Purina's "information" On Feeding Bones To Dogs

[Souff]

I would no more give a Stafford a dinosaur bone than I'd give one to a Chihuahua.

Well actually .... the Chihuahua would be quite safe with a raw dinosaur bone because there is no way they could either shatter it or swallow it whole

[Souff]

Dogs teeth were designed to crunch bones.

This is very true, however I suspect the bones were supposed to come from creatures no bigger than themselves.

Souff

[Erny]

What makes you suspect that, Souff?

I actually wonder if domestication to the breed variety that we have has made a difference to neck/gullet -vs- oesophagus size. I don't really know as I've not studied this but it is something I have thought of from time to time.

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

The Farley Mowat book "never cry wolf" suggested the wolf's diet was mostly small rodents like mice. So I guess feeding whole (dead) mice would be ok. Except I doubt my dog would actually eat that if I gave it to her. She likes roast chicken (with or without bones) but isn't really interested in dead critters - except as perfume or something to roll in.

[Staranais]

I suppose the flip side might be dogs whose health is compromised by really shitty teeth. One thing the vets always comment on at our yearly check ups is our dogs' clean healthy teeth. We have also never had any anal gland problems.

Sort of, except that it's not just a choice between filthy teeth or feeding bones. There are other options to keep dog's teeth clean - you could brushing your dogs teeth, works brilliantly so long as you do it at least every 36 hours or so, and no side effects whatsoever. So if you did a study and found that the risks of eating bones were higher than expected (or higher than expected in certain types of dogs, or in dogs with certain health conditions, or whatever), there are other options for those dogs.

[Kaz]

I guess it comes down to the fact that nothing in life is totally safe. In my opinion dogs need to chew. Dogs love bones.

So find the product best suitable to the individual dog and be prepared to switch if you have a problem. And be prepared to pay the bill in the unlikely but possible scenario that a vet visit is necessary.

[Aussienot]

This has gotten me thinking however, as a confirmed bone feeder, that while I think the benefits outweight the risks, I have no evidence that this belief is true.

Hate when that happens.

Wish there was some money behind raw feeding, so studies could be funded. But only the deep pockets of Purina and the like can afford that.

[labsrule]

Of course a dry food manufacturer would use "scare tactics" to ensure their profits keep rising and of course dogs just starved to death before dry food was being manufactured

My dogs have always been fed bones and will continue to be fed bones despite the fact that my current youngster has given me a real scare with bones. He is ALWAYS monitored closely when eating bones as I have never had a Lab that eats bones as fast as he does, no matter how large, little bugger is such a guts I can't give him chicken necks or chicken wings as they either get swallowed whole or one chomp and they are gone, so the bigger the better, like Turkey wings, turkey drumsticks, whole chicken frames, large brisket bones, large lamb necks etc. I don't give my current boys any large weight bearing bones, but I used to give my previous boy some of these when he was an only dog.

I have some "robust" discussions with my vet on feeding bones because of the injuries they can cause and guess who gave me that "I told you so" look when my youngster was rushed to the after hrs emergency hospital and then admitted on a drip at my vet's the next day, due to him swallowing a large chunk of turkey wing when he was a pup, but luckily he did manage to vomit the entire chunk back up again. Bones were off his menu for a few weeks after that incident.

Sure there are risks with bones, but it is a risk I am willing to take and manage and I have never had any of my dogs have any dental problems whatsoever in all the many years I have had dogs and my dogs that I have raised from pups have always received numerous compliments on their beautiful teeth. My dogs have always loved their bones and I know which they would choose if offered the choice between bones and dry food - however being Labs, they would probably choose both . I do actually feed them super premium dry as well though as it comprises 30% (for my youngster) to 50% (for my oldies) of their overal diet.

[newfsie]

We have owned dogs and fed bones since the late seventies.........Our dogs are used to bones from puppy. They do not get overly exited about them and guts them, because they get one daily or at least once every two-three days. so they chew them slowly. we feed all types of bones, but only RAW. There are many dogs that die of problems from teeth that are not healthy and this includes associated cardiac problems from unhealthy teeth and abscesses. I think dogs also die from bits of toy, wood or anything else they chew, because they do not get to chew on bones.

I have known of a dog who died from choking and aspirating on a peice of dog dry food and he died. You can always find anectodal incidences to support anything. I would always be wary of a company that makes dog food and treats telling me that anything natural is not good.

Dogs can die if they are able to consume a large amount of marrow/fat from marrow bones, but a uncut bone takes a long time for even a newfoundland to get all the marrow out of. Quantity and quality are also relevant.

And I do know that dogs who only get given the occasional bone deal with them totally differrent to dogs who are used to eating bones. I will always feed my dogs ( with gorgeous healthy white teeth at even fifteen) bones.

[Souff]

What makes you suspect that, Souff?

I actually wonder if domestication to the breed variety that we have has made a difference to neck/gullet -vs- oesophagus size. I don't really know as I've not studied this but it is something I have thought of from time to time.

Just thinking that creatures in the wild mostly eat what they can catch ... and the majority of the diet is often birds, fish and smaller mammals. This is from a young age so I imagine that the teeth would be strong as calcium levels in a natural diet would be very high. Wild canines dont eat much maize and rosemary .....

Reading on here about the dogs with strong jaws shattering their teeth also made me think that perhaps the teeth were not designed to withstand the psi of a powerful set of jaws clamping down on a large bone. But then again, the teeth may not have been as strong as they could have been if their diet was a bit low on calcium.

I know creatures like the Tassie devil will eat bones from a larger carcass but wow, he has really powerful jaws and wide jaws, so there are always exceptions. Coyotes will also eat bones off a larger carcass.

I think you could be right about domestication and the oesophagus ... particularly dogs that are fed canned food or soft food.

Souff

[Erny]

Reading on here about the dogs with strong jaws shattering their teeth also made me think that perhaps the teeth were not designed to withstand the psi of a powerful set of jaws clamping down on a large bone. But then again, the teeth may not have been as strong as they could have been if their diet was a bit low on calcium.

This is an area that interests me and if I had the time I'd look more into it rather than casually muse on it - but I wonder if this too is something that domestication/selective breeding is responsible for? I mean, we breed for dogs that have considerably different shaped and strong jowls/jaws, perhaps more strong than their teeth (which perhaps would have served them well in other circumstances) can cope with.

And regards the oesophagus size -vs- throat size musing (previous post), it is not so much that I think it is what we've been feeding the dogs, I muse on the possibility of our selective breeding for dogs of x head/neck width by comparison to (eg) body .... and whether that is why we seem to have the number of "bone eating incidents" that we seem to have.

Edited December 8, 2010 by Erny

[Souff]

Reading on here about the dogs with strong jaws shattering their teeth also made me think that perhaps the teeth were not designed to withstand the psi of a powerful set of jaws clamping down on a large bone. But then again, the teeth may not have been as strong as they could have been if their diet was a bit low on calcium.

This is an area that interests me and if I had the time I'd look more into it rather than casually muse on it - but I wonder if this too is something that domestication/selective breeding is responsible for? I mean, we breed for dogs that have considerably different shaped and strong jowls/jaws, perhaps more strong than their teeth (which perhaps would have served them well in other circumstances) can cope with.

And regards the oesophagus size -vs- throat size musing (previous post), it is not so much that I think it is what we've been feeding the dogs, I muse on the possibility of our selective breeding for dogs of x head/neck width by comparison to (eg) body .... and whether that is why we seem to have the number of "bone eating incidents" that we seem to have.

Erny, you could be right. Would be interesting to see a study done on dogs who are shattering teeth on bones.

I have never had the problem and have been feeding bones to all sorts and sizes of dogs for most of my life without teeth shattering, so I am not qualified to speak on the teeth shatterers.

Souff

[newfsie]

Reading on here about the dogs with strong jaws shattering their teeth also made me think that perhaps the teeth were not designed to withstand the psi of a powerful set of jaws clamping down on a large bone. But then again, the teeth may not have been as strong as they could have been if their diet was a bit low on calcium.

This is an area that interests me and if I had the time I'd look more into it rather than casually muse on it - but I wonder if this too is something that domestication/selective breeding is responsible for? I mean, we breed for dogs that have considerably different shaped and strong jowls/jaws, perhaps more strong than their teeth (which perhaps would have served them well in other circumstances) can cope with.

And regards the oesophagus size -vs- throat size musing (previous post), it is not so much that I think it is what we've been feeding the dogs, I muse on the possibility of our selective breeding for dogs of x head/neck width by comparison to (eg) body .... and whether that is why we seem to have the number of "bone eating incidents" that we seem to have.

Erny, you could be right. Would be interesting to see a study done on dogs who are shattering teeth on bones.

I have never had the problem and have been feeding bones to all sorts and sizes of dogs for most of my life without teeth shattering, so I am not qualified to speak on the teeth shatterers.

Souff

Hmmmmmmmm. Maybe that is why we have no problems. large dogs, always having plenty of bones, which means lots of Calcium and therefore strong teeth.

Would be a great study as to what breeds, what feeding and how often bones were fed and from what age..........

[Erny]

Hmmmmmmmm. Maybe that is why we have no problems. large dogs, always having plenty of bones, which means lots of Calcium and therefore strong teeth.

Would be a great study as to what breeds, what feeding and how often bones were fed and from what age..........

I don't know, and I may be completely on the wrong track. But when my girl had to have surgery to remove a (BIIIIG piece of) bone that she had swallowed and which had become lodged, I remember the Vet saying (whilst peering down her throat) "you could drive a tractor down this dog's throat" (ie it was so big).

Edited December 9, 2010 by Erny

[Staranais]

This has gotten me thinking however, as a confirmed bone feeder, that while I think the benefits outweight the risks, I have no evidence that this belief is true.

Hate when that happens.

Wish there was some money behind raw feeding, so studies could be funded. But only the deep pockets of Purina and the like can afford that.

I think it could be done on a fairly conservative budget - and also, I reckon that if everyone that fed raw and wants to see research gave like $5 to the cause, there could easily be a doctoral scholarship funded for a postgrad vet or biologist. But bags not organising it, that would be a headache.

ETA - and bags not doing it, I already have some other pHD projects in mind if I feel like more time in academia! But I bet someone would be interested in doing it, if the funds could be found.

Edited December 9, 2010 by Staranais

[stormie]

One thing though, who's to say dogs in the wild don't actually get sick and die from obstructions? Or perhaps they have stronger instincts and can be more selective in what they eat, being in the wild?

I have probably done less than 10 foreign body removals that were bones in my 5 years nursing, however it's a risky operation that isn't without possible complications, so whilst the risk of it happening may be low, if it does, the outcome may not be good.

It really is a tough one. Bones clearly have so many benefits to dogs, starting from the mouth to the other end. But recommending people to feed them is risky, because you cannot be sure that person's dog isn't going to have problems. We do suggest it, but are careful to discuss the risks vs benefits and try to suggest bones less likely to cause a problem. But if we tell someone to feed their dogs bones and it gets an obstruction and dies, you can be sure we would have hell to pay!

But as for a commercial food company raising the issue and advising against it, well I can only assume its marketing for them.