# Interesting Tidbits From My Veterinary Nutrition Class



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

So I'm three weeks into my nutrition class at vet school and I'm actually more convinced of the benefits of the raw diet. I thought I'd post some little tidbits that I've learned that may be of interest as they come up. Some of these are kinda "duh," but just in case...

-animal protein really is more digestible and bioavailable than plant protein

-energy use: 10-15% of energy goes to breaking down the food itself, keeping the animal warm is variable, basal metabolism takes up a surprising 50-80%, and the rest goes to the activity of the animal

-lactation is by far the most energy demanding stage of an animal's life (as much if not even more than hard exercise like dog sledding)

-carbohydrates are NOT, I repeat, are NOT nutritionally essential for dogs and cats. Blood glucose is. However, the protein in the diet needs to be sufficiently high or bitches will have low blood sugar, still births, and low lactose in the milk and puppies have lethargy and poor growth. The post gestational weight loss in queens can be lessened by adding carbs

-low carb diets really do help for diabetes mellitus. In sled dogs, it appears that high fat, very low carb diets actually set the body to burn the fat as their energy source through fat mobilization (the opposite of carbo loading).

-sucrose (sugar) is used in some dog foods for food acceptability (dogs can taste sweet things, cats supposedly cannot) and as a humectant to keep semi-moist foods humid but it inhibits bacterial growth

-chitins like glucosamine are actually a kind of dietary fiber and are found in fungi, yeasts, and invertebrates

-constant use of mineral oil will decrease absorption of fat soluble vitamins (A, D, E, K)

-linoleic acid (omega 6) was the first demonstrated essential fatty acid. It's found in various vegetable oils and is a precursor for arachidonic acid (which isn't found in plants, only animals and fungi). Cats can't make linoleic acid into arachidonic acid, so they need it in their diets, but dogs can.

-of the omega 3s, eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) is found in marine animal oils and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) is found in the brain and retina. Alpha linolenic acid is required for DHA and EPA synthesis and is found in green plant material (specifically chloroplasts)

-free radicals attack the long chains of the fatty acids, causing oxidation and rancidity and the production of hydrogen peroxide. The longer it is stored, the more hydrogen peroxide is formed. This can be prevented by adding anti-oxidants or by using a mylar balloon style inner lining in the bag of food. 

-one reason raw is better than cooked for animal protein sources: cooking destroys methionine, cystine, and serine amino acid side chains. Cooking is required for some plant sources, especially for carbohydrates, otherwise they won't give you anything.

Hopefully I haven't bored everyone quite yet. I'll add more as more stuff comes up.


----------



## marcy bukkit (Oct 4, 2007)

Very cool!!

The myth that all they tell ya about nutrition is "feed Science Diet" has just been busted. :-\"


----------



## Kristen Cabe (Mar 27, 2006)

_I'm_ not bored! I even learned a few things!


----------



## Terry Fisk (Jul 26, 2007)

Not bored at all. Thanks for the information. I got educated and didn't have to attend class 

Terry Fisk
www.showandsport.com


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

marcy bukkit said:


> Very cool!!
> 
> The myth that all they tell ya about nutrition is "feed Science Diet" has just been busted. :-\"


Well, our professor's spot in the department is funded by Purina, so that's probably why. :lol: No, actually, we hear pretty equally about Hill's, Purina, Royal Canin, and Eukanuba. None of the others though. My nutrition professor was rather surprised to find I feed a raw diet, especially after I discussed my masters research with him and that I appeared to be somewhat nutrition savvy. In fairness though, he does recommend people not keeping their pets on the same food their entire life. He was one of the researchers who found out that taurine in dog food is potentially beneficial to large breed dogs with cardiac myopathy. He's also trying to get me an internship at the St. Louis Zoo's nutrition program, so I can't talk too much trash. :wink:


----------



## kim guidry (Jan 11, 2008)

My vet has my dog on Purina Veterinary diet DH(dental health). Anyone have any thoughts on that food? What are some other recommendations for dry food?


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Here are the ingredients. The ingredients I have possible issues with are in bold:

Ingredients (DH)
Chicken, chicken meal (natural source of glucosamine), *brewers rice, ground yellow corn, corn gluten meal, ground wheat, animal fat* preserved with mixed-tocopherols (form of Vitamin E), *dried beet pulp, brewers dried yeast, powdered cellulose, glycerin,* dried egg product, calcium phosphate, *salt*, potassium chloride, *animal digest*, tetra sodium pyrophosphate, phosphoric acid, Vitamin E supplement, calcium carbonate, choline chloride, zinc sulfate, L-ascorbyl-2-polyphosphate (source of Vitamin C), ferrous sulfate, manganese sulfate, potassium sorbate, niacin, Vitamin A supplement, calcium pantothenate, thiamine mononitrate, copper sulfate, riboflavin supplement, Vitamin B-12 supplement, pyridoxine hydrochloride, garlic oil, folic acid, Vitamin D-3 supplement, calcium iodate, biotin, *menadione sodium bisulfite complex* (source of Vitamin K activity), sodium selenite.


Is there a reason your vet put your dog on this food? I see a lot of grains in a food that I see can be purchased online for $54.00 for a 35 lbs bag, which is incredibly expensive for a food of this low quality ingredients. I exchanged e-mails with one of the clinical nutrition residents who said his cat was on DH and her teeth were doing well (Purina has apparently done clinical trials which do show it helps), but I would just as soon feed Innova EVO (vastly superior ingredients and similar price) and give my dogs recreational bone to chew a few times a week. But that's just me. *shrug* 

As far as recommendations, I have done a raw diet for about 3 years and my dogs have done well. But the commercial diets I recommend are Innova EVO, Orijen, Nature's Variety Instinct, A Taste of the Wild, Solid Gold Barking at the Moon, Wellness CORE (all grain free), and Canidae, Chicken Soup, some of the other Solid Gold lines, Merrick, some of the other Nature's Variety lines, etc (all lower grain). There's no one diet that is right for every dog (many dogs do great on grain free, some do a little better with some grains) and it's actually a good idea to rotate periodically to avoid potential nutritional deficiencies.


----------



## kim guidry (Jan 11, 2008)

Thanks for your input. I have my dogs on it because of there teeth. I do notice a difference with it, but it is expensive. I will look into the other brands you mentioned.


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood (Mar 27, 2006)

Orijen is what I feed, IMO the best food out there right now. Innova Evo and Natures Variety Raw Instinct are also good.


----------



## Dan Long (Jan 10, 2008)

Maren, thanks for that great info. If you don't mind I'm going to use it the next time someone starts the raw vs kibble debate on one of the other dog forums I belong to!


----------



## Lynsey Fuegner (Apr 11, 2007)

Maren, thanks for the info! What a help! I'm digging through some RAW books myself, getting together a plan and hope to be able to start feeding it in the next few months or so, everything I'm reading is a real eye opener!


----------



## Pauline Michels (Sep 1, 2006)

Thanks for taking the time to share the information with us. Are we going to receive a request for tuition donations?


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

kim guidry said:


> Thanks for your input. I have my dogs on it because of there teeth. I do notice a difference with it, but it is expensive. I will look into the other brands you mentioned.



Kim? What is exactly the matter with your dogs teeth that makes you want to go to a special commercial diet?


----------



## kim guidry (Jan 11, 2008)

Geoff Empey said:


> Kim? What is exactly the matter with your dogs teeth that makes you want to go to a special commercial diet?


 
I had a greyhound and she did not like chew bones or having her teeth brushed. My vet suggested DH and I liked the results. I joined this site to learn more about working dogs. I am new to this and I enjoy learning new things. At this point, I would like to find someone around here to work my dog with.


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

kim guidry said:


> I had a greyhound and she did not like chew bones or having her teeth brushed. My vet suggested DH and I liked the results.


Interesting .. So I guess trying a RAW diet or even tossing the dog a chicken thigh with the bone a couple times a week is out with this dog? 

As with my dog I feed RAW but there is not a lot of bone in the mix I use. So I do give her a chicken leg or a breast once or twice a week. Even with just that there is no plaque buildup on her teeth. I've never seen whiter teeth on a dog before now that I've started a RAW diet.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

kim guidry said:


> I had a greyhound and she did not like chew bones or having her teeth brushed. My vet suggested DH and I liked the results.



The outside of the teeth (where the saliva doesn't do as constant a "washing" job as it does on the inside) is generally where dogs with plaque accumulation have their problems.

I would consider getting the dog accustomed to brushing, maybe with the little brush that fits over your finger tip and the liver or shrimp toothpaste (and other flavors), and even the squirt-along-the-gumline rinse.

Personally, I'm not crazy about that ingredient list. Check out the number of grains in the top few ingredients:
Chicken, chicken meal (natural source of glucosamine), brewers rice, ground yellow corn, corn gluten meal, ground wheat, animal fat preserved with mixed-tocopherols (form of Vitamin E), dried beet pulp, brewers dried yeast, powdered cellulose ....

BTW, that "natural source of glucosamine" line is pretty much unadulterated BS. :lol:


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Geoff Empey said:


> .... I do give her a chicken leg or a breast once or twice a week. Even with just that there is no plaque buildup on her teeth. I've never seen whiter teeth on a dog before now that I've started a RAW diet.


That's a typical result, but some dogs are "low saliva producers" just naturally, or due to a med (like antihistamines), and need a little more help with plaque accumulation. This is generally on the outside of the teeth, as mentioned, where it's pretty easy to brush and squirt.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

kim guidry said:


> I am new to this and I enjoy learning new things. At this point, I would like to find someone around here to work my dog with.


You might want to post this part in another forum of the board besides "Diet & Health."


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

A new tidbit I learned today in gastrointestinal physiology that will be of interest to the raw feeders in the audience:

The stomach acid (HCl) helps break down the bone to a rubbery structure in the stomach (kinda like that old experiment of putting a tooth in a can of Coke and having it dissolve pretty quickly) and it is part of the antibacterial nature of a carnivorous omnivore. BUT if dogs are put on a medication like Prilosec that inhibits stomach acid production, it may lose some of the ability to break down the bone in the stomach, so that may be something you want to make your vet aware of if put on Prilosec or something similar if you feed raw. 

Dogs also have lysozyme in their saliva, an enzyme that gives it antibacterial properties (why they lick their wounds).


----------



## Ted White (May 2, 2006)

More fascinating stuff Maren. We've talked in the past about the lower pH reducing risk of bacterial issues from salmonella and the like. I wonder if this is further facilitated by additional enzymes?


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Ted White said:


> More fascinating stuff Maren. We've talked in the past about the lower pH reducing risk of bacterial issues from salmonella and the like. I wonder if this is further facilitated by additional enzymes?


Yes, that seems to be the case. The thing to remember about pH and enzymes from basic biology is that all enzymes have their optimal level in which to work. Some prefer neutral (like in the mouth), some prefer more acidic (in the stomach). There's some that probably prefer more alkaline, but I can't think of any off hand (had a test today and another tomorrow, the day after, and the day after that, so brain's kinda fried).


----------



## Ted White (May 2, 2006)

I'm always interested in hearing:

Why bones aren't a problem (They get soft due to acid stronger than ours)

Why "harmful" bacteria aren't harmful to a dog (better bacterial flora, higher acid and broader enzyme base)

I kine to throw those concepts out there when peoples eyes widen when I tell them what I feed.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Ted White said:


> Why "harmful" bacteria aren't harmful to a dog (better bacterial flora, higher acid and broader enzyme base)


I would add (probably even more important) that the transit time in a dog's short system does not allow the food pathogens time to colonize the way a human's loooooong digestive system does.

Also, food pathogens CAN cause problems in a dog.... just not with the ease that they can in humans. 

Most canine salmonella problems I have read about involved kibble, but that doesn't mean that raw food cannot cause problems in a dog. No kind of food is perfect.


----------



## Ted White (May 2, 2006)

Great points. I basically use the same food standards that I would with my kids in terms of clean food prep, disinfection and fresh food.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

New tidbit for today (went to a seminar lecture on serum allergy testing vs intradermal skin testing) and was re-inforced to the fact that serum allergy testing for food allergies is not reliable. I mentioned this to my nutrition professor about if they know it's not reliable, why is it still done? He kind of shrugged and agreed it could be just a money thing or some vets don't know. You also (obviously) can't do an intradermal skin test for food allergies, so the ONLY truly reliable test to see what is the allergen in the diet that we have so far is the strict elimination diet. However, he mentioned that they are trying to develop an intragastric test where they go in with an endoscope into the stomach, do the injections of the test allergens in there, and see the results, but this is obviously still being developed. Also don't forget, food allergies don't equal food sensitivities!

One more thing to add (more from my anatomy class than from nutrition). You all know the whole "canids need veggies in their diet because they eat the GI tract of their prey" slash "no, they don't because they just shake out the contents of the stomach and eat the stomach" debate for BARF style versus whole prey model style? Well, I can definitely say that if a wolf, coyote, etc just killed a small ruminant like a deer, it would likely shake out the contents of the stomach. However, we couldn't manually get our cow rumen, reticulum, omasum, and abomasum (the four compartments of the ruminant stomach) clean easily because grass and other crap was stuck to the inside. So yeah, my take on this is that they'd toss out the bulk of it, but unless the wolfies are out the with a power hose, there is still going to be plant matter attached to the lining of the rumen and reticulum, etc (note the shape designed for abrasion and increasing surface area):


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Maren Bell Jones said:


> New tidbit for today (went to a seminar lecture on serum allergy testing vs intradermal skin testing) and was re-inforced to the fact that serum allergy testing for food allergies is not reliable.


I'm so glad you are posting these!


If anyone's vet suggests any kind of blood or skin test for food allergies, RUN.

The uselessness of RAST and ELISA for food allergies has been well-known for over twenty years.

I do keep reading on web forums about vets who don't know the reliability difference between blood and skin tests, who don't know that food allergies have only one allergen-ID method, and who still think that lamb and rice is "allergy food." :-(


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Maren Bell Jones said:


> One more thing to add (more from my anatomy class than from nutrition). You all know the whole "canids need veggies in their diet because they eat the GI tract of their prey" slash "no, they don't because they just shake out the contents of the stomach and eat the stomach" debate for BARF style versus whole prey model style? Well, I can definitely say that if a wolf, coyote, etc just killed a small ruminant like a deer, it would likely shake out the contents of the stomach. However, we couldn't manually get our cow rumen, reticulum, omasum, and abomasum (the four compartments of the ruminant stomach) clean easily because grass and other crap was stuck to the inside. So yeah, my take on this is that they'd toss out the bulk of it, but unless the wolfies are out the with a power hose, there is still going to be plant matter attached to the lining of the rumen and reticulum...


A picture is worth a thousand words, Maren. I feel like I'm doing this ](*,) every time I bring up processed produce (or even better, partially digested, such as in green tripe) for dogs.

Not only is what you say indeed true (clear in the UC Gray Wolf videos), but also, wild canids eat small prey without doing any "field dressing" whatsoever.

Wolves do indeed consume small amounts of produce..... "on the hoof" and even "straight," (berries and some young tender greens), and long-distance video proves it.


P.S. Isn't it amazing what conclusions a vet can walk away from this material with? Like stocking the waiting room with shiny bags of cereal? :lol:


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

I hope you keep posting this!


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Connie Sutherland said:


> I hope you keep posting this!


Ditto with Connie!


----------



## Ted White (May 2, 2006)

I love this as well. Very, very interesting. I have another 50 lbs of kidneys, lungs, trachea, heart, RMBs and tripe arriving next week.

I've still been (over)steaming veggie mix + fruit, then puree. He gets a tablespoon or so 2x daily. 

#1 he loves it

#2 it can't be BAD, right?

#3 In the overcooked, pureed state, any nutritional elements are more easily absorbed. 

Let's face it. There are compounds in vegetation that are critical to humans, so it stands to reason that there may be some benefit for dogs. That's my story, anyway.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Ted White said:


> I've still been (over)steaming veggie mix + fruit, then puree. He gets a tablespoon or so 2x daily.
> 
> #1 he loves it
> 
> ...


If you give fruit, I think it should be in very small amounts and very low-sugar. For several reasons, sugar seems to be even worse for dogs than it is for us. I limit fruit to berries and the very occasional small bite of other low-sugar fruits.

Anyway, Ted, that's what I do too, if I don't have green tripe or soft summer produce, and I often don't.

I'm talking small amounts.... not much more than the amount of organ meats I add. Easily kept on hand in the freezer, so not something I process every week or anything.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

P.S. I have only had one dog that I remember who didn't love mushed-up produce.

Scavenger is a good label for the dogs I have known! :lol:


----------



## Ted White (May 2, 2006)

I use apples, generally. Peels and meat, no cores (seeds). My little mix is mostly veggie blend.


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

Maren Bell Jones said:


> Well, I can definitely say that if a wolf, coyote, etc just killed a small ruminant like a deer, it would likely shake out the contents of the stomach. However, we couldn't manually get our cow rumen, reticulum, omasum, and abomasum (the four compartments of the ruminant stomach) clean easily because grass and other crap was stuck to the inside. So yeah, my take on this is that they'd toss out the bulk of it, but unless the wolfies are out the with a power hose, there is still going to be plant matter attached to the lining of the rumen and reticulum, etc (note the shape designed for abrasion and increasing surface area):



I wonder if this isn't an indicator that they don't need it in their diet. Or at least don't need it in high amounts. Doesn't mean they won't eat bits of it, like you said the parts they don't shake or what is in a smaller animal that they eat whole. But I doubt they are digesting, or need, the hair on those animals, doesn't stop them from eating that part also.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Kadi Thingvall said:


> I wonder if this isn't an indicator that they don't need it in their diet. Or at least don't need it in high amounts. Doesn't mean they won't eat bits of it, like you said the parts they don't shake or what is in a smaller animal that they eat whole. But I doubt they are digesting, or need, the hair on those animals, doesn't stop them from eating that part also.


That is indeed what the prey-model folks maintain.

Having seen those UC videos (The Yellowstone Wolf Project) of grey wolves eating fallen berries and tender greens (ferns) along rivers, even in prey-plenty times, I think they actually do choose to eat a small (very small, compared to the total diet) amount of produce.

And they do shake out the stomach of the big ungulates (and in animals with more than one stomach they shake out one: I think it's the first one, if I recall correctly, or the least-digested one, but devour the rest).

Depending on the nearness of any threat of food competition, they would return sometimes and devour the stomach contents. (I guess it could also be interpreted that they hate the damned stomach contents but will come back and eat it if they don't find immediate new prey.)

So I feed small amounts. I guess my goal is not to omit something that the animal would eat in the wild, since the dog can't instinctively correct his diet.

I don't include anything with stiff cell walls (think broccoli stems) because canids don't eat anything like that, as far as I know, in the wild.

I know people who feed no produce but green tripe. I don't have a steady source, though.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

The hair may serve as poop-moving fiber. At least, that has been postulated.


----------



## Ted White (May 2, 2006)

I can't imagine the foul taste and high acidity of stomach contents. Easy to see how that would be avoided unless it was really bad times.


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

When I lived in Oregon I had blackberries, rasberries, blue berries, apples and pears in my yard. The dogs ate all of them. They would also get into the garden and eat things like tomatos if they could. Each dog did have a preference though, you would find one carefully picking the black berries while another was chowing down on windfall apples. Now that I'm in S CA they eat oranges, the occasional lemon or lime, and avacados. I'm not sure if they really need them, or if they just like to eat them, kind of the dog version of a candy bar. 

I have some pup people who feed a raw diet, meat only, and their dogs seem to thrive on it. But I don't think some fruits and veggies can hurt, and on the off chance there is some vitamin or mineral in there they need, if I was going total raw I think I'd include some of it, just in case.

In the case of the hair, I suspect it's just a case of it being easier to eat small prey whole. Otherwise I think we'd see wild dogs/wolves eating the skin/hair of larger prey, and I don't believe they do (correct me if I'm wrong), unless there isn't anything else around to eat or it's just attached to the chunk of meat they are eating, and not worth avoiding. But they don't tear off strips of skin/hair specifically to eat.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Ted White said:


> I can't imagine the foul taste and high acidity of stomach contents. Easy to see how that would be avoided unless it was really bad times.



Bad times indeed! :lol:


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Kadi Thingvall said:


> I have some pup people who feed a raw diet, meat only, and their dogs seem to thrive on it. But I don't think some fruits and veggies can hurt, and on the off chance there is some vitamin or mineral in there they need, if I was going total raw I think I'd include some of it, just in case.


While dogs don't have salivary amylase like humans, they do have taste buds that detect sweet/sugar whereas cats do not. So it makes sense that's fine to add some fruits and veggies. I don't have a problem with that.  My dogs sometimes get the tops of peppers, an occasional tangerine slice, a little bit of apple or pear...no problem.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Two cool (and free) sites:

http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=15 (the book is out of print and 20 years old so a bit out of date, but pretty easy to read)


----------



## Ted White (May 2, 2006)

I had read once that the reason children are so fond of sweets is that it was survival programming. In the wild, generally "safe" foods are sweet. Not sure how accurate that is, but it makes sense.

Ties into Maren's comment about dogs having sugar receptors.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Sweet foods are also typically higher in metabolizable energy (i.e.-calories), so it pays in a survival situation to go after the foods that taste like they may be higher in energy. I saw a fascinating seminar talk a few years ago postulating that was why humans love alcohol: primates love sweet, fermentable high energy fruit.


----------



## Ted White (May 2, 2006)

Another good point!


----------



## Ted White (May 2, 2006)

From the PETA site, of all places...

"As you know, there are 20 different types of amino acids, or components of proteins. We need 8 different kinds that our bodies cannot make, and can get these from plants. Dogs, however, need a total of 9, and cats need 11. These extras cannot be found in plant materials. Consequently, these natural carnivores can survive on a vegetarian diet but it isn't ideal."


----------

