Dog nutrition - what is BEST for you and your dog?

[Ellie May]

Wolves do eat intestinal contents which do contain carbs. I'm not saying they aren't carnivores, but that they can process carbs and do in the wild. The feeding behavior of some is that of an omnivore b/c they eat what they can. Whether eating some carbs is detrimental is up for debate I suppose. But whether eating almost all protein is healthy is up for debate too.

Anyway, cats need nutrients that they can't get from plants, but synthetic supplements work for them. Dogs don't.

[joldham]

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom

Ya know what would be interesting (but I'm too lazy right now, and in the foreseeable future)? It would interesting to contact NV and Primal for some bug level/temp/pasteur. reports and info. Often, the companies will share some of those details w/ customers. (it doesn't answer anything about prey-mod, but still interesting)

I love feeding raw. When I got the Pfeiffer girl, I bought some Orijen (one of the few kibble I'll recommend) to mix in w/ the food her Mama sent with her...bc I didn't want to switch her to raw right away. So, I have this huge bag of Orijen doing nothing in my house. I'll throw some in w/ their raw for a few days once in a while lately, just for variety....and ugh...right back to puffy, smelly, voluminous poops. Like always, it still convinces me that so much stuff is being pooped right out (with kibble). Whereas with raw, so much seems to be absorbed, rather than made into waste. Anyway, just a poop anecdote .

I've been feeding raw almost 3 yrs now, and we haven't had any problems with germs so far. I can't say that feeding raw is the "best" diet...bc I real don't feel qualified to just know that . But, I do think it's one of the choices as an appropriate diet for dogs.

What raw do you feed your dogs? I have one on primal because he was a rescue and all he would eat. He does great on it and eats it quickly. The other two are on natures variety instinct and take forever to eat and my dominant one eats it all up and is getting fat. I heard stella and chewy was good also. Raw is so expensive I am not sure what to do. Thanks.

[Melcakes]

Originally Posted by Ellie May

Wolves do eat intestinal contents which do contain carbs. I'm not saying they aren't carnivores, but that they can process carbs and do in the wild. The feeding behavior of some is that of an omnivore b/c they eat what they can. Whether eating some carbs is detrimental is up for debate I suppose. But whether eating almost all protein is healthy is up for debate too.

Anyway, cats need nutrients that they can't get from plants, but synthetic supplements work for them. Dogs don't.

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."

We know wolves eat and NEED the internal organs of their prey. But internal organs does not equal stomach contents, nor does stomach lining equal stomach contents.

Stomach contents= Whatever the prey animal ate and was digesting before it met its demise. It's the stomach contents that contain Carbs and Wolves do not eat stomach contents. Ask ANY sanctuary who feeds their wolves full carcasses. Even if they DID eat the stomach contents, which they do not, that doesn't mean anything concerning their ideal diet. Especially considering the prey was brought down as meat.

Further:
DogAware.com: Wolf Park

Wolves do not eat the stomach contents at all and only sometimes eat the intestines and the harder bones, like the leg bones, depends on how hungry they are. Sometimes, when food is plentiful, they don't eat that many bones, but other times they will finish off a whole carcass (except for the stomach).

----------------

Myths

MYTH: WOLVES EAT THE STOMACH CONTENTS OF THEIR PREY

FALSE! 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 with the entire animal. Otherwise, wolves will shake out the stomach contents of their large herbivorous prey before sometimes eating the stomach wall. Even on a common sense level this could be proven false. Stomach acids have a pH near 1, which means they are incredibly acidic and bitter. The acid attacking the plant matter is strong enough to burn the enamel off teeth. Why would any self-respecting wolf willingly stick its nose into something that will burn its skin, burn the enamel of its teeth, and severely burn its lips and esophagus? No,wolves DO NOT eat the stomach contents of their prey.

Further, animal protein provides the best possible combination of amino acids for dogs—that’s why most raw feeders say they are best fed as carnivores. Also most studies show that more protein is actually better for dogs. I posted some studies a while back in a different thread. I'll post them tomorrow. I've had a bit too much wine and it's kicking in.

[Melcakes]

Also forgot to add dogs do not need grains.Dogs lack a secum and the unsaculated colon necessary to ferment and process grains and how ironic! wolves lack a secum and the unsaculated colon too!

[yorkiepuppie]

Originally Posted by Melcakes

Well here are some things I've across that looks at the "perhaps myths (as they like to call them)" about raw diets or should I saw what raw feeders believe. Some of it is interesting, but I've also read a lot of other things and some additional studies that make you also question what I'm about to post below.

1. Evolution Divergence from Wolves - Some studies that go the "Other Way"

"Robert Wayne PhD, geneticist at the University of California at Los Angeles examined DNA in dogs and wolves. Wayne's recent genetic work suggests dog ancestors of some sort broke away from wolves about 100,000 years ago. Wayne's work included 147 dogs representing 67 breeds and 162 wild canids of all species from around the world. Wolf and human remains have been discovered in early fossils from over 400,000 years ago, but dog and human fossils date back only 14,000 years. Prior to this study, domestic dogs were thought to have originated only 14,000 years ago. In this new study, Wayne and his associates studied patterns in the mitochondrial DNA from dogs, wolves, coyotes and jackals. This type of maternally passed DNA changes at a specific rate. Wayne's study showed so many DNA changes that dogs must have diverged genetically from wolves about 100,000 years ago.

"We expected to find DNA sequences in dogs that were closely related to those in wolves, perhaps even indistinguishable from those in wolves," Wayne said. "We expected to find a few different sequences in dogs; instead, we found 26."

The researchers found four distinct genetic groups in the dog world. This suggests that dog ancestors domesticated several times within the +100,000 year window, or at different places, and that no single wolf ancestor is common to all dogs.

In a similar study conducted by Vila and Maldonado at the Department of Evolutionary Biology, Uppsala University in Sweden, maternal DNA showed a separation of 135,000 years between modern domestic dogs and wolves."

Not sure how true this is but from additional readings and an article:

"One of many good examples of internal changes that natural selection wrought is a significant difference in the eye of modern wolves and modern domestic dogs. The topographical distribution of retinal ganglion cells in seven breeds of dog (Canis lupus f. familiaris) and in the wolf (Canis lupus) was studied (Can't find the study online - need to look more ). A prominent feature of wolf retinae was a pronounced "visual streak" of high ganglion cell density. By contrast, a moderate visual streak was found in dog retinae. The estimated total number of ganglion cells averaged about 200,000 cells in the wolf and 115,000 in the dog.10 Evolutionary natural selection reduced the domestic dogs eyesight to almost half that of the wolf. Yet raw feeders would have you believe there are neither biological nor physiological differences between the two. Still not convinced this alone affects how a wolves and dogs nutrionial needs would differ. Seems a bit irrelevant to nutrition, but does show biological/physiological differences.

Further evidence of evolutionary changes in the dog compared to the wolf abounds in the literature. In a study of 2,959 dogs across 40 different breeds Genetic mtDNA variations in domestic dogs show a much higher level of heterozygosity when compared to wolves. (Can't find this study online, just an article) Differences in musculature, tendon strength, gut wall arterials and many other distinct differences in the internal organs and abilities are described.

2. Increased BUN levels in dogs fed raw.
"A large study conducted by Dr. Joe Bartges, Dr. Jean Dodds and Dr. Susan Wynn, they looked at blood work from over 200 raw fed dogs, and compared it to 75 dogs eating 'normal' diets and used by the lab for reference values. Mean BUN (blood urea nitrogen) was indeed significantly higher in dogs eating the raw diet. Increased BUN is one of the most critical values examined when looking for renal failure. While it is incorrect to state that increased BUN might cause renal failure, it certainly is a significant warning of impending danger in older geriatric dogs with undetected renal failure."

Just little, but of course interesting little tidbits of information since you want to look at "both sides". Will post more later.

thank you for the info. what were some of your concerns when you started feeding your dog raw?

[yorkiepuppie]

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom

Yen, I feel like your question is still just hangin' out there, blowin' in the breeze. I don't feed prey model (I feed pre-made raw), but I can try to list some potential risks of raw (and maybe others can add to this) :

-Choking hazard potential w/ Prey-model; despite the fact that dogs should theoretically be able to properly chew raw meaty bones, the fact is that any object whatsoever that could possibly occlude the throat (chewed or whole) is a potential choking hazard

-Intestinal issue/blockage after consumption of bones; while this is rare, it has been reported and is very dangerous if it does happen. In the wild, many wolves consume their bones along with some fur and there is some thought out there that the fur helps protect the digestive tract. IMO, this isn't really the full story though -- the distinct lining of the digestive tract in dogs/wolves is designed to handle raw bones and shouldn't need fur for bones to pass. So anyway, while very rare, it's a potential risk.

-Balanced diet. I don't necessarily agree that a prey model diet is UNbalanced. However, saying it is balanced is really an assumption that is based upon the wolf. While it may indeed be balanced, I'm not sure there is verifiable proof at this time. If there is someday, FABS! This is where I feel more secure feeding pre-made...but you make sacrifices there too, if you believe in raw (in general, that is). I just prefer the sacrifices of pre-made vs the possibility of choking hazard. If my dogs were more similar in size to a wolf or coyote, I may feel differently.

-Germs. An immunosuppressed dog will always be more vulnerable to germs, no matter the food. With raw, there is a potential for more germs. I've been feeding raw for almost 3yrs now, and we've never had any problems w/ germs.

-Feces. From what I understand, all dogs have salmonella in their feces - no matter what the diet. Raw-fed dogs may have a higher concentration of salmonella in their poo. However, no one can tell me if this translates to an increased risk or not. Regardless, I will handle poop the same I've always handled poop .

What else? I really dunno...that is just off the top of my head, but I will keep thinking about it...

thank you! i think it's kind of funny in a way. even though i do feed my dogs kibble/home-cooked/raw. it's easy for me to list disadvantages of feeding kibble and homecooked, because i feel like i have read more about those too as far as possible disadvantages of feeding those, but for raw, i actually haven't read that much negative stuff on it at all. so i am interested to know. no diet is perfect, that i know.

i honestly don't know what question to ask sometimes. i get so confused!

how long do yorkies live? is there anyone on yt who's been feeding their dog pre-made raw or prey model raw for more than 10 years? it would be nice to know if those people ever ran into any issues with feeding raw over a long period of time.(do you know of anyone who's been feeding raw for a LONG time?)

one thing i want to point out is that while i don't trust most pet food companies. i think the reason we do hear more about problems with those foods is because MOST people feed kibble, so obviously, you'll hear more about the problems with that. not that many people feed raw. my vet told me only a very tiny percent of his clients feed their dogs raw. i also only know a few people who feed their dogs raw. even on yt. i don't hear from that many people who feed raw, i mean, of all the people on yt, i wonder what % of the people feed raw?

[Wylie's Mom]

Originally Posted by Melcakes

Wolves do not eat stomach contents.

Melcakes - as I understand it, wolves desire to eat the stomach itself, but not the contents. So, the contents of the stomach will often be found strewn around the kill site. Of course, in the process of consuming the stomach, inevitably some contents would likely be consumed (I'd think).

Originally Posted by yorkiepuppie

how long do yorkies live? is there anyone on yt who's been feeding their dog pre-made raw or prey model raw for more than 10 years? it would be nice to know if those people ever ran into any issues with feeding raw over a long period of time.(do you know of anyone who's been feeding raw for a LONG time?)

i wonder what % of the people feed raw?

RawFedYorkieLuv, who is from Germany, grew up feeding her family's dogs prey model for 30yrs. She has lived in U.S. for quite a while now and feeds her yorkies Prey Model (or premade if necessary). I think her oldest yorkie is 10 or so, maybe more?

You could do a poll in the poll section, i.e. "Do you feed raw or non-raw" -- that would be cool .

[Ellie May]

I agree. Dogs do not need grains. They need specific nutrients, not specific foods. There are many dogs that do just fine with them though, so I can't say that a dog who eats grain is doomed. They somehow are able to process them to an extent. I think for those who don't want to use them, there are many other options for carbs. And they can probably live just fine without carbs although I think the info is still lacking on an all protein diet being the best/safest. And it is really lacking about feeding the meat raw. And these diets tend to be extremely unbalanced as far as current thinking in vet med is concerned. I suppose that's okay for anybody who thinks that AAFCO isn't right (and I'm sure there are flaws in their system), but some (me included) believe it is the best we have right now.

[Wylie's Mom]

Originally Posted by joldham

What raw do you feed your dogs? I have one on primal because he was a rescue and all he would eat. He does great on it and eats it quickly. The other two are on natures variety instinct and take forever to eat and my dominant one eats it all up and is getting fat. I heard stella and chewy was good also. Raw is so expensive I am not sure what to do. Thanks.

I feed Primal right now, but I have fed NV before too. I too have heard S&C is great, and Bravo as well . I agree...it isn't cheap. One day though, I actually compared the cost of raw to high-end kibble and while the kibble was cheaper, of course, it wasn't as much as a savings as I'd have thought. So, then I felt better .

Originally Posted by Ellie May

Dogs do not need grains. They need specific nutrients, not specific foods.

I agree. Some dogs, for whatever reasons, are on a vegetarian diet and do fabulous - as long as they are getting the right nutrients/balance. While dogs might be designed to digest proteins most efficiently and grains less efficiently, they can still thrive on various diets.

Humans aren't designed to smoke cigarettes, yet some smokers live to be over a 100yrs old and claim to have have great health. My point is, a body can thrive under lots of variable circumstances. It's no different for dogs.

[Melcakes]

Dogs are not obligate carnivores. Animals are not strictly split into the three categories. Yes, there are many different levels of carnivores, omnivores, and herbivores. The intestines of dogs are much much shorter than an omnivores such as ours. Their teeth are sharper for ripping and tearing, they have no spleen. All of these things are taken into account when classifying an animal. Cats are obligate carnivores. If you compare a dog to a cat, you see many differences. The cat does not have the amount or extremity of flat back molars that dogs do. A cats intestines are much shorter than that of a dog, and a cat will die if given a vegetarian diet. They must have the taurine only found in meat to survive.

Sure, a dog can live as a vegetarian, though they are typically not very healthy and their life span is greatly decreased. Dogs on vegetarian alone diets aren't doing well at all. The levels of being a carnivore vary depending upon the amount of vegetables the animal wold naturally eat. Obligate, TRUE carnivores, would eat less than 10% vegetables. Notice, even true carnivores are not 0%. Non obligate carnivores natural diet would contain 10%- 30% vegetables. The rest of the diet would be meat.

The major difference between an obligate carnivore like a cat, and a non obligate carnivore like a dog is enzymes. Cats posess no enzymes for breaking down grain or plant matter. Their pancreas can not create these enzymes. Any plant or grain an obligate carnivore eats passes through the system undigested. Non obligate carnivores like dogs have a low level of the enzymes to break down carbohydrates, and if it needs too, the pancreas can and will create more, but this puts excessive strain on the pancreas which must try to create the enzymes.

The decided amount of vegetables a dog should eat, which through my studies I found is 25% is decided based upon the amount of digestive enzymes found naturally accuring in the dogs saliva and stomaches and what they can tolerate - not what they need. Grains are harder for the enzymes to break down than fruits and vegetables are. With all this strain, a dog still can not make enough to absorb any nutrition from the grain, and certainly not cellulous which requires more enzymes than grains do, and cause more stress to the pancreas.

Pancreas is also what makes insulin in our bodies (and in ALL animals), when the pancreas gets stressed it stops working and stops producing insulin (among other things), and then you (or the animal) become diabetic. That's why it's not recommended to feed grains or veggies to dogs.

And, yes, wolves do eat fruits and vegetables when they pass them. Wolves will dig up and eat many roots and will eat the fallen fruit or low berries. It is not something they spend all day doing, and they will chose meat over fruits or vegetables. When hungry, their nature is to hunt, not to lounge around plants. When bored and/or curious, they chew on fruits and veggies. That is why they are a small amount of their diet. Fruits and vegetables carry vitamins and minerals that dog's bodies require in small amounts for optimal health.

Pancreas is also what makes insulin in our bodies (and in ALL animals), when the pancreas gets stressed and stops working. it stops producing insulin (among other things), and then you (or the animal) become diabetic.

AAFCO standards were developed based on the belief that dogs are omnivores and are based on cooked or processed foods AAFCO is completely irrelevant to raw diets. 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!

Further, AAFCO standards easily 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. 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.). No studies exist that prove "their adequacies or inadequacies". It is, at best, an educated guess as to what our animals really need, and is based on less-than-scientific principles.

The AAFCO has major problems and I personally wouldn't look twice at it in deciding what is good or not good for a dog. I mean they list the initial nutrient amount added, not even the amount absorbed. Thus, bioavailability is less than 100%, and the nutrients in the standards are therefore completely inaccurate representations of what the dog really needs! AFCO feeding trials weren't designed to measure the long-term effects of commercial diets. It says so right in their mission statement. AAFCO trials were designed to ensure that pet foods were not harmful to the animal and would support the proposed life stage for a period of 26 weeks. Look at the he lamb and rice commercial diets that had "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. They suffered cardiomyopthy from this highly recommended AAFCO approved food. AAFCO is the best the pet food industry has. If this is the pet food industry's BEST then what does that say about their commercial foods?

[Melcakes]

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom

Humans aren't designed to smoke cigarettes, yet some smokers live to be over a 100yrs old and claim to have have great health. My point is, a body can thrive under lots of variable circumstances. It's no different for dogs.

These long lived smokers in great health aren't a dime a dozen. More like diamonds in the rough if you ask me. I know you're just using it as an example that it can happen and I suppose it can happen or has, but I think most people know when you smoke or "put something in your body that nature didn't design - or which you have no need for" you will suffer more than you will thrive.

[Melcakes]

Copied from a previous posts below are the high vs. low protein studies I found. Some may be irrelevant to this conversation. Haven't read through it, but I know some aren't.

"Below are just some interesting dog "high" protein studies that show "high" protein levels cause no adverse effects for dogs with certain pre-existing conditions as believed by some. In contrast some studies show that dogs with certain pre-existing conditions do better on higher protein diets than lower ones, and in fact hat too little protein causes harm in many cases. There is also a study that shows higher protein diets (along with other factors) actually work better for [COLOR=green ! important][COLOR=green ! important]weight [COLOR=green ! important]loss[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] in dog. For whatever it's worth..below are links to the studies. Personally I believe it's not really the protein % that one is to worry about but the quality of ingredients where the protein comes from. With a that being said there is also no "studies" that show high protein diets cause kidney disease (as believed by some), or studies that show feeding a low protein diet slows the progression of kidney disease or prolong life (reducing phosphorus does both, however)!

One study showed that dogs aged 7 to 8 years with just one kidney who were fed a diet with 34% protein or four years suffered no adverse effects, and the mortality rate was lower than for dogs fed 18% protein (Effects of aging and dietary protein intake on uni... [Am J Vet Res. 1994] - PubMed result).

Most dogs with liver disease do not need a reduced protein diet, and too little protein is harmful to the liver (http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/reprint/128/12/2733S.pdf).

Most dogs prone to forming bladder stones of various types do not need a low protein diet, and those who are fed ultra-low-protein diets such as Hill's Prescription u/d for extended periods are prone to developing dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM).

High protein diets do not lead to hip dysplasia or other orthopedic problems in puppies (it is too much [COLOR=green ! important][COLOR=green ! important]calcium[/COLOR][/COLOR] and too many calories that are the culprits, not protein). (Growth-calcium-energy, Eukanuba premium pet food, ADVANCE Pet Foods)

A study published by Dr. Dodman in 1996 "concluded that a reduction in dietary protein is not generally useful in the treatment of behavior problems, with the possible exception of those with territorial aggression that is the result of fear." (Summary of Tufts University study on the effect of dietary protein on dog behavior). The conclusions of the 2000 study were, "For dogs with dominance aggression, the addition of tryptophan to high protein diets or change to a low protein diet may reduce aggression. For dogs with territorial aggression, tryptophan supplementation of a low protein diet may be helpful in reducing aggression." (AVMA - Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association - 217(4):504 - Abstract).

Veterinary behaviorist Dr. William Campbell, author of Behavior Problems in Dogs, believes that it is carbohydrates that are linked to aggression and other behavioral problems, and recommends higher protein diets for most dogs. See his "Case of the Month" archives at BehavioRx: Pet Behavior Resources Case of the Month for more info (especially April 1999, February, June, August and December 2000, February 2001, November 2001, February 2003).

Recent studies have shown that high-protein low-carb, moderate-fat [COLOR=green ! important][COLOR=green ! important]diets [COLOR=green ! important]work[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] better for weight loss in both dogs and cats than the traditional high-carb, low-fat diets (High-Protein Low-Carbohydrate Diets Enhance Weight Loss in Dogs -- Bierer and Bui 134 (8): 2087S -- Journal of Nutrition). One study done on English Pointers aged 7 to 9 years showed that those dogs fed a diet with 45% protein for several years maintained a directionally higher percent of lean body mass and lower percent of body fat compared to dogs fed a diet with 15% protein (http://web.archive.org/web/200703300...ionProtein.pdf).

"The very early research that pointed a finger at protein as being a cause of kidney failure in dogs wasn't even done on dogs. It was done on rats fed unnatural diets for a rodent... diets high in protein. Rats have difficulty excreting excess protein in their diets because they are essentially plant eaters, not meat eaters. Dogs are quite able to tolerate diets with protein levels higher than 30% on a dry weight basis. Dogs are meat eaters; that's how Nature made them! Rats are not. So some of the early research on rats was assumed to be true for dogs... and the myth of "too much protein in a dog's diet causes kidney damage" was started. And just like any seemingly valid rumor or assertion, it derived a life of its own and is only recently being accepted as untrue. "

"Here is just one of many references that recently have appeared asserting the lack of data indicating that reducing the protein level in a food helps to protect the kidneys... Kirk's Veterinary Therapy XIII, Small Animal Practice, page 861, written by Finco, Brown, Barsanti and Bartges "...restriction of protein intake does not alter the development of renal lesions nor does it preserve renal function. Considering these (research) findings, the authors do not recommend reduction of dietary protein in dogs with renal disease or reduced renal function in order to achieve renoprotective effects." They do recommend, though, that once a Blood Urea Nitrogen (BUN) level reaches 75, which is very elevated, that some restriction of protein intake be considered for beneficial effects unrelated to kidney function dynamics. These authors point out that Phosphorus blood levels can play a major role in the health status of dogs with compromised kidney function.""

[Melcakes]

Copied from a previous posts below are the high vs. low protein studies I found. Some may be irrelevant to this conversation. Haven't read through it, but I know some aren't.

"Below are just some interesting dog "high" protein studies that show "high" protein levels cause no adverse effects for dogs with certain pre-existing conditions as believed by some. In contrast some studies show that dogs with certain pre-existing conditions do better on higher protein diets than lower ones, and in fact hat too little protein causes harm in many cases. There is also a study that shows higher protein diets (along with other factors) actually work better for [COLOR=green ! important][COLOR=green ! important]weight [COLOR=green ! important]loss[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] in dog. For whatever it's worth..below are links to the studies. Personally I believe it's not really the protein % that one is to worry about but the quality of ingredients where the protein comes from. With a that being said there is also no "studies" that show high protein diets cause kidney disease (as believed by some), or studies that show feeding a low protein diet slows the progression of kidney disease or prolong life (reducing phosphorus does both, however)!

One study showed that dogs aged 7 to 8 years with just one kidney who were fed a diet with 34% protein or four years suffered no adverse effects, and the mortality rate was lower than for dogs fed 18% protein (Effects of aging and dietary protein intake on uni... [Am J Vet Res. 1994] - PubMed result).

Most dogs with liver disease do not need a reduced protein diet, and too little protein is harmful to the liver (http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/reprint/128/12/2733S.pdf).

Most dogs prone to forming bladder stones of various types do not need a low protein diet, and those who are fed ultra-low-protein diets such as Hill's Prescription u/d for extended periods are prone to developing dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM).

High protein diets do not lead to hip dysplasia or other orthopedic problems in puppies (it is too much [COLOR=green ! important][COLOR=green ! important]calcium[/COLOR][/COLOR] and too many calories that are the culprits, not protein). (Growth-calcium-energy, Eukanuba premium pet food, ADVANCE Pet Foods)

A study published by Dr. Dodman in 1996 "concluded that a reduction in dietary protein is not generally useful in the treatment of behavior problems, with the possible exception of those with territorial aggression that is the result of fear." (Summary of Tufts University study on the effect of dietary protein on dog behavior). The conclusions of the 2000 study were, "For dogs with dominance aggression, the addition of tryptophan to high protein diets or change to a low protein diet may reduce aggression. For dogs with territorial aggression, tryptophan supplementation of a low protein diet may be helpful in reducing aggression." (AVMA - Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association - 217(4):504 - Abstract).

Veterinary behaviorist Dr. William Campbell, author of Behavior Problems in Dogs, believes that it is carbohydrates that are linked to aggression and other behavioral problems, and recommends higher protein diets for most dogs. See his "Case of the Month" archives at BehavioRx: Pet Behavior Resources Case of the Month for more info (especially April 1999, February, June, August and December 2000, February 2001, November 2001, February 2003).

Recent studies have shown that high-protein low-carb, moderate-fat [COLOR=green ! important][COLOR=green ! important]diets [COLOR=green ! important]work[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] better for weight loss in both dogs and cats than the traditional high-carb, low-fat diets (High-Protein Low-Carbohydrate Diets Enhance Weight Loss in Dogs -- Bierer and Bui 134 (8): 2087S -- Journal of Nutrition). One study done on English Pointers aged 7 to 9 years showed that those dogs fed a diet with 45% protein for several years maintained a directionally higher percent of lean body mass and lower percent of body fat compared to dogs fed a diet with 15% protein (http://web.archive.org/web/200703300...ionProtein.pdf).

"The very early research that pointed a finger at protein as being a cause of kidney failure in dogs wasn't even done on dogs. It was done on rats fed unnatural diets for a rodent... diets high in protein. Rats have difficulty excreting excess protein in their diets because they are essentially plant eaters, not meat eaters. Dogs are quite able to tolerate diets with protein levels higher than 30% on a dry weight basis. Dogs are meat eaters; that's how Nature made them! Rats are not. So some of the early research on rats was assumed to be true for dogs... and the myth of "too much protein in a dog's diet causes kidney damage" was started. And just like any seemingly valid rumor or assertion, it derived a life of its own and is only recently being accepted as untrue. "

"Here is just one of many references that recently have appeared asserting the lack of data indicating that reducing the protein level in a food helps to protect the kidneys... Kirk's Veterinary Therapy XIII, Small Animal Practice, page 861, written by Finco, Brown, Barsanti and Bartges "...restriction of protein intake does not alter the development of renal lesions nor does it preserve renal function. Considering these (research) findings, the authors do not recommend reduction of dietary protein in dogs with renal disease or reduced renal function in order to achieve renoprotective effects." They do recommend, though, that once a Blood Urea Nitrogen (BUN) level reaches 75, which is very elevated, that some restriction of protein intake be considered for beneficial effects unrelated to kidney function dynamics. These authors point out that Phosphorus blood levels can play a major role in the health status of dogs with compromised kidney function.""

[Wylie's Mom]

Originally Posted by Melcakes

The intestines of dogs are much much shorter than an omnivores such as ours. Their teeth are sharper for ripping and tearing, they have no spleen.

Unless my vet has removed it without me knowing, all my dogs still have their spleens .

Originally Posted by Melcakes

These long lived smokers in great health aren't a dime a dozen. More like diamonds in the rough if you ask me. I know you're just using it as an example that it can happen and I suppose it can happen or has, but I think most people know when you smoke or "put something in your body that nature didn't design - or which you have no need for" you will suffer more than you will thrive.

With all kindness (and I'm not arguing)...my point really wasn't about smoking. My point was really this:

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom

My point is, a body can thrive under lots of variable circumstances. It's no different for dogs.

[Ellie May]

Dogs have spleens unless they undergo a spleenectomy.

Not sure what is meant about dogs not being able to do well on vegetarian diets. There would be many Yorkies in trouble if that were the case.

AAFCO is not perfect and there are two ways to get a diet approved. One is a nutrient analysis and the other is a feeding trial (done on the life stage that is represented on the bag/can). The latter may be preferred and is a good indicator of how dogs will do on the food.

Here is a study:
Cat Fanciers' Association: Role of Diet

that shows what can go wrong. Apparently rabbit isn't deficient in taurine, but the cats couldn't absorb it. And it looks like their vitamin e levels were low. My point being is that there is no clear answer here that this is the best diet...far from it. And this 10% one type of meat and 15% that type of meat...nto sure where that is coming from, but wonder where they came up with it at.