to begin training immediately. For some training suggestions on this issue, click here.
If your dog is already possessive with its kibble, fix the problem of resource guarding first before switching your dog to raw. See Brian Kilcommons’ book Good Owners, Great Dogs, pg 248-249, for a humane, common sense approach to dealing with resource guarding.
Since a raw meaty bone is worth fighting for, dogs may fight with each other. The simplest solution is to feed the dogs separately in their crates, in different rooms, or in the same room but tethered to opposite sides of the room far away from each other. Just use common sense, and do not keep trying to force the dogs to “get along” at dinner time. Make sure to pick up any leftovers before releasing the dogs.
Raw meaty bones will not make a dog aggressive toward humans to the point of blatantly attacking people. A dog that unnecessarily growls at or that bites people has a behavioral, temperament, or chronic disease issue that must be addressed immediately. Aggressiveness toward humans is behavioral, temperamental, or induced through rabies vaccines (see a certified classical homeopath for help in reducing the aggressiveness brought on by the vaccine), but it is generally NOT food-caused (although a group of Golden Retrievers that attacked their handlers while fed a certain commercial food stopped doing so when switched to diet of cooked lamb and rice; see the Raw Meaty Bones Newsletter, Volume 5:2). Dogs have been bred for thousands of years to be human companions, to be in close relationships with and in submission to humans. Feeding a dog raw meat is not sufficient to override thousands of years of selective breeding.
If your dog suddenly shows food possessiveness, be patient, understanding, and firm. Ask and insist kindly that the dog join you to work through this speedbump in your relationship. Avoid taking the easy way out by just not feeding raw, and you will be richly rewarded with a healthier, happy dog and a deeper relationship.
________________________________________
Myth: RAW DIETS ARE NOT VERY DIGESTIBLE.
If the diet is based on vegetables, then no, it is not very digestible. Whoever uttered this statement (actually, several veterinary doctors have uttered this statement in articles, some of which are posted on the web!) has the burden of proof on them; it is up to them to prove this statement since everything we know about raw foods, including literature discussing the digestibility of wolves’ food in the wild, indicates that raw diets are VERY digestible.
This is the primary evidence: dogs fed a raw meaty bone diet produce stools that are one-third the size of the voluminous stools of kibble-fed dogs. That equates to a two-thirds size reduction in fecal output!! This indicates a higher digestibility; vets and dog owners know this very well. Smaller stools = better digestibility. Raw diets are 90-97% digestible (includes the bone!!), whereas most kibbled foods are 40-70% digestible (some of the better, holistic kibbles have higher digestibilities than this figure). This explains why most kibble-fed dogs have such huge poops: most of it is undigested grain and filler, also known as “fiber”. Even premium dog kibbles, while more digestible than many other kibbles, yield stools that are rather large compared to a raw-fed animal’s poop.
If someone thinks raw diets aren not very digestible, then they must answer the question of where all that meat and bone go! It is ingested in large quantities and then comes out the other end in small, odorless, well-formed stools. If it is not very digestible, then what happened to all that “undigestible” stuff?
Myth: DIFFERENT BREEDS OF DOGS NEED DIFFERENT KINDS OF DIETS.
This is absolutely false. Unfortunately, this premise—based on nothing but phenotypic differences in canines depending on region and utility—has been used by both commercial pet food companies and raw-promoting people to create “designer diets” that can be quite unsound in regards to nutrition. This truly is a fad that is designed to take unknowing consumers’ money and make a big profit. The idea that Salukis should have mostly goats milk, dates, and very little meat because there is hardly any meat in the region they come from is absolutely preposterous! These claims fail to take into account that all dogs have the same internal anatomy and physiology and the same nutritional needs despite size and breed. For example, view the different skulls of dogs on this site here (scroll one-third of the way down the page); all of them have the same kinds of teeth that dictate carnivory! A Shi Tzu has the same elemental nutritional needs as a Great Dane; the only difference is that the Shi Tzu has to eat much less to satisfy those needs. The short time that the dog has been domesticated and that specific breeds have existed in various parts of the world is not long enough for an evolutionary need for the foods of the region from which they originate to be developed.
If we look at this further from a practical, common sense point of view, we are faced with a powerful question: What about mutts? If dogs have “evolved” in that short time period to eat only the foods from the regions in which they were developed, then what do you feed a dog that has a variety of different dogs contained in its heritage? Most of the time people can only guess what breeds of dogs contributed to their loving pet, and if dogs had to be fed a designer diet, they would be at a loss for what to feed it. Thankfully, canine heritage and nature herself point to the proper answer: feed a raw prey-model diet.
The claims that dogs have different coats and shed differently, or have different bone structure, or produce more or less of coat oils are NOT sufficient to indicate each breed needs a designer food. Every part of every dog is made of the same building blocks. Bones are ALWAYS made up of osteocytes (bone cells), the hydroxyapatite matrix they secrete (contains mostly calcium and phosphorus), collagen, cartilage, blood vessels, bone marrow, periosteum. Muscles are ALWAYS made from connective tissue, myoblasts (muscle cells), myofibers, and blood vessels. The structures of every dog’s body need the same building blocks: the amino acids provided by proteins, the fatty acid chains provided by fats, the glucose molecules for energy provided by gluconeogenesis that takes amino acids and turns them into glucose molecules, and a variety of vitamins and minerals—all of which are contained in the appropriate amounts and proportions in a whole prey animal. This means any dog can obtain all the nutrients they need from a prey animal, regardless of what breed they are. Their internal physiological processes are the same, even if their coat sheds differently or their bones are more dense. The physiological processes that lay down more bone matrix or that cause the coat to shed and grow in again all use the same building blocks that EVERY dog needs and can obtain in its beautiful raw form from raw carcasses. Each dog fuels its body processes using the same metabolic pathways that take amino acids and fats and turn them into glucose or glucose derivatives to provide the body with energy. Dogs utilize fuel at different rates, with means they have different metabolisms. Does this mean that they therefore need different foods to compensate for their different metabolisms? No. They just need different amounts of food to compensate for how quickly or how slowly they convert the food to energy and burn through it.
Every dog is an individual with individual tastes and reactions to food. This means you can get a Saluki that does not like chicken, or a dog of northern breeding that hates fish, or a German Shepherd that cannot have lamb because it repeats something fierce on it and gives it gas. Some Dalmations (a breed with a particular predisposition toward forming urate stones; if you wish to raw-feed a Dalmation, please research this predisposition and adjust the diet accordingly.) do fine with high purine meats, and others can only have low purine meats. This is where the raw feeding mantra of KNOW YOUR DOG comes into play. You are responsible for knowing your dog’s likes and dislikes, what sits well with it and what does not. You do not need to be paying somebody to determine that for you. And most of all, you do not need to be paying them to formulate a special diet for your pet. Feed your pet according to the prey model, and adjust your sources as needed. If the dog gets sick of chicken, then cut back on the chicken and feed more of something else. If your dog does not do well with beef, then do not feed as much beef (or any, if you like). Once your dog has started and adjusted to the raw diet, start adding more and more variety in the form of whole carcasses, raw meaty bones and organ meat from a wide variety of animals. Over time you will learn the ins and outs of your dog’s feeding habits, that perhaps rabbit is not your dog’s favorite but that it really likes pork. Know your dog, and know that you have the full capability to feed an appropriate prey model diet that can be tailored by you to your dog’s needs and tastes while providing plenty of variety.
________________________________________

Myth: THE AVAILABILITY OF MANY GOOD-QUALITY PREMIUM KIBBLED DIETS MAKES RAW UNNECESSARY .
This may seem fairly logical at first glance. After all, there are some rather high-quality foods on the market like Timberwolf Organics, Innova EVO, Nature’s Variety, and Solid Gold. Whole Dog Journal regularly publishes a list of the top 20 commercial foods that includes some top brands from smaller companies. All the health problems associated with commercial food are related to lower quality, ’supermarket’ brand kibbles, right? Besides, the pet food industry has been taking steps forward in terms of pet nutrition, haven’t they? There is a good variety of healthy, ‘premium’ kibbles on the market, and feeding one of these to our pets does reap certain benefits when compared to their cheaper-fed counterparts (feed less food, smaller stool size, better coats, better energy, etc.). Granted, if you feed a premium kibble then you are feeding your pet a better quality food, but could your pet be fed even better food for cheaper? Is a premium kibble an appropriate food for your pets?
There are several high-quality kibbles on the market today, but there are still several significant issues that set raw diets apart from these premium kibbles. Let us look at several of the issues posed by premium kibbles.
1.) It is still a processed food. This means it has still been rendered, overly cooked, overly processed, and still has artificial vitamins and supplements added to it. Despite the claims of what went into this food at the start, this means the ingredients are still of a poorer quality when compared to fresh, whole, raw foods, and that problems associated with artificial vitamins and minerals still exist: erratic growth patterns, growth occurring too fast, the body not utilizing the nutrients as well, etc. While the better quality foods certainly do start with better materials, after processing these ‘food’ materials are still of a lesser quality compared to the fresh, raw, real thing.
2.) It still is an unnatural food for our pets. Our dogs and cats are not designed to eat processed food pellets regardless of how good of quality these processed food pellets are. A premium kibble would be like us eating a ‘premium’ cereal day in and day out; the premium cereal has to be better for us than one of those cheaper cereals, right (think of Raisin Bran versus Captain Crunch)?
3.) Premium kibbles still have a bunch of ingredients our pets do not need and/or cannot utilize. Many premium kibbles contain a relatively small amount of meat (usually from ‘human quality’ sources, but then it is rendered into an unrecognizable ‘foodstuff’) even if meat is listed as the first ingredient, because the rest of the ingredients combined far outweigh the presence of the meat our carnivores need (remember, meat, unless it says ‘meat meal’, is listed according to its wet weight. When all that water has been cooked out of it, meat places considerably further down on the ingredients list). Just read some of the labels. Some sort of meat will be listed, but it is then followed by all sorts of grains that are usually touted as more highly digestible than corn or wheat (rice, oats, barley, millet, etc.), vegetables (yams, potatoes, carrots, sweet potatoes, etc.), fruits (apples, pears, etc.) and supplements (kelp powder, spirulina, lactobacillus bacteria, etc.), not to mention all the artificial vitamins and minerals that need to be added. Of course, the presence of the vegetables, fruits, and supplements theoretically means that less artificial vitamins and minerals can be added because the nutrients can be obtained from natural sources, but how many of these natural sources are actually available to the dog or cat? How much of these natural nutrients are destroyed and rendered ineffective by the cooking process? Even with foods like EVO that contain a high proportion of meat and no grain (it uses potatoes, which are starchy and metabolize as such), the processed meat still is inferior to the fresh, real thing. Think of a processed, cooked orange versus a fresh, whole orange. Which one is better?
4.) The issue of periodontal disease still prevails. The pet still does not get the beneficial, necessary teeth cleaning at each meal, so the problem of a bacteria-laden mouth that stinks and provides a gateway for bacteria, toxins, and collagenases to enter the body still exists. This is, after all, one of the best and biggest reasons to feed a raw diet with meaty bones.
5.) The animal still lacks the wonderful and necessary physical, mental, and emotional workout provided by raw meaty bones. Although it is being fed a premium kibble, your pet can undoubtedly still finish its meal in record time, rather than having to work at its food for a half an hour or more. Again, this translates to the body not being fully prepared to receive food and digest it, so the food will just sit in the animal’s stomach until the parasympathetic nervous system kicks everything into gear.
6.) Premium kibbles are often more expensive that natural, fresh, raw food. If you are dishing out that much money for a ‘premium’ processed pet food, why not feed fresh, whole, raw food sources for less?
7.) You still have no control over what goes into your pet’s body. Can you be certain that what is on the ingredients list is what actually enters your pet’s body? Can you be certain of the quality of the ingredients? What happened to these ingredients during the cooking process?
8.) The primary question still remains: how is a processed pet food better for our animals than fresh, whole, raw foods?
It is for these reasons (and I am sure there are other reasons as well) that many raw feeders consider premium kibbles a waste of money. This includes those so-called ‘therapeutic diets’ available only through veterinarians. The pet food industry and veterinary community simply developed another artificial food to cover up and ‘fix’ the problems created by other commercial, artificial pet foods. Why not treat the problems at their source (could it have anything to do with money, perhaps? Remember, veterinarians can pocket up to 40% of the profits from selling kibbles like Hill’s Science Diet [Parker-Pope, T. 1997. For You, My Pet. The Wall Street Journal. 3 November 1997. In Lonsdale, T. 2001. Raw Meaty Bones. p266].)? In this respect, the pet food companies and the veterinary community have drastically missed the mark, and it is our pets that must suffer for it. What sense does it make to simply switch an ailing pet onto another commercial, artificial pet food when similar foods caused the problems it was having in the first place?
With the growing number of food allergies pet have, the pet food industry has been becoming more and more creative, trying to find new protein and grain sources to make new ‘hypoallergenic’ kibbles. Have they even once considered WHY the pets were having allergy problems to the ingredients in their foods to begin with (Probably. But will they tell us that they know why? Probably not. Where’s the profit in that?)? Ironically enough, pets switched to a raw diet can often eat the same meats that caused their allergies originally, because the meats are raw and not cooked (Clark, W.R. 1995. Hypersensitivity and Allergy, in At War Within: The double edged sword of immunity, Oxford University Press, New York. pg 88.). The cooking process changes the protein structures, and it is these changed, cooked proteins to which the body has an allergic reaction.
If you feed a premium kibble (or any kibble), please think through why you feed it to your pets. Could they benefit more from a raw diet? And ask the ultimate question: how is a processed diet better for my pets than a diet of fresh, whole raw. Myth: HOME-MADE, COOKED DIETS ARE A BETTER, SAFER ALTERNATIVE TO RAW.
This is a common argument: instead of feeding kibble, why not feed a home-cooked diet? Advocates of this have you believe that you avoid all the ‘dangers’ associated with raw-feeding like bones and bacteria. But is a home-cooked diet a viable option?
Complex recipes aside, there are several aspects of cooked diets that pose problems. Tom Lonsdale deals with this in depth in Chapter 4 of his book Raw Meaty Bones, but I will cover these briefly here.
First, the act of cooking alters the proteins, vitamins, fats, and minerals in a food. This alteration can make some nutrients more readily available and others less available. Cooking can alter fats to the point of being toxic and carcinogenic (The American Society for Nutritional Sciences. April 2004. Meat Consumption Patterns and Preparation, Genetic Variants of Metabolic Enzymes, and Their Association with Rectal Cancer in Men and Women. Journal of Nutrition. 134:776-784.), and cooked proteins can be altered to the point where they cause allergic reactions whereas raw proteins do not (Clark, W.R. 1995. Hypersensitivity and Allergy, in At War Within: The double edged sword of immunity, Oxford University Press, New York. pg 88.). If an animal has an “allergy” to chicken or beef, it may very often be cooked chicken or beef and not the raw form.
Second, cooked food lacks all the benefits of raw food. Cooked food is deficient in vitamins, minerals, and enzymes, because the very act of cooking destroys or alters much of them (exceptions to this are things like lightly steamed broccoli or tomatoes, but these are not appropriate foods for carnivores!). This decreases the bioavailability of these valuable chemicals and makes them less available to the animal. This is why these things have to be added back into pet foods and why a variety of supplements need to be added to home-cooked pet food—and why a variety of species inappropriate items are utilized as ingredients in these meals!
Vitamins and minerals can be added back into cooked food, but finding the appropriate balance is incredibly difficult. Synthetic vitamins and minerals do not always exhibit the same chirality (three dimensional structure) that the natural forms had, which means their efficiency and use to the body are substantially decreased. This is compensated by oversupplementation, which then results in the inhibited uptake of other necessary vitamins and minerals. For example, excess inorganic calcium reduces the availability of iron, copper, iodine, and zinc (Lonsdale, T. 2001. Raw Meaty Bones. pg 88). If you are feeding a cooked, home-made diet, can you be sure that your pet’s needs are being sufficiently met if the very act of cooking destroys much of what is beneficial to your pet? Essentially, once you cook your pet’s food you are now guessing which vitamins or minerals have been destroyed, how much of these might have been destroyed (which means you would have to know how much was present in the food in the first place), and how much supplementation your pet needs. Then you run into another problem: no one really knows what our pets REALLY need and use in terms of vitamins and minerals. We only know what amounts are too much and what amounts are too little OVER A SIX-MONTH PERIOD, not over a period of years. Additionally, how can we be sure that researchers have discovered all the nutrients necessary for our pets? This still is an on-going process (such as Eukanuba adding DHA to their foods; DHA is found in raw prey, so any dog or canid eating raw prey has been receiving appropriate levels of DHA), and since cooking food destroys minerals and vitamins and enzymes, researchers may be missing some very important nutrients. Feeding cooked food also causes pets to miss out on these ‘unknown’ nutrients, whereas raw food contains them in appropriate amounts.
People compensate for vitamin and mineral deficiencies without resorting to supplements: they simply add vegetables, grains, and dairy products to their carnivores’ diets. Complex recipes are developed that create a wide range of foods for the dog (or cat) that must be cooked, steamed, blended, etc. in order for the dog to receive proper nutrition. Our carnivores once again have an omnivorous diet forced upon them in order to help them obtain all the appropriate nutrition that could simply be had by feeding a variety of raw meaty bones and organ meats. Simplicity and perfection are traded for complexity and imperfection.Raw food, however, has the perfect balance of vitamins and minerals if fed as a part of a prey-model diet (i.e. a whole rabbit) (Lonsdale, T. 2001. Raw Meaty Bones. Chapter 4.). Raw food also has unaltered proteins and nutrients, and the bioavailability of these nutrients is very high. And raw food—particularly whole carcasses and raw meaty bones—provide the NECESSARY teeth-cleaning effects that are lacking in any cooked diet. Periodontal disease-causing bacteria are scraped away at each feeding, whereas a cooked food-fed dog has that bacteria remaining, which are then coated over by a sticky plaque resulting from the cooked grains, vegetables, and meat proteins. Some feed raw beef bones to help clean teeth and continue feeding a home-cooked diet. Is this better than kibble? Of course! But is it the best? Those promoting a raw diet say ‘No.’
For more information on cooked food versus raw food, please check out the famous Pottenger cat study:

http://www.nutritionreallyworks.com/Pottengers-cats.html

http://www.price-pottenger.org/Articles/PottsCats.html

________________________________________

Next Myth: VETS ARE THOROUGHLY QUALIFIED TO DISPENSE NUTRITIONAL ADVICE»
Myth: VETS ARE THOROUGHLY QUALIFIED TO DISPENSE NUTRITIONAL ADVICE.
This is a difficult issue that is guaranteed to offend some people, particularly those in the profession. Nevertheless, the harsh reality must be discussed. Should people fully trust the nutritional advice dispensed by their vets?
This myth is quite false. While veterinarians perform much-needed services for our pets, these services should not include a) selling pet food, and b) administering nutritional advice. Veterinarians receive very little nutritional training. The training they do receive is often advocated by or even administered by the pet food companies. Their nutritional training comes from the incorrect view that dogs are omnivores (see omnivore myth) and can safely be maintained on a grain-based diet, even when scientific research has proven that canines and felines have no evolved need for carbohydrates and fiber (see the Carbohydrates myth for further detail). That’s right: dogs and cats do not need the carbohydrates that form the bulk of their processed foods. Perhaps that is why pets today are soft, doughy, and suffering from a variety of ailments linked to carbohydrate-rich, processed food (cancer, diabetes, arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, hyperactivity, seizures, etc. To read more about epilepsy and its relation to diet, please click here.).
Veterinarians are invariably linked to the commercial pet food industry. They advocate and even market commercial foods, receiving substantial revenue and kickbacks. The pet food companies make sure of this by promoting programs in the universities and by giving FREE FOOD to the up-and-coming vets to sell at their practices. For example, Colgate-Palmolive, the company that manufactures Hill’s Science Diet, spends
“hundreds of thousands of dollars a year funding university research and nutrition courses at every one of the 27 US veterinary colleges. Once in practice, vets who sell Science Diet and other premium foods directly pocket profits of as much as 40%” (Parker-Pope, T. 1997. For You, My Pet. The Wall Street Journal. 3 November 1997. In Lonsdale, T. 2001. Raw Meaty Bones. p266).

The very profession is tied closely with commercial pet food companies at every turn. A tour of veterinary teaching hospitals or vet clinics shows equipment, products, and posters sponsored by and endorsing commercial foods and pharmaceutical companies. Vets are, in essence, paid for by the pet food and pharmaceutical companies, and are hardly in a position to offer sound nutritional advice. They are in direct violation of the oath and creed they swore to uphold: “First do no harm.” In spite of this oath they are promoting foods detrimental to animals’ health, advocating a product that will harm their patients and ensure a returning clientele and source of revenue. But remember: this is due in large part to the great lack in the education the universities have administered to them! Nothing but commercial pet food dogma is being repeated in university after university after university; these are institutions of higher learning where people are supposed to be thinking critically and evaluating things analytically, yet in reality are being told to shut off their common sense and ignore the overwhelming amount of evidence against commercial pet foods. Here is one excellent example of the ties veterinary universities and veterinarians themselves have with the pet food industry:
MSU Presents Partnership Award

“Topeka, Kan. – Michigan State University (MSU) College of Veterinary Medicine recently presented the 2004 Partnership Award to Hill’s Pet Nutrition Inc.

“The award recognizes the working relationship between the MSU and Hill’s.

“Hill’s provides financial and educational support to nearly every veterinary college in North America, as well as to veterinary students attending those institutions. This commitment to the profession includes Hill’s sponsored teaching programs, residencies and faculty programs in veterinary schools and teaching hospitals all over the world.

” ‘Hill’s is incredibly responsive to anything students or faculty have asked of them,’ says Dr. Lonnie King, dean of the college of veterinary medicine at MSU. ‘Their steadfast support, generosity and collaboration in advancing the college’s mission is recognized as a vital part of our veterinary medicine program.’

“Hill’s has shown its commitment to the partnership with MSU by providing support to many student groups and student activities; covering costs for students to attend the SCAVMA Symposium; providing students with the textbook Small Animal Clinical Nutrition and other various handouts; providing employment to student representatives; and by supporting the awards banquet for seniors graduating from the program.”

—DVM News Magazine, August 2004 (emphasis added)

How are veterinarians supposed to be educated on proper nutritional practices when the very institutions from which they receive their instruction is in bed with the pet food companies? For an example of what occurs in vet school nutrition courses, please read the “A First Year Veterinary Student Comments” article in the Raw Meaty Bones 13 April 2004 Newsletter (scroll down about 3/4 of the way to see the article). For yet ANOTHER example of pet food company/veterinary alliances, visit the Purina.com site and check out Purina’s Other Alliances.
Simply put, vets are not educated on proper nutrition; it was not until recently (past several decades) that pet owners started looking to their vets for advice on diet. Interestingly, this corresponded with the increase in commercial foods. Prior to the advent of commercial foods, people did not request nutritional advice from their veterinarians. Only after commercial foods arose did vets need nutritional training, and early vets also recommended feed fresh whole foods along with the dry ‘biscuits’ of the day (To read how kibble came about, click here.). Veterinarians today cite the nutritional deficiencies they see in their clinics as proof of raw diets being ‘bad’, but if you press them further, these deficiencies typically result from home-cooked diets or improperly formulated BARF diets, NOT prey model diets (which are the kind found in nature!). Interestingly, they may tell you to cook your dog’s food, which will result in the kind of imbalances they see with “natural” diets that aren’t formulated correctly. They then use this “evidence” to “prove” that home-made diets (into which they lump raw diets) are bad for your pets. Or they may tell you that ’science’ has shown that raw diets are not good for our pets. Ask them: “what ’science’?” Press them for the answer, and what they tell you will most likely be nothing but pet food propaganda about salmonella poisoning in pets (undocumented in HEALTHY animals) or the ‘reputable research’ performed by pet food companies. Almost all of this research is undocumented, ‘anecdotal’ evidence or evidence that does not pertain to proper raw diets. For example, they will cite that all-meat diets create severe calcium deficiencies. This is true. But a proper raw diet is not all meat. A proper raw diet is a wonderful blend of meat, bone, and organs from a variety of sources.
Most veterinarians are highly qualified individuals; however, their qualifications are for surgery, conventional disease diagnosis and treatment, and conventional drug prescription, NOT for nutrition (although holistic vets are more aware of the importance of fresh raw foods in keeping animals healthy, and are also amenable to alternative therapies). Additionally, veterinarians need to respect their clients’ wishes to feed a natural diet rather than berate them with pet-food company propaganda (also known as ‘nutritional advice’) each time they come in. Veterinarians and pet owners alike need to remember that veterinarians are consultants. A pet owner consults a vet when their pet has a specific problem or need. The pet owner pays the veterinarian’s wages; the veterinarian works for them. A client is perfectly within their rights to deny treatments or request that things be done differently. Additionally, a client is perfectly within their rights to feed their dog a diet different than that which the veterinarian recommends, and a client is within their rights to ignore a vet’s ‘nutritional advice.’ For a veterinarian to bully a client toward feeding a certain way or to blame the diet for every possible illness is unacceptable and demonstrates a lack of professionalism.
Even more unacceptable (downright heinous!) is for a veterinarian to refuse their services to a client because the client does not feed the diet the vet recommends, as is the case with a California Bay Area emergency clinic. During the summer of 2005, a raw-feeder brought her dog to the emergency clinic with a possible case of bloat (bloat is not only possibly genetic and food-related, but possibly vaccine-related as well.), and the attending veterinarian began to berate her for her choice to feed a raw diet instead of attending to her dog’s possibly life-threatening situation. The raw-feeder requested a different veterinarian so as to avoid confrontation and receive an unbiased medical report; this second veterinarian proceeded to check her dog over thoroughly (as the first vet should have done), and came to his diagnosis (which was not bloat, but simple enteritis with no particular reference to diet issues.). Several days afterward, the raw-feeder received a letter from the clinic stating that she was no longer welcome as a client because she was reluctant to follow the advice of the first veterinarian, presumably regarding the raw diet. For an EMERGENCY clinic to act this way is tantamount to animal cruelty; their decision is punishing the dog (who is innocent and has no voice in all of this) for a well-informed choice his owner made to feed fresh foods. This is similar to refusing to treat a person for cancer or a heart attack because they ate processed foods instead of fresh whole foods like the doctors recommended (notice the irony in that what is recommended for humans—fresh whole foods—is the exact opposite of what is recommended for our pets.)! It is an unacceptable act of animal cruelty and an outright denial of the creed veterinarians must uphold.
Pet owners, you have every right to demand that your vet honor your decision to feed a raw diet. Make it known that your pet’s diet is not up for negotiation unless you so choose. Unwarranted nutritional advice is not welcome, nor should it be necessary since you are paying for your vet’s MEDICAL opinion, not nutritional opinion. Be aware that vets have been admonished to sufficiently inform their clients of the benefits and risks of various dietary practices. But considering how feeding fresh, raw foods to pets is NOT taught in veterinary school, their knowledge in this area will be very minimal, and will most likely be restricted to the negative aspects of raw diets (most of which are half-truths and myths, and are dealt with in these myth pages). After all, whenever studies on raw foods are published in publications like the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, the negative aspects (such as bacteria) are all that are researched (and not very well, I might add). The studies start out with a distinct bias that is seen in the way they are structured in addition to the topic they are studying, and rarely include good science that should involve scrupulous methods that can be repeated, large sample sizes, and a sound hypothesis.
Veterinarians and vet technicians: please respect the rights of your clients. Respect their wishes to feed a raw diet, and they will respect your skills as a trained professional. Be open to their choice to feed fresh whole foods to their pets instead of letting prejudices get in the way. When it comes to the welfare of their pet, you should be one of their strongest allies instead of one of their harshest enemies, particularly since you possess valuable knowledge and skills in emergency situations.
________________________________________

Next Myth: SMALL DOGS AND TOY BREEDS CANNOT EAT RAW MEATY BONES»
Myth: TOY BREEDS AND SMALL DOGS CANNOT EAT A DIET OF RAW MEATY BONES.
This is completely false! Of all the dogs that NEED a raw diet, toy breeds and small dogs (including brachiocephalic dogs like pugs) are the dogs that perhaps need it most! The teeth of small dogs are drastically overcrowded in their jaw, making them more prone to severe periodontal disease (and this is common knowledge among veterinarians). Their teeth are packed into a small jaw, leaving very little space in between them and providing plenty of places for bacteria and plaque to develop and grow. Periodontal disease can then develop very rapidly, providing the harmful bacteria in the mouth immediate access to the rest of the animal’s body. Remember, periodontal disease is more than just bad breath. Periodontal disease can lead to systemic damage, particularly to important organs like the kidneys and heart. If you need a pictoral reminder of the nastiness of periodontal disease and plaque accumulation, please visit this page here.
Granted, years of selective breeding have resulted in the small size of small dogs AND the increased need for the teeth-cleaning effects of raw meaty bones. But the intensive breeding for smaller size and phenotypical changes like coat length, color, and ear carriage has not changed the physiological needs of the dogs. A small dog is still a carnivorous animal and has the dentition, anatomy, and physiology to prove it. Small dogs and toy dogs CAN be fed a raw diet successfully, as evidenced by the number of small dog breeders and owners who feed a diet of raw meaty bones and whole prey. The key to feeding a small dog successfully is to select appropriately-sized food. Just as one should not feed a dinky chicken wing to a Rottweiler, one should not feed huge slabs of beef ribs to a Papillon or Chihuahua and expect them to eat the entire slab in one sitting. Small dogs (and toy breeds) thrive on foods like chicken quarters, bone-in chicken breasts, whole game hens, whole quail, whole ducks, rabbits, pork ribs, pork necks, lamb, beef, liver, heart, and other organs. Fish and mice or rats can also factor in here.
There is still one primary rule of thumb when feeding small dogs and toy breeds, and that is to feed big! A small dog does not need small food when it comes to raw diets. That means steering clear of chicken necks and wings; these are too small and are too easy for the dog (yes, even a toy dog!) to attempt to swallow whole, which then results in gagging or choking (natural responses, but scary to see!). One of the endearing personality traits of many small dogs is that they think and act like they are much bigger than they really are. This goes for feeding, too. A pint-sized Chihuahua is still going to think it is a huge wolf-like dog when it spots that raw meaty bone. The behavior is ingrained, and the desires to rip, tear, chew, gulp, and swallow (sometimes with emphasis on gulping and swallowing, especially if the dog was fed commercial food before) should still be very strong. So get rid of the lone chicken wing and neck; only feed those if, and ONLY IF, they are attached to half of a breast, half of a chicken, or a whole bird.
An additional reason to feed big food is also one of the primary reasons for feeding raw: to keep those teeth clean and healthy, which in turn will keep the dog healthy by preventing nasty “foul mouth disease” from developing and affecting internal organs. Those little dogs need just as much chewing, ripping, and “flossing” action as the big dogs, and many argue that they need MORE than big dogs because of their unique mouth size. To keep those teeth and gums healthly, little dogs need to have a grand time chewing and shredding their food; of course, the easiest way to allow for this is to feed big pieces that will challenge them and require a workout.
So toss the Pug a chicken quarter. Let the Shi Tzu and Lhasa Apso work on a pork neck. Avoid the temptation to cut their food into smaller pieces; remember, smaller is NOT good, because smaller pieces increase the likelihood of the dog gulping and then gagging on their food. Stick with the big pieces, and your dog will get the hang of chewing its food very quickly. If you need to start with boneless meats at first to get your dog used to the taste and texture of raw food, then do that first. Once they are eating their meaty meal with gusto, add in a bony meal and let the dog figure it out. If the dogs are picky, pick the raw meaty bone up after 15 minutes and put it away for later. Offer it again at the next feeding or at the next day. A little bit of tough love (assuming the dog does not have any health problems or special needs that require it to eat at least once a day) may be necessary to encourage the dog to use its teeth, but it will be well worth it!
Toy breeds and small dogs can be fed in a manner similar to other dogs. Start out feeding about 2% of their ideal, adult body weight—3% if the dog is very active and has a fast metabolism. So if you have an 18-lb dog, you will only be feeding between 1/4 and 1/2-lb of meaty bone PER DAY to start. If you only have a 3 or 4 pound dog, then you must select food carefully and rely on the “touch/look” test to make sure your dog is not getting too fat or too skinny. Monitor your dog’s weight closely; if she starts looking a little fat, cut back on the amount of food. If she starts looking too lean, then increase the amount of food. Most dogs can handle one meal a day; unless your dog has a medical reason for eating multiple times a day (or is so small that it needs to eat frequently, or is still a puppy), start feeding the dog once a day. This will allow you to feed big meals of substantial raw meaty bones. If you are feeding a really big meal (like a slab of pork ribs), let the dog eat as much as it needs for the day and then pick up the food and refrigerate it for the next day. For dogs that are only a few pounds, this ‘eat until you are full (or, if your dog does not have a good ’stop eating’ mechanism, ‘eat until I say you are full’) and then picking up the remains for later’ method may work best. If your dog must eat more than once a day, you can feed an organ meat or egg meal in the morning and then provide a substantial raw meaty bone for dinner. Or you can cut off a little of the thigh meat from a chicken leg quarter, feed that for a morning ’snack’, and then feed the rest of the leg quarter in the evening.
After introducing one protein source to the dog, be sure to start adding in organ meat slowly. Little dogs should have just as much variety in their diets as big dogs. As your dog’s diet branches out into different protein sources, you can start experimenting with different raw meaty bones to challenge your dog and give it a good chewing workout. However, stay away from those big, dense, weight-bearing bones! Beef knuckle bones, beef femurs, etc. can easily chip a dog’s teeth and do not have a place in a species-appropriate raw diet. Stick with MEATY bones where the bone is at least partially edible. For more information on the specifics of feeding a raw diet, visit the Feed Raw page. For information on switching to a raw diet, visit the Switching to Raw page.
MEET RILEY

Riley is an 18-lb Cairn Terrier. His owner, Cristina, graciously allowed me to use her pictures to show a small dog with his raw meaty bones.

Riley eating a pork picnic roast
Riley eating a whole game hen
Riley working on a goat leg

________________________________________

Next Myth: CARBOHYDRATES ARE A NECESSARY PART OF A DOG’S DIET»
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 both fat and protein through a process known as gluconeogenesis, where amino acids and fat (not fatty acids; those use a different cycle) are “converted” to glucose. If carbs are present, though, they will be converted to energy first before fat and protein 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 glucose 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.
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 protein and fat.
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 fat and protein as well, 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 necessary glucose. 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 fat and protein, 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.’
For further investigation:
Glyconeogenesis (forming glycogen from non-carbohydrate sources)
More on glyconeogenesis
Gluconeogenesis AN HONEST, CANDID CONCLUSION TO THE MYTH PAGES
“When we are on the edge of our comfort zone, we are in the best place to expand our understanding, take a new perspective, and stretch our awareness.”*
This site would be remiss if it did not include something anti-raw sites purposely exclude: an honest, open discussion of what is being promoted, with a look at BOTH sides of the issue. So here goes…
Why feed raw? Dogs have been fed kibbled foods for the past fifty or so years with what seems to be great results. Dogs are not dying outright from starvation or malnutrition, and seem to be happy and fairly healthy. You certainly can get dogs with glossy coats and healthy bodies (healthy being used loosely) that live well into their teens while being fed kibbled foods. Yet the veterinary community has been seeing increases in things like cancer, obesity, diabetes, unilateral hip dysplasia, dermatitises, food allergies, kidney problems, pancreas problems, and liver problems (and their medical techniques and methods have evolved tremendously to deal with these; many veterinarians are very capable people who mean well and can be quite good at treating illness and disease). Just about every system in the dog has been affected in some way, shape, or form by some disease or problem that did not ‘exist’ prior to the advent of kibbled foods or was not recognized as a big issue. Part of this increase is due to the fact that more people own dogs today and that illnesses are more quickly diagnosed nowadays, but many of these diseases have been shown to have strong links to diet—particularly in human research (like adult onset diabetes and obesity and cancer, for example). Many of our pets’ body processes parallel our own, so who is to say that processed food will not affect them similarly?
But on the whole, most people are happy to feed their dogs kibbled food and coexist with smelly dog turds and stinky dog breath. Dogs are dogs; they are supposed to smell, right? Within the past 10-15 years or so it has finally been recognized that stinky breath is a problem for dogs because it underlies a bigger problem: periodontal disease. The pet industry has played off of this tremendously, bringing about an era of pet chews, dental bones, toothbrushes, toothpastes, plaque-scraping foods and chewies and toys, etc. More things to spend your money on because your dog needs them to be healthy, right? The problem of big smelly dog turds has everyone up in arms, as these turds pollute our parks, sidewalks, streets, and communities. It is the responsible owners who have to suffer, as the turd problem has resulted in stricter leash laws, dog ownership laws, and in some communities an outright ‘dogs are not welcome’ attitude, plus a plethora of ‘quick fixes’ to help manage the problem: pooper scoopers, waste digesters, special scooping baggies to carry with you on walks, extra enzymes to add to the dog’s food so it will digest more of it. Has anyone ever questioned why they do not treat these problems at their source instead of just dealing with the symptoms as they surface?
Yes, people have questioned this as well as the whole idea of pet food; hence, raw feeding has been ‘resurfacing’, so to speak. People call it a ‘fad’ without realizing that raw feeding has been around a heck of a lot longer than kibbled foods: one million years of raw to only 100 years—at the most—of kibble. Pelleted, processed food is the fad that has somehow managed to integrate itself into every single aspect of our pets’ lives: medical care, training, leisure, nutrition, showing, breeding, you name it. This is, by and large, the way people feed their pets. It is easy, convenient, relatively cheap, and provides a much-needed outlet for all the waste products we as a society create (yep, waste products. That is exactly what goes into kibble.). Some entrepreneurial person—James Spratt—got the idea of feeding “biscuits” to our dogs as a meal, and the very first dog kibble was born (click here to read more about it). These biscuits then evolved into foods that contained all the meats and by-products that were no longer fit for human consumption (particularly after the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act and the 1906 Meat Inspection Act, which created the “meat dichotomy” of ‘fit for human consumption’ and ‘unfit for human consumption’. Something had to be done with all that ‘unfit’ meat…), and thus modern commercial foods were created. Kibbled pet food is simply a by-product of our industrial era that ushered in modernity and the desire to do things cheap, easy, and fast. It is no wonder that many of the big-name brands of dog food are made by companies that create a lot of other food products—Nestle, Mars, Colgate-Palmolive, etc. They have easy access to cheap ingredients made by their own factories.
But kibbled foods have come a long way since their early prototypes. They have improved much, and there are a number of smaller companies that produce holistic, organic, or premium kibbles from human grade ingredients that are of great quality as far as commercial foods go. The majority of pet owners are happy to just feed brand-name, pre-made foods to their pets because it is convenient, easy, and their animals eat the food and appear to do well on it. They are part of the consumer society that swallows slick advertisements hook, line, and sinker. And if there is one thing pet food companies have down, it is advertising. They advertise all over the place: on TV, on the web, in hundreds of magazines, in schools, at dog shows (think of the Eukanuba Tournament of Champions; free bags of the sponsor’s kibble are given to the winners at many dog shows.), at zoos, on billboards, and (most importantly) in your veterinarian’s office (think of all those shelves filled with Purina foods, Hill’s Science Diet, etc.). Raw feeding, however, has no such advertising capabilities, because people are supporting their local butchers, ranchers, farmers, etc., and are encouraging sustainable living practices rather than paying big bucks to make people buy some commercially-produced product. Raw feeding’s advertising is through word-of-mouth and through the healthy dogs and cats that are fed such a diet (although with the advent of commercial raw diets, this has changed a bit. This site, however, does not nor ever will advocate commercial raw diets.).
One can rightfully ask: why raw and not kibble? People are asking that every day, and some are coming to the realization that while their dogs may be doing well, they could be doing better. This is one of the reasons people switch their pets if their pets do not have some major health problem. They switch because they believe their dogs or cats can have better quality lives if they are fed a raw diet. Sure, the dog’s coat may be shiny and it may have a fit body while eating kibble, but they believe raw feeding can make it better and healthier. Here are some of the benefits people have seen in their dogs when feeding a raw diet:
• Clean, fresh breath
• Clean, shiny, white teeth
• More energy (‘acting like a puppy again’) and/or more stable energy (no hyperactivity)
• Softer, shinier coat
• No doggy odor to their coat
• Firmer, more muscled body that is not ‘doughy’ like their kibble-fed counterparts
• Decreased itching and scratching
• Better weight maintenance
• Overall better health (evidenced by less trips to the vet and less money spent on vet bills)
• Smaller, almost odorless poops that are quick to decompose
• Stronger immune system

A kibble-fed dog, while exhibiting a soft, shiny coat and a seemingly healthy body will often still exhibit the following:
• Dog breath (rancidity and stinkiness may vary)
• Stained teeth, tartar covered teeth, or teeth encrusted with calculus
• Periodontal disease (85% of kibble-fed dogs over the age of 3 have this)
• Itchy skin Doggy odor to coat (varies in intensity)
• Body is too flaccid and may feel soft or ‘doughy’ to the touch, despite dog maintaining the proper weight
• Large poops relative to body size that do not decompose quickly (softness and stinkiness may vary)
• Small fatty benign tumors that thrive from the constant supply of sugars provided by all the carbohydrates in the diet (Damjanov, I. 2000. Pathology for the Health-Related Professions. W.B. Saunders Company. pg 80)
• Greasy feel to the coat (greasiness may vary), resulting in frequent (once a month or more) bathing
• Premature aging caused by periodontal disease and immune system ‘overload’ (immune system is constantly working against the toxins pouring into the body from the mouth and is in a constant state of arousal; see Raw Meaty Bones for more detail.)

What about cooked food? Please see the Cooked Food myth page and read chapter 4 in Raw Meaty Bones.
Most people consider all the above-mentioned problems normal (how did we get to the point where we consider all this normal? ). Since most people have never encountered raw fed dogs, they do not know what they are looking for and do not have anything to which they can compare their dogs. They may think their dog’s breath and health is fine until they smell a raw-fed dog’s breath and ’see’ its health, just like many people think their dog is “well-trained” (it ’sits’ and ‘comes’ when they ask…sometimes) until they come across a truly impeccably trained animal.
Raw feeding owners have woken up to the fact that their pets could have a better quality of life if they were fed a species appropriate raw diet that nature designed for them. They realized that there is a big difference between eating enough to survive and eating well. Kibble provided their pets with sufficient caloric intake and seemed to meet all their pets’ nutritional requirements, but were their animals really living well and healthfully? They said ‘no’, and turned to a more natural way of feeding their animals.
So what about all these arguments against raw feeding put forward by other pet owners, veterinarians, and pet food companies? Is there any validity to them? Since this is an honest and candid look at raw feeding, I will be frank: yes, these claims may have some validity to them, but the ‘problems’ with raw feeding are not the problems of epidemic, drastic proportions that they are made out to be. There are risks to feeding raw, just as there are risks to feeding kibble. No one seems to mention the risks of feeding kibble, perhaps because pet food companies have been very good at making people believe kibbled food is a risk-free diet for their pets. Here are some of the risks of feeding raw:

Choking.
Yes, choking can happen with raw meaty bones. The primary culprit is a raw meaty bone that is too small for the dog (such as single chicken wings or necks). To prevent this from occurring, feed big raw meaty bones. Additionally, dogs that have been eating commercial food must learn how to chew. They do not chew their kibble but typically “inhale” and gulp the food down; they try to do this with their first raw meaty bone and quickly learn that they need to CHEW their food. So choking can and does occasionally happen. However, think of all the other things that dogs choke on: kibble, pieces of rawhide, rocks, sticks, water, raquet balls, tennis balls, broken-off pieces of synthetic chew bones, pieces of toys. People tell you your dog will choke to death on raw bones, but they conveniently neglect to mention all the other things dogs choke on, including kibble (ever hear your pet scarf its food and then suddenly give a nice big ‘HORK’? Your pet just choked. Good thing they managed to cough it up; other dogs have not been so lucky.). Heck, dogs will choke on their own spit!! I know mine has. The truth of it is that any object the dog places into its mouth presents a choking hazard. I personally have heard of more dogs choking on and then dying from tennis balls than I have heard of raw-fed animals choking on their raw meaty bones (let alone dying from them!).

Intestinal Perforation and Obstruction.
Yes, I suppose these could happen and have happened to dogs. However, as one JAVMA article put it: “the actual incidence of complications resulting from the ingestion of raw bones is unknown” (Freeman, L.M. and K.E. Michel. Evaluation of raw food diets for dogs. JAVMA. 218(5): 705-709). People are claiming that this happens all the time without ever providing evidence for these claims. Here are some other things that will cause perforated intestines and obstructions (and always keep in mind that dogs swallow some pretty weird things, including things like knives, pieces of glass, needles and thread):
• Cooked bones. These can and do splinter, anywhere from mouth to anus. NEVER feed them to your pets. Most claims of intestinal perforations caused by bones results from cooked bones, not raw. How can you tell the difference? The cooked bone remains hard and unchanged, albeit stained by the stomach acids. Raw bones generally are broken down chemically in the stomach and are soft and squishy (so it does not seem like they can do much perforating, then).

• Chewed up tennis balls (obstruction)
• Sticks (obstruction and perforation)
• String (obstruction, entanglement)
• Rawhide (obstruction)
• Rocks (obstruction and perforation; this is a rather common one, as eating rocks can be a sign of rabies vaccinosis)
• Broken off, swallowed chunks of toys or synthetic bones (obstruction, possibly perforation)

Constipation.
This happens if the dog is fed too much bone. There is a simple solution: stop feeding so much bone, and feed more meat or organs. If the dog has too hard of a time passing feces, increase the meat and decrease the bone. Remember that dogs get constipated by kibble as well, so this is not an exclusive ‘raw feeding’ problem.

Bacterial septicemia.
Yes, this could possibly happen, but it is rather rare (even in kibble-fed dogs) and usually occurs only in unwell animals that are incapable of dealing with a population of bacteria (which, coincidentally, is all throughout their intestines anyway): immune compromised pets, sick pets, animals that have an underlying health issue. As with all other anti-raw claims, you cannot take this one at face value. You need to probe and question. What, exactly, was the animal being fed? Were there any other complicating factors? Was the bacteria septicemia secondary to some other health problem or following recent vaccination (which can depress the immune system by 80% for as long as 10 days post-vaccination)? Can they conclusively determine that the dog got ’sick’ from its food (remember, bacteria are absolutely everywhere, and dogs often have a habit of eating anything and everything)? The unfortunate truth of it is that many vets and pet owners will simply blame the diet than work to find the real cause. An example of this is on the Rawfed.com homepage: the article of the two cats that supposedly died from salmonella. If you want a more in-depth discussion of bacteria, see the Bacteria myth. Additionally, if a raw-fed dog (or any dog) is afflicted with bacterial septicemia, one must ask “Why? Why this dog? Why now?” Not EVERY dog (raw-fed or otherwise) is afflicted with bacterial septicemia, so there must be something going on that made this dog susceptible to an overgrowth of bacteria.

Pancreatitis.
Pancreatitis, kidney disease, and other diseases claimed to be linked to raw feeding are in the same boat as bacterial septicemia. What generally happens is that a) there are underlying factors, b) there is an underlying disease, and c) the raw diet brings these to light. With pancreatitis, it is typically kibble-fed dogs that suffer from it when they receive a fatty meat they do not usually get. It is also incredibly important to note that fat does not cause pancreatitis; excess fat is simply a trigger for pancreatitis and may start the cascade of effects in the pancreas. If ingesting a fatty meal triggers a bout of pancreatitis, then that is indicative of some other underlying problem with the pancreas (again, ask “Why this dog? Why now?” Not every dog that eats raw meat or high quantities of fat “gets” pancreatitis, so something about that particular dog indicates “susceptibility”); the pancreatitis itself is a symptom that the pancreas (and possibly other organs) are not well, because a healthy dog with a healthy pancreas will not suffer from pancreatitis. Surprisingly, many dogs that previously suffered from these diseases while eating kibble have dramatically improved since switching to a raw diet. Just wander around the Yahoo! Rawfeeding group and you will hear some amazing testimonials. Just the fact that kibble-fed dogs can also suffer horrific and deadly bouts of pancreatitis should be sufficient to show that this is not a ‘raw feeding’ problem, particularly when dogs with pancreas problems can be greatly helped from a raw diet (since it is easier to digest and actually places less demand on the pancreas). Can pancreatitis or kidney disease happen in a raw-fed dog? Yes, they could. All things are possible, particularly when one has no control over the kind of start the dog received in life (breeding, what the parents were fed, what the pup was fed, what vaccinations and wormers it received, etc.). For another, more detailed discussion of pancreatitis, please click here.

Parasites.
Yes, this can happen, but if you are getting your meat from a human-approved source, this is not an issue (despite people trying to blow it out of proportion and make you think it is). Just think about the kind of meat that goes into kibble (dead, dying, diseased, or disabled) and you will be much happier knowing your dog is getting real human-grade meat in its fresh form. Yes, there will always be a minimal risk that your dog can contract some parasite from meat, but most parasites are not life-threatening and can be dealt with easily (did I mention there was a minimal risk?). Contrast this to the toxic molds that caused thousands of bags of dog food to be pulled off the shelves once dogs starting getting sick and dying. For more information on the parasite half-truth, see the Parasite myth.

This is what it comes down to: everything has a risk associated with it. That is the way life is. Regardless of what you feed your pets, there will ALWAYS be some sort of risk. These are the main risks of feeding a raw diet, but they are minimal risks, and people who feed raw truly feel that the benefits outweigh any possible risks. Claims of ‘hundreds of dogs’ suffering from punctured intestines or ‘a high percentage of dogs’ dying from pancreatitis induced by the “high fat content” in meat are unfounded scare tactics and undocumented generalizations. Kibble has risks, as well. Even feeding your dog a premium kibble still puts it at risk for choking, bloat, cancer, diabetes, obesity, telescoping bowel, anal sac problems, joint problems, and periodontal disease (which allows bacteria and bacterial toxins to enter your pet’s body and affect every single organ). Home-cooked diets also have their own set of risks: unbalanced nutrition (since cooking alters and destroys many of the necessary nutrients) resulting in a myriad of health problems (some of which are fatal or irreversible), small intestine bacterial overgrowth, and periodontal disease, for example. Everything has risks whether we acknowledge them or not.
No one is going to force you to make a decision. This is your choice and no one else’s. Choosing to feed raw will put you in conflict with the majority of vets and pet owners, and you will undoubtedly be attacked for your choice by both ignorant (yet well-meaning) people and by educated people. Be informed, be educated, and be prepared. The fact that you came to Rawfed.com already speaks volumes about you: you have an open mind and are willing to read and think critically, something most vehement anti-raw people do not share with you. Personally, I cannot help but wonder why raw feeding provokes such a visceral reaction from people and why we have come to believe that dogs are supposed to eat pre-formed pellets and nothing else. ‘Dogs do not need variety.’ ‘Do not feed your dog people food or it will become finicky and will not eat its dog food.’ I wonder why!! Real food versus processed pellets sprayed with fat? No wonder dogs prefer ‘people food’.
As you leave this page, I hope that you will give some serious thought to the material presented here. Remember that really learning something makes one uncomfortable because one realizes they are deficient in some way; no one enjoys coming to that realization, especially when they must present or project a particular, well-learned image to others. I encourage you to work through the discomfort and to not just dismiss everything you have read here simply because it does not fall in line with what you personally believe or practice. Be critical in your thought and analysis of EVERYTHING, not just the myth arguments. When you see pet food advertisements, question the reality they are presenting to you. What things are being left out and unspoken? Everything that is presented to you via the media has been altered in some way to represent a new reality—the reality certain parties want you, the consumer, to hear—so what other realities are being neglected and ignored? Raw feeders are giving voice to some of these neglected realities. When vets encourage and sell commercial foods, ask them why. Why and how is a processed food better for our pets than fresh whole foods? You are very capable of providing your pet with the best quality of life that you can give it; it is up to you to decide to what lengths you will go to achieve that. Happy trails to you, and may you walk a blessed path.
“Being on a learning edge can be signaled by feelings of annoyance, anger, anxiety, surprise, confusion, or defensiveness. These reactions are signs that our way of seeing things is being challenged. If we retreat to our comfort zone, by dismissing whatever we encounter that does not agree with our way of seeing the world, we lose an opportunity to expand our understanding.”*