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.

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.