# Kibble and Raw



## Ben Thompson (May 2, 2009)

Why is it some people say you should not feed raw and kibble together.. it's one or the other? Is there any data showing it can cause bloat or some other horrible problem?


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

They digest at different rates. Some dogs can handle it some cant. 
Those that do both often do so at different meals.


----------



## Ben Thompson (May 2, 2009)

Bob Scott said:


> They digest at different rates. Some dogs can handle it some cant.
> Those that do both often do so at different meals.


 Is it true though? Or is it a internet rumor? Seems like all food goes through the system at about the same raite.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Fresh meat takes about 3 to 6 hours and kibble takes about 8 to 12.



There are a couple of issues, including the time it takes kibble to digest, unnaturally slowing the passage through the system of any raw meat eaten with it.

Dogs, scavengers that they are, has two major defenses against illness from food-borne pathogens: very caustic stomach acid and a fast trip from mouth to the the other end, allowing pathogens very little opportunity to colonize and cause illness. (Humans have a loooooooong digestive system.)

So two things I don't do to screw up these natural mechanisms are keep a dog on raw if he needs an antacid for some reason, and unnaturally slow the passage of raw through the G.I. system.



This make 7,392 threads on this topic. :lol:


----------



## Ben Thompson (May 2, 2009)

Connie Sutherland said:


> Fresh meat takes about 3 to 6 hours and kibble takes about 8 to 12.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I feed canned and kibble both brands "wellness core". I give raw meat as high value treats in training for certain exercises like focused healing. 

In the past I have fed kibble to all my dogs and meat on occassion. Never had a dog get cancer knock on wood. The only major intestinal problems they had were when a dog swallowed a bone that was too large. Thankfully no surgery was needed.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Ben Thompson said:


> I feed canned and kibble both brands "wellness core". I give raw meat as high value treats in training for certain exercises like focused healing.
> 
> In the past I have fed kibble to all my dogs and meat on occassion. Never had a dog get cancer knock on wood. The only major intestinal problems they had were when a dog swallowed a bone that was too large. Thankfully no surgery was needed.



I was talking about food-borne pathogens .... nothing about cancer.

BTW, canned is not in the slow-digesting category that kibble is. 


PS
Many people feed kibble and raw. Many dogs are fine with it. 

And many dogs are fine until the one time they get an overload of pathogens and get very sick.


----------



## Bart Karmich (Jul 16, 2010)

Connie Sutherland said:


> Fresh meat takes about 3 to 6 hours and kibble takes about 8 to 12.


How do you know? Have you actually timed it? I suppose the meal could be tagged with dye or markers, but even if the meal arrives in the colon sooner or later the dog will hold it there until it has an opportunity to eliminate. But supposing the raw transverses the stomach and small intestine more quickly and is just stored in the colon longer, what exactly is the mechanism that slows the kibble down?

I feed raw and kibble (in separate meals) and the timing of my dog's stools is consistent. He stools at about 12 hour intervals.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Bart Karmich said:


> How do you know?


I've studied canine nutrition both in and out of university classes for almost 15 years.

I am surprised at your dog not pooping a fresh-food meal for 12 hours. 



This really is one of dozens of threads, many very detailed, on this topic. 





ETA
My implication wasn't "so I must be right." I'm as good at being wrong as anyone. It was only that I didn't get my info from "internet rumor." :lol:


Also, yes, transit times and gastric emptying are measured by a radiographic marker technique (and probably other techniques I don't know).


----------



## Jessica Kromer (Nov 12, 2009)

I have been asked to back up my opinion on this many times... soooo..... Here is my canned response that I have used a number of times...

The saved link I had on my computer is gone But after some looking, I found another! 

http://edepot.wur.nl/198410

Starting at the top of page 22 of the study (not the PDF) is the most relevant. I will quote here: 


> Ambjerg (1992) studied the time of passage of various commercial food items through the stomach of dogs (25-30 kg) by radiography. The types of food used were (1) dried food with 10% moisture, (2) canned food with 70% moisture and (3) fresh food (fish) with 75% moisture.
> 
> After food ingestion the animals had no access to water or to any other type of liquid.
> 
> ...


They do acknowledge that there were flaws to the studies:



> However, this method is not very accurate due to problems with determining the very beginning of gastric emptying; besides, radiographs were taken at intervals of 60 min (Arnbjerg, 1992).


But the results were congruent with a later study:


> The results of fresh meat emptying are in agreement with the results for labelled chicken liver reported by Cullen and Kelly (1996) who found a gastric emptying time of 214 ± 14 min, including a lag phase of 71 ± 9 min.


Later in the study, they begin talking about intestinal transit time. There is a bunch there, but they summarize with:


> The results suggest that both small intestinal emptying time and transit time correlate positively with gastric emptying time.


This is a study done SPECIFICALLY on the length of time it takes to digest different types of food. It shows that raw goes through MUCH more quickly than kibble, and my common sense tells me that I don't want the raw sitting in the gut for three times at it would naturally. 

If I were to feed both, I would space the feedings out by 12 hours, as a precaution. I also wear a seat belt and pay for earthquake insurance, as a precaution


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Good memory, Jessica!



(BTW, the "later study" cited mentions JJ Cullen [the Cullen in Cullen and Kelly] -- a name that figures prominently in G.I. research material on dogs [and swine, horses, rats, monkeys, etc.] .... a good name to look for to get jump-started when seeking this kind of material. JMO!)


----------



## Ben Thompson (May 2, 2009)

Connie Sutherland said:


> Fresh meat takes about 3 to 6 hours and kibble takes about 8 to 12.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So some of your dogs have been taken off raw in the past you feel the antacid would keep them from being able to handle the raw meat?


----------



## leslie cassian (Jun 3, 2007)

Ben Thompson said:


> So some of your dogs have been taken off raw in the past you feel the antacid would keep them from being able to handle the raw meat?


_Dogs, scavengers that they are, has two major defenses against illness from food-borne pathogens: *very caustic stomach acid *and a fast trip from mouth to the the other end_

Seems obvious to me.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

leslie cassian said:


> _Dogs, scavengers that they are, has two major defenses against illness from food-borne pathogens: *very caustic stomach acid *and a fast trip from mouth to the the other end_
> 
> Seems obvious to me.



If one of my dogs needed an antacid for some reason, yes, I would stop raw for that time.


----------



## Faisal Khan (Apr 16, 2009)

My dogs are the exceptions here. Been feeding raw and kibble in any and all combinations together with no issues whatsoever. Both are very healthy and super active.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Faisal Khan said:


> My dogs are the exceptions here. Been feeding raw and kibble in any and all combinations together with no issues whatsoever. Both are very healthy and super active.




Many feed raw and kibble. Many have no problem.


----------



## Betsie Janson (Jan 2, 2012)

http://blog.k9cuisine.com/dog-food-nutrition/tag/dry-dog-food/

Feeding both is not harmful, nor is it an unusual or new practice. It has been done as long as kibble has been around, and then before that, grains were fed with meats. All premium dog athletes are on some sort of blended raw and kibble diet, with no performance or GI issues. The digestive rate debate has been around for a while, yet is there any study or evidence as to the proof of harm? Most is just assumptive.


----------



## mel boschwitz (Apr 23, 2010)

I got a kick out of "All premium dog athletes are on some sort of blended raw and kibble diet."

Really, ALL?

Omniscient too?


----------



## Bart Karmich (Jul 16, 2010)

Connie Sutherland said:


> I am surprised at your dog not pooping a fresh-food meal for 12 hours.


So if I feed my dog a raw meal at 6PM he is going to eliminate at 9PM, 10 or 11? It won't happen. He's in the house after 9 and he won't ask to go outside until the next morning at about 7AM. I fed him exclusively raw for about two years and this was consistent. The only time he would ask to go outside at midnight is if he had diarreah. I am sure if he wanted to eliminate normally he would have asked just the same.

Now the study that used radiography to watch the food's location at different times could be interesting. Like I wrote earlier, it could be interesting to know if the food is hung up in the stomach or just waiting in the colon. It seems like the water content might have a lot to do with how quickly the food moves to the duodenum.

I am not convinced that "clean" (meaning from processes suitable for human food) and refrigerated raw food has more pathogens that kibble. It is more likely to have some pathogens that humans are particularly vulnerable to like e coli, salmonella, and campylobacter but I don't believe it has a comparatively larger amount of pathogens unless it's stored in a way that they are allowed conditions and time to grow a large colony. I don't see the dogs intestines as a good location for colonization whether its for 3 hours or 12.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Bart Karmich said:


> I am not convinced that "clean" (meaning from processes suitable for human food) and refrigerated raw food has more pathogens that kibble. It is more likely to have some pathogens that humans are particularly vulnerable to like e coli, salmonella, and campylobacter but I don't believe it has a comparatively larger amount of pathogens unless it's stored in a way that they are allowed conditions and time to grow a large colony. I don't see the dogs intestines as a good location for colonization whether its for 3 hours or 12.


Interesting. Why do you you not see these as pathogens that dogs are also vulnerable to if exposed in large enough numbers or if allowed to proliferate because of modified stomach acid or transit time?

Why this (for clarification): _I don't see the dogs intestines as a good location for colonization whether its for 3 hours or 12._?

Dogs do sometimes become ill from e coli, salmonella, and campylobacter.


----------



## Bart Karmich (Jul 16, 2010)

Connie Sutherland said:


> Interesting. Why do you you not see these as pathogens that dogs are also vulnerable to if exposed in large enough numbers or if allowed to proliferate because of modified stomach acid or transit time?
> 
> Why this (for clarification): _I don't see the dogs intestines as a good location for colonization whether its for 3 hours or 12._?
> 
> Dogs do sometimes become ill from e coli, salmonella, and campylobacter.


I can only speculate since I have not studied this. But I would suspect that a dog is more likely to become ill when it has ingested a large colony of one of those bacteria and the waste toxins they produce. I believe consuming spoiled, rancid meat is a much greater risk than the dog eating clean food and waiting to poop.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Bart Karmich said:


> I would suspect that a dog is more likely to become ill when it has ingested a large colony of one of those bacteria and the waste toxins they produce.


Oh, yes, no argument from me on that at all.


----------



## Howard Gaines III (Dec 26, 2007)

But if kibble is processed into a cereal form, which most are, why would it take that long to break down? Considering when wet it falls apart very fast...


----------



## Betsie Janson (Jan 2, 2012)

Looks like I forgot the "almost" all, to be clear and technical as there is exception to every rule. 

However, standard sled dog and racing dog (premium athletes) feeding practices use both raw and kibble, grain and meat; I have talked to many, as well as many Veterinarian nutritionists studying this level of high end performance nutrition.


----------



## Craig Snyder (May 7, 2012)

I think the point being made is that animals that eat meat have developed systems that process food that CAN be rancid through their systems faster as a natural adaptation. I disagree with that. It's just a faster process to breakdown meats and proteins than grains, vegtables and carbs.

Kibble definitely has the potential to carry pathogens but on average, it is much less likley too. Just the heat treatments requried to make kibble will destroy most pathogens. Pathogens in kibble are more likely to come from untreated or improperly treated additive fats and greases that are often added after the initial kibble is made. 

Manufacturers over the years have tended to keep the fat and grease content down to the bare minimums as marketing studies showed that the average pet owner, (primarily the house wife that historically had the primary responsibility for feeding the family pet), was turned off by seeing the grease on the walls of the bags and when having to touch the food or wash a dog dish, disliked the greasy feel. Hence why so many typical commercial store brands are way too low in fats and oils for most working dogs. (cost was also a factor)

(Disclosure: a close friend owns a kibble manufacturing pet food plant that provides custom kibble to many of the premimum kibble brands)

Vegtables and grains must be held longer to allow the body to extract the nutrients from them and give the naturally occuring bacteria as well as the acids in their systems time to break them down. With meats, there isn't the need to hold them in the body as long to get the nutritional benefit from them. I dont' think the length of time in the system has much to do with disease prevention.

I toatlly agree meat is processed faster but I would tend to disagree that processing meat faster does anything to help prevent infection from tainted or rancid meat. Once in the body, the body is contaminated. 2-3 hrs vs 12 hrs is insignificant. Once in the body for 30 minutes or more it wouldn't much matter. If a pathogen is going to take root and infect the animal its going to whether 30 minutes or 12 hrs.. I would say it has more to do with the general health of the animal and it's natural ability of the digestive tract to deal with a particular pathogen. I'm sure there are a few pathogens where 2-3 hrs vs. 12 hrs. might play a small role in infection but I think it would be a very, very small minority of the pathogens out there.

All stomachs are acidic and one reason is to kill anything that arrives in it. It's been noted how much more corrosive dogs systems are than humans. But human gastic contents run between 1.35 to 3.5 pH. Dogs can run as low as 1.0 to 2.5. Not a huge difference. It's more likely that when a pathogen does get into the dog, the dog's immune system is better at destroying it than humnas. And vice versa for humnas. Humans have things that they can process/eat/deal with that dogs and other animals can't. For instance, the canine parvovirus does not affect humans, (there are human parvovirus's but they are different strains then canine and they have very mild affects in humans).

It's more likely that any infection is a result of the pathogen being introdced to the body via other means than via the stomach and intestines. For people, we handle our food with our hands and then if we rub our eyes, scratch our nose, rub our ear, we can introduce the pathogen any number of ways. Doctors have been suggesting in the past few years that most colds and viruses are spread by hand contact followed by touching of the face or eyes. 

Dogs just grab food and swallow it. Resident time in the mouth and esophagus is minimal and measured in seconds. There is no acid, (to speak of, compared to the stomach), in our mouth and throats so any pathogens can take root there or find their way into our airways as well. Humans chew their food, savor it even, and even breathe through their mouths while chewing. Dogs dont' savor their food but again, just swallow it.

My dogs, as well as most everyones, have eaten some of the worse things I can imagine. I know they should have gotten sick! But I can count on one hand how many times my dog has brought stuff back up. It was usually due to them intentionally eating grass until they got sick. I think that is due to a feeling that "Hey.. this aint' going any farther...you need to send it out the other way!" Once done, they were fine. 

I think I would be more concerned with the concept of water content in raw vs the kibble. Feeding them together allows the 70% water content of the raw to be absorbed by the kibble thus diluting the stomach acids that are actually in contact with the kibble and slowing the digestion of the kibble. (I think presoftening the kibble can do the same thing, I prefer smaller servings of kibble more frequently). 

This could actually slow the digestion of the kibble even more and lead to more fiber and content in the lower intestines. It could also lead to less utilization of the kibble than expected.

As a disclosure, I am a kibble feeder and use raw as high value treats. We usually do about 2 cups of kibble a day in two feedings and 1/2 to 1 cup of raw as treats on a 55 -58 lb SAR dog. On training days or searches, I often supplement with 1/2 - 1 can of canned food. I want her to be lean and not carrying any extra weight when we work. (I'm working on that concept for myself and having limited success! :razz

I think raw feeding is great for dogs and have no problems with it. But I think you have to really be careful in doing it to meet all the needs of the dog. If you mix raw and kibble I think you should feed them separately with enough time after the kibble (8-10 hrs) to not interfere with the raw digestion.

Craig


----------



## Jessica Kromer (Nov 12, 2009)

Craig, there were an awful lot of "I think"s, "more likely"s and opinions in there.... Other than you friend that owns a pet food company, what do you base your thoughts on? Personal experience? Interesting that you come to the same opinion/practice from the opposite point of view.


----------



## Ben Thompson (May 2, 2009)

Connie Sutherland said:


> If one of my dogs needed an antacid for some reason, yes, I would stop raw for that time.


Gotcha.


----------



## Ben Thompson (May 2, 2009)

leslie cassian said:


> _Dogs, scavengers that they are, has two major defenses against illness from food-borne pathogens: *very caustic stomach acid *and a fast trip from mouth to the the other end_
> 
> Seems obvious to me.


Obviously I see what is obviously going on here.


----------



## Craig Snyder (May 7, 2012)

I won't put myself out as an expert on food nutrition for sure. A lot of it is IMHO. Take it for what it is worth. My BS degree is in animal science/pre-vet and I have had several courses in animal nutrition. I have done some research and read my share of articles on nutriiton over the years. 

Feel free to investigate any of my claims. The pH values I gave are easy enough to find. I'm more than open to new ideas. The studies quoted earlier in the post all seemed to revolve around resident times in the digestive tract. I didn't see any scientific claims on how this impacted pathogenic infections.

And I agree, I think the over all conclusion is the same. 

But I primarily disagreed with the idea that length of time in the digestive tract has any major impact on infection from pathogens and is a natural adaption of the dog. If I had just said that without espousing any theory behind it, you (or others), would have asked for my reasoning. The natural adaption I believe is due to being exposed to the pathogens over thousands of years as opposed to humans who started cooking their meats thousands of years ago and as a result had a limited survivial need to develop a tolerance or immunity to the pathogens.

I try and read most of the articles that people post here. I'm always open to being critiqued and happy to admit I'm wrong. Other than the articles on resident time in the digestive tract, most everything else I've read in this post has been someone's opinion. You have evaluate each person's opionion yourself. I greatly respect everything Connie posts and always take it seriously. Please don't take anything I said as a personal attack against anybody.

Craig


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

As to the time in a dog's digestive tract compared to a humans, isn't it also related to the dog's tract being relatively shorter then a human's?


----------



## Craig Snyder (May 7, 2012)

Howard Gaines III said:


> But if kibble is processed into a cereal form, which most are, why would it take that long to break down? Considering when wet it falls apart very fast...


It would depend on the content of the ceral and how it is pretreated before being made into kibble. If mostly plant based materials, that is harder for most to digest, humans or dogs. The cell walls of plant based material are not digestible by most animals, (ruminants like cows and goats are the exception and that is due to special bacteria in their rumen's). So it takes longer to get the nutrients out of these usually as opposed to protein based foods like meat and fish. The fiberous material might get smaller and most of the water is extracted, but for the most part, the fiberous materials that goes in, comes out.

You can cook and mill the hell out of plant based materials and make it much easier to digest. But in many cases you also drastically affect the nutritional value of the components that can be extracted out of it in the process. 

Think of the product metamucil for humans. One or two teaspoons that are actually dissolved in water yet it can really tie up your system if you over do it! Here's a link to the main ingredient in it if you have any interest in what it does. You body doesn't break this material down and it has little nutrional value. http://www.botgard.ucla.edu/html/botanytextbooks/economicbotany/Plantago/index.html

Craig


----------



## Craig Snyder (May 7, 2012)

Bob Scott said:


> As to the time in a dog's digestive tract compared to a humans, isn't it also related to the dog's tract being relatively shorter then a human's?


Yes. The study also measured the emptying of the stomach to the digestive tract to and found significant differences between kibble and raw. But again, I don't think the length of time in the digestive tract has any great impact on whether a dog can get sick from pathogens in the meat. It's the acids and the animals immune system response to the pathogen. Not time exposure. 

In fact, the pH of the digestive tract increases as you progress from stomach to colon. So I would think if anything, holding the material longer in the stomach would be more benefical for rancid or infected meats as any pathogens would be exposed to the acids for longer periods and not have the protection of the food to advance into the intestines where they might be able to get into the body proper.

Craig


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

I tend to think in terms of Craig's analysis. I don't think transit time has anything to do with reaction to pathogens. I think this is a matter of immune system and adaptation. I had a dog that unless I flashed the raw meat in boiling water, she became ill. I've also seen similar values for PH in terms of humans vs. dogs. Nor am I convinced that grains are contraindicated for dogs. My problems with commercial kibble have nothing to do with grain content per se. One issue that keeps coming up is saliva enzymes vs. enzymes released by the pancreas. I've been looking for more definitive information of the pancreatic enzymes that are released in dogs for digestion. 

Terrasita


----------



## Jessica Kromer (Nov 12, 2009)

Craig Snyder said:


> I try and read most of the articles that people post here. I'm always open to being critiqued and happy to admit I'm wrong. Other than the articles on resident time in the digestive tract, most everything else I've read in this post has been someone's opinion. You have evaluate each person's opionion yourself. I greatly respect everything Connie posts and always take it seriously. Please don't take anything I said as a personal attack against anybody.
> 
> Craig


Oh no. Nothing like that at all. I just find it interesting that for completely different reasons, you come the same conclusions. My question about your sources have to do with the fact that much of what you said is very different from much of the research I have done, and I don't like to just take someones word for it. I like to read the studies myself... Trust but verify... Like you said, much of what is out there is just a bunch of opinions and anecdotal experiences. Hell, I do it too. I wanna see facts from everybody else! :razz:


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Jessica Kromer said:


> I like to read the studies myself...


I do too. I'm sure many of us do!

And I readily admit that studies and articles from sources trying to sell me something don't usually get the same attention from me that others might.

The article from Laura Duclos (at Nature's Variety) that was posted earlier in the thread, which says _"It is perfectly OK to mix raw. People have been mixing kibble with raw or cans for a long time with no negative effects"_ is from someone who wants to sell me kibble, raw, freeze-dried, and canned commercial foods. While I have nothing against the brand at all, I would much rather get my research, studies, papers, etc., from writers who are NOT trying to sell me the products they're writing about. 

At least that one is clear. Sometimes an article about the horrors of raw meat for dogs or maybe the wonders of flax for dogs make it very tricky to find out that the author is a VP at Hills/Science Diet or the founder of a flaxseed packager/distributor. 

But I digress ..... :lol:


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> One issue that keeps coming up is saliva enzymes vs. enzymes released by the pancreas.
> Terrasita



You mean like grain-processing enzymes such as amylase? (Humans have salivary amylase and dogs don't.)


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Connie Sutherland said:


> You mean like grain-processing enzymes such as amylase? (Humans have salivary amylase and dogs don't.)


 
I know. But is it really that big of a deal whether, there is salivary vs. pancreatiic amylase?

T


----------



## Craig Snyder (May 7, 2012)

A look at amylase in wikipedi cites an American Scientist article with the following: 

"Carbohydrates are an energy rich food source. Amylase is thought to have played a key role in human evolution in allowing humans an alternative to fruit and protein. A duplication of the pancreatic amylase gene developed independently in humans and rodents, further suggesting its importance. The salivary amylase levels found in the human lineage are six to eight times higher in humans than in chimpanzees, which are mostly fruit eaters and ingest little starch relative to humans."

Amylase's primary role is to begin breakdown of starches like those found in potatoes and rice. Not a food dogs would have had a chance to get. So it makes sense that dogs never evolved it in saliva as Connie said. I didn't know that fact. By pretreating the starches with saliva it can help speed digestion. One thing I found interesting was that saliva amylase causes the starches to begin to breakdown almost immediately in the mouth while chewing and yields small amounts of maltose and glucose resulting in a sweeter flavor to people than what the starchy food normally would taste like. Dogs not having that capability wouldn't find starchy foods as tasty. Humans would be more attracted to starches and thus a more varied diet which increased adaptability. Thus it became an advantage in the evolution process. Interestingly, chimps and the giant apes have much, much lower saliva amylase levels. 

Other than that, I didn't see any huge difference between saliva and pancreatic amylase. At least not in the few articles I was able to scan on the net.

Craig


Amylase is also responsible for creating the sugars in ripening fruit.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> .... is it really that big of a deal whether, there is salivary vs. pancreatiic amylase?
> 
> T


Briefly (and of course, JMO):

The pancreas of a dog who is fed his protein in plant form (say, for example, a commercial food based on corn) is forced to produce amylase in quantities that it would not produce in natural conditions. (The mouth, jaw, teeth, and G.I. system of a dog are obviously those of an animal evolved to eat primarily meat.)

The question for me goes far beyond what sounds simple (is lack of salivary amylase a big deal) into how the dog's G.I. system is designed and what it's designed to digest.

The dog's saliva didn't evolve with digestive enzymes in it. Canids rip and tear and swallow -- very different from the grinding/pulverizing of a plant-eater. The raw prey they evolved eating "comes with" enzymes (like catalase and lipase). The enzymes in raw meat work to break down the meat (the way the lipase in raw fat breaks it down) in the dog's body.

They don't have flat-surface teeth (perfect for grains) and they don't have the enzymes in their spit to start the breakdown of those grains. 

Feeding them as if they were herbivores puts an unnatural burden on the pancreas .... which if the dog is eating the mostly-meat diet he evolved eating produces only small amounts of grain-processing enzymes. (Wild canids do eat small prey in its entirety, including the in-process vegetation in its gut, and other plant matter in small amounts.)

This is a very short and over-simplified answer, of course. But I hope it helps to illuminate why I think it does matter that the dog doesn't have the saliva that an herbivore has (or the teeth, or the jaw action, or the digestive system).

All JMO! 




ETA
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I think there are some really good commercial foods. I believe that if I chose to, I could feed my dogs well using all commercial products. 

None of this post says otherwise. Even the actual topic, about mixing kibble and raw, isn't about not feeding kibble; it's simply about not mixing it with raw (IMO).


----------



## Craig Snyder (May 7, 2012)

Can't disagree at all Connie. I agree. Dogs have never had a grain and cerel diet. Trying to feed them like cow is not good.

As Connie indicated, kibbel is not the issue. It is what the kibble is made with, how it's made, how much or how little you feed and what else you choose to feed your dog.

Craig


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

I don't propose feeding them as a cow and I don't know that say a home based diet that includes even grain based carbohydrates is a "burden" on the pancreas or otherwise harmful to the GI tract. I don't necesarily consider them strictly carnivores either. Again, I'm not a commercial kibble fan on multiple levels. At best its just convenient.

Terrasita


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> I don't know that say a home based diet that includes even grain based carbohydrates is a "burden" on the pancreas ....
> 
> Terrasita


Neither do I. 

Not at all what I said or what I meant to say. If that's how my post came across, then I blew it big time. :lol:

_"Feeding them as if they were herbivores puts an unnatural burden on the pancreas"_ is what I said ..... meaning _"a dog who is fed his protein in plant form (say, for example, a commercial food based on corn) ..." _

_"Wild canids do eat small prey in its entirety, including the in-process vegetation in its gut, and other plant matter in small amounts."_

As we've discussed in many posts here, I don't even think grain-free kibble is some fabulous improvement when it means that whole grains are replaced by something like a lot of white potato.

It's grain-BASED kibble, kibble whose protein comes largely from something like wheat gluten or corn, that I meant by "feeding them as if they were herbivores."


----------



## Marta Wajngarten (Jul 30, 2006)

If you need any illustration on how slowly kibble goes through them, just get your dog to throw up a few hours after breakfast. They usually upchuck some still very well formed kibbles as if they just ate them 15min ago.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Marta Wajngarten said:


> If you need any illustration on how slowly kibble goes through them, just get your dog to throw up a few hours after breakfast. They usually upchuck some still very well formed kibbles as if they just ate them 15min ago.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Marta Wajngarten said:


> If you need any illustration on how slowly kibble goes through them, just get your dog to throw up a few hours after breakfast. They usually upchuck some still very well formed kibbles as if they just ate them 15min ago.


I've seen the same with non-kibble and meat only. As I said, I'm not a kibble fan. At best its convenient. Ours seem to do best with cooked homemade supplemented with raw turkey necks. 

T


----------



## Craig Snyder (May 7, 2012)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> I don't propose feeding them as a cow and I don't know that say a home based diet that includes even grain based carbohydrates is a "burden" on the pancreas or otherwise harmful to the GI tract. I don't necesarily consider them strictly carnivores either. Again, I'm not a commercial kibble fan on multiple levels. At best its just convenient.
> 
> Terrasita


I'm sorry, I didn't mean you personally. I was talking in generalities. Primarily kibble manufacturers.


----------



## Edward Weiss (Sep 19, 2011)

Got a question about peanut butter.
My dogs attack bones with a bit wiped into the hollow center(marrow space)as if they were on crack.
Just go nuts for it. Any info on its nutrirtional value in dogs.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Edward Weiss said:


> Got a question about peanut butter.
> My dogs attack bones with a bit wiped into the hollow center(marrow space)as if they were on crack.
> Just go nuts for it. Any info on its nutrirtional value in dogs.


I give meds, etc.., with it. And I've used it smeared inside Kong-type toys.

It has some trace minerals (although pretty much trace minerals that are not hard to find in a varied diet) and also niacin and E, and maybe other vitamins.*

It's pretty good in protein, a little high in fat. Your method of smearing it around inside the Kong or whatever instead of filling it is a good idea. As you say, they will still work away at it. :lol:

I don't buy the salted, sugared ones. Most of those are really riddled with salt and sometimes three kinds of sugar. Luckily, the straight one-ingredient ground-peanuts ones are no longer pricey or hard to find.

Dogs can be allergic to peanuts, of course. But that's true of any protein food. 

Peanuts don't contain the toxic (to dogs) compounds that some tree nuts do, though (particularly macadamias). I think peanuts are really in the legume family.

All JMO.





*and K


----------



## Edward Weiss (Sep 19, 2011)

Connie Sutherland said:


> I give meds, etc.., with it. And I've used it smeared inside Kong-type toys.
> 
> It has some trace minerals (although pretty much trace minerals that are not hard to find in a varied diet) and also niacin and E, and maybe other vitamins.
> 
> ...


Thanks


----------



## Craig Snyder (May 7, 2012)

Edward Weiss said:


> Got a question about peanut butter.
> My dogs attack bones with a bit wiped into the hollow center(marrow space)as if they were on crack.
> Just go nuts for it. Any info on its nutrirtional value in dogs.


Not my favorite thing to feed my dogs. My dogs LOVE it though. We use it primarily when we have either a lot of pills or difficult pills to stuff down their throat. (for instance, the first week after Meadow's TPLO surgeries). We only use organic, no sugar/salt added brands for the dogs. I SHOULD use that for myself but I grew up on Skippy, what can I say. 

My wife does make some homemade peanut butter flavored dog treats and a homemade peanut butter flavored frozen yogurt that she stuffs their kongs with and freezes for a special summertime treat once in while. I often take a frozen kong on training with me and give it too her after being run and she cools down a bit and I put her up in her crate. 

Almost like anything else, a little bit once in awhile won't do any harm. I wouldn't make it a primary or even a regular component of my dogs daily diet. But for special treats and a fun diversion for the dog once in a while I think it's great.

There are a lot of benefits from peanut butter. It's a great food for active people, has a nice balance of carbs and protein, carries a good calorie content and is cheap. 

All just MHO.

Craig


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

straying off topic a bit, but how about nutritional benefits of antlers ?
i have a client whose dog had a horrible guarding issue with em and convinced them to take em out of the picture.... a year later they want to give it back to the dog ... it grabs it, chews a min or so and then guards it ... anyone coming within 3-4 feet gets a growl and it's not an invitation to play
...forgetting the behavior issues which i don't want to go into, and all the various types of horns, cleaning methods, age and countries of origin, etc....

Q : is there anywhere that clearly states the nutritional value in various antlers besides some trace minerals and calcium, etc ? i've only found one list (from an antler supplier) 
- owners think it is VERY nutritious and infinitely safer than a dangerous raw neck bone, etc 

...i am looking for something that might show it is mostly a chewing pacifier than a supplement


----------

