Comparison of raw, dry, and fresh cooked

[sandgrubber]

https://wp.me/p3UoTm-2m0

Linda Case has a review a study that compared four types of dog diets.  I'm pasting a short clip, but encourage reading the whole thing. 

"Take Away for Dog Folks: This study found that dogs accepted all three types of foods – extruded dry, moderately cooked, and raw  – and remained healthy. Contrary to expectations (and claims), the raw food that was tested in this study was not significantly more digestible and did not result in less defecation or produce better quality feces. Although all four foods altered gut microbial populations, the shifts caused by the raw food are generally considered to be negative changes rather than positive. However, the complexity of the gut microbiome coupled with numerous factors that affect gut health prevent any conclusions about these changes."

[JRG]

Interesting read.

At present I feed dry but at various times have fed fresh raw (Juliette's natural rearing system) and semi cooked but apart from the time it takes me to feed, I have seen very little difference in the dogs health etc and it is certainly easier to keep them "trim, taut and terrific" on the dry.

[yellowgirl]

That was really interesting, thank you for posting it! 

[alpha bet]

Regardless of what these types of articles say, the only way to really tell if a raw diet is better for your dog is to test it yourself...
 

This article again is USA based (which always makes me skeptical) and really is only comparing 3 different commercial type foods.... so in effect could we relate this to comparing a hamburger from Macdonalds... to a frozen burger from the Supermarket or to the cook to order at a local Fish and Chip shop.... might have some variations to benefits but really not anywhere in the same realm as comparing ANY commercial product to the home made product.

 

she states that there is not the scientific studies to believe that to feed fresh raw is any better!

 

It is nigh on impossible to really give a broad scientific study on raw, based on the fact there is so much variation available to the home shopper.. but if we do consider much of the research that is out about 'gut health' (mainly from Europe) then common sense tells us that feeding dogs a mixed raw diet as opposed to commercial food then is as good for the dog as it is to feed your kids a good home based diet instead of the junk food....

 

 

[sandgrubber]

19 hours ago, alpha bet said:

Regardless of what these types of articles say, the only way to really tell if a raw diet is better for your dog is to test it yourself...
 

This article again is USA based (which always makes me skeptical) and really is only comparing 3 different commercial type foods.... so in effect could we relate this to comparing a hamburger from Macdonalds... to a frozen burger from the Supermarket or to the cook to order at a local Fish and Chip shop.... might have some variations to benefits but really not anywhere in the same realm as comparing ANY commercial product to the home made product.

 

she states that there is not the scientific studies to believe that to feed fresh raw is any better!

 

It is nigh on impossible to really give a broad scientific study on raw, based on the fact there is so much variation available to the home shopper.. but if we do consider much of the research that is out about 'gut health' (mainly from Europe) then common sense tells us that feeding dogs a mixed raw diet as opposed to commercial food then is as good for the dog as it is to feed your kids a good home based diet instead of the junk food....

 

 

Please give reference for gut health claim. 

Also, note that a large fraction of DOL posts discussing "raw" feeding refer to commercially packaged raw products.  Had this study used more basic raw foods, it would have been very hard to replicate, ans open to criticism about using the wrong version of "raw" .  Anyone who has fed raw knows there's immense variation in how fatty, how fresh, and how meaty the products are depending on source, and I doubt anyone will deny that organ meat differs substantially from muscle, skin, or bone. Not to mention the amount and types of fruit and veg. 

The "junk food" comment isn't valid. Junk food is high sugar/fat, without mind to balance.  Dry foods can be criticized for favoring cheaper ingredients with handling characteristics that work for industry, but they are formulated for balance.  

Yes, the study is imperfect.  I'd love to see other studies with larger sample sizes and different dietary formulations. But as someone who gave up feeding raw a decade ago and has seen no adverse effects, and who has known many dogs to live to a healthy old age on commercial dry foods, I find it credible. 

[DogsAndTheMob]

I’m not an advocate of raw feeding, but I’m sceptical about the interpretation of this study. I’ve taken the time to read the abstract (although I’m not prepared to pay to read the full research study, sorry), and I’ve looked at the ingredients lists and fat/protein/carbs ratios for the dry food and the raw food. The compositions of these foods are very different, and there is no evidence to indicate that the differences found are due to the different processing methods rather than differences in composition. Also, the sample size is very small (8 dogs; 7 days of activity monitoring per food; 5 days of faecal output monitoring per food; 1 day of blood sampling per food) and the range of measures might indicate a “fishing expedition” - to put it simply, if you measure enough things, you are likely to find statistical differences, purely by chance.

[kayla1]

25 minutes ago, DogsAndTheMob said:

I’m not an advocate of raw feeding, but I’m sceptical about the interpretation of this study. I’ve taken the time to read the abstract (although I’m not prepared to pay to read the full research study, sorry), and I’ve looked at the ingredients lists and fat/protein/carbs ratios for the dry food and the raw food. The compositions of these foods are very different, and there is no evidence to indicate that the differences found are due to the different processing methods rather than differences in composition. Also, the sample size is very small (8 dogs; 7 days of activity monitoring per food; 5 days of faecal output monitoring per food; 1 day of blood sampling per food) and the range of measures might indicate a “fishing expedition” - to put it simply, if you measure enough things, you are likely to find statistical differences, purely by chance.

Regarding your first point, this is noted in the research paper. The researchers explain that any differences found in treatment conditions are attributed to the diets as a whole rather than ingredients/processing method/nutrient and energy concentrations (which were not separately tested). 

 

Interesting, thanks for posting sandgrubber.

[DogsAndTheMob]

5 hours ago, kayla1 said:

Regarding your first point, this is noted in the research paper. The researchers explain that any differences found in treatment conditions are attributed to the diets as a whole rather than ingredients/processing method/nutrient and energy concentrations (which were not separately tested). 

 

Interesting, thanks for posting sandgrubber.

Thanks Kayla - that’s good to know.

 

Here’s another article on the study, with a somewhat different interpretation: https://aces.illinois.edu/news/fresh-and-raw-diets-dogs-may-have-health-benefits-study-says

 

It’s interesting to note that the study was sponsored by the manufacturers of three of the four foods, including the raw food, which appears to have been pulled from the market. I’m also intrigued to see that kale is the second ingredient. Kale reportedly has low digestibility for humans and ruminants, so I’m not sure how digestible it would be for dogs.

[sandgrubber]

No, it's not a strong study.  Let's hope it's followed by studies that explore the same questions, but are stronger in study design. 

[hollee]

I have raw fed my dogs for 30+ years and it is the best thing I've ever done.

You can be sure of everything that your dog is getting and adapt according to your needs and with all the dry dog food scares would certainly make me change it if I wasn't feeding raw.

 

Their coats are shiny and they have a vitality that is clearly visible.

I am often asked what I feed them.

 

Just a side note, the ingredients in the Vets all natural mix is easily made up and I was fortunate many years ago that the vet I used put me onto raw feeding following Juliette de Bairacli Levy's "Herbal handbook for the dog and cat"

Interesting fact was that Bruce Syme  (of Vets all Natural) worked at my vets when he was starting out and took it a step further by marketing it and making a packet!

Edited December 19, 2018 by hollee
Left some out

[hollee]

Sorry meant to add that many of these studies are funded by pet food companies as are many vet lectures on pet nutrition.

[sandgrubber]

6 hours ago, hollee said:

Sorry meant to add that many of these studies are funded by pet food companies as are many vet lectures on pet nutrition.

Many of these studies? Can you name any other study that systematically compares raw to cooked to extruded? Of course you find pet food companies sponsoring... sadly, no other funding source is stepping forward. The KC's? The (R)SPCA? Some government? Meaningful health research gets bloody expensive. 

[PANDI-GIRL]

When I tried   Vets all natural balanced life,  it just looked like  (  De- constructed )   kibble ,   Very popular on Cooking shows    

[DogsAndTheMob]

Yet another perspective on this study - this time claiming benefits for fresh and raw foods:

https://phys.org/news/2018-08-fresh-raw-diets-dogs-health.html#nRlv

[sandgrubber]

A note on methods 

"Eight beagles were successively fed each diet for one month. After a 14-day transition period onto each new diet, they were monitored for voluntary physical activity, and then urine, stool, and blood samples were collected and analyzed." 

 

Noble ambitions, but a pretty pathetic study.  I wish there was support for a more convincing study.