Very interesting research from the Swedish/US team lead by Eric Axelsson of Upsala Uni.

The domestic dogs 'natural' diet is to include starch (rice/potatoe) as this was how the domesticated dog evolved.
(Note: for the food fascists or semantic dissecters - I put 'is to' not 'has to')

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/01/dog-domestication-tied-to-starch.html?ref=hp

No surprises but fascinating to see the genome, the strands etc stripped down and identified.
( I viewed the full research paper on a Published Med site but couldn't link you have to be a member)

I read that too; it explains perfectly why dogs can eat carbs and digest starch perfectly well and yet according to the FFs this is akin to poisoning them.

When I studies canine nutrition years ago it was said that dogs needed -
Fats - fatty acids, glycerol and some glycerides
Proteins - peptides, amino-acids
Carbohydrates - simple sugars

Some dietary fibre was needed
Some carbohydrates need to be either cooked or pre-digested others could be digested raw.

Saw the report on this in The Telegraph this morning but did not dare post :-p

> it explains perfectly why dogs can eat carbs and digest starch perfectly well

But not all can... although they may have evolved that way, it doesn't preclude individual animals from having intolerances/allergies. I chose to feed my dog/s on a grain-free diet, as one has issues with wheat and possibly also rice. He does however get blitzed veg and raw carrots, so I am sure he is digesting the starches in those.

My sister went over to raw feeding about 16/17 years ago after being unable to find a kibble that suited her GSD (there was less variety then and no grain-free). I saw the dog 6 months after the change-over and couldn't believe it was the same dog - calm, healthy, with great skin and coat (as opposed to hyperactive, underweight with very poor skin and coat on any kind of kibble).

But not all can

Think this is probable for the same reason that humans are becoming more and more prone to allergic reactions, food intolerance and infection, it is because we are not experiencing enough of the world in our youth and so develop no natural immunity or tolerance.

> because we are not experiencing enough of the world in our youth and so develop no natural immunity or tolerance

How does that equate to a dog which was weaned and raised on kibble, which later develops an allergy/intolerance?

Just the same as a child that develops an intolerance to milk.

The body needs to experience a wide number of substances whilst still developing - it is also probable that in the case of dogs neutering does not help either as if done early it curtails correct development. Given the opportunity all young of whatever species will rummage in 'the gutters' of their surroundings sampling anything that comes to hand or mouth. You must have heard the saying "what does not kill you will make you better".

> Just the same as a child that develops an intolerance to milk.
> The body needs to experience a wide number of substances whilst still developing

As kibble can contain any number of different carbs (and other ingredients) then I'm not seeing what you mean.

>although they may have evolved that way, it doesn't preclude individual animals from having intolerances/allergies.

Of course not, just as some people can't tolerate milk, or peanuts. For the species as a whole, though, they're perfectly safe and nutritious.

Thanks JG, that is exactly what I mean.

Oh crikey-just when I thought Id got things straight!

> it explains perfectly why dogs can eat carbs and digest starch perfectly

I've raw fed - with grains - for over 13 years and still maintain that a dog that is fed a very varied diet is all the healthier for it. I've kept on feeding grains with raw despite feeling like putting my head above the parapet if I mention it on here :) :) :) :) Two very healthy dogs 14+ and nearly 11 who eat everything and never have stomach upsets can't be a bad advert for it :) :)

Maybe that explains why my Maisie is doing so well on her Chappie!

I do wish we had a "like" button facility.

Such user and sensible posting here, nothing for me to add just  my appreciation.

The dogs that survived domestication were the ones that adapted to thrive on human's leftovers, and they've had over 10,000 years to perfect it; the ones that couldn't digest whatever the humans were eating died.

But it's really good to have scientific evidence to support those of us who have instinctively known that we weren't harming our dogs by feeding them foods containing grains and starch, despite what the FFs have thrown at us. :-)

Psst JG what's an FF?

> Psst JG what's an FF?

:-D  I think it is Food Fanatic but I suppose it could be something much, much ruder :)

Much like Daisy my dogs get a mixture of raw and kibble, I never preach or try and convert others though because I'm very aware that dogs do well on whatever you feed them. While I look at my own healthy, fit, shiny coated dogs and smile I know that I will also meet dogs on walks that are fed the cheapest grain filled foods and are still running around with shiny coats, I guess ths explains why :-D

> I think it is Food Fanatic but I suppose it could be something much, much ruder

Thank you, I'm going with Food Fanatic in my head :-)

> because I'm very aware that dogs do well on whatever you feed them

Yes - but - some owners say that they never give their dogs anything other than their kibble because, if they do, they get an upset stomach. I can't help feeling that the reason for this is because the dog never gets any variety other than it's kibble - if you see what I mean :) :)

When I saw this it did occur to me that this was one of those pieces of research that rather went to prove the blindingly obvious :) 
Talking of research though, this piece was a bit more of a surprise.  Who knew?
I vote we stick together and never, never show THEM that :)

>Psst JG what's an FF?

Food Fascist, as in the opening post. :-)

Food Fascist, as in the opening post. :-)

It has always struck me as strange how a small percentage of people seem to have a religious fervour about what they feed their dogs, fair enough that is up to them, but its when they evangelise to others that there may be problems. It is easy to give people the feeling that they are either inadequate or that they should spend more than they can afford.

> its when they evangelise to others that there may be problems. It is easy to give people the feeling that they are either inadequate or that they should spend more than they can afford.

As with our own diets, dog food 'ideas' develop over time and are influenced by experience.  There isn't one right way for every owner, and most of us learn as we go along what suits our dogs.  In many cases we can make the odd tweak here and there for preference and budget.  If you have a dog with intolerances, or a medical condition that can be improved by diet OR god forbid you've had a dog with bloat it can make you much more aware of the problems caused by food.  That said, it's enough to simply pass on the information and of course no need to bash someone around the head with it!

Do we have any genuine food fascists on CD?  I know we have people, such as myself, who tend to contribute to such topics - so regular readers will be aware of our dogs and their food issues - but I'm not aware that there is much preaching going on...

> Do we have any genuine food fascists on CD?

Definately not as we used to!  Oh my!  :) :)

I think it is important to get this kind of research in the right perspective because people will use it to justify whatever they want.

What this tells us is that dogs are more capable of digesting starches than wolves.

It does not tell us in any way that dogs require starch etc.

I feel it is dangerous to draw such a conclusion from this study because, for example, we have no idea if the genes that enable dogs to be better at digesting starch are actually linked to the genes responsible for allergies or other autoimmune problems. So it may not be a good thing at all.

What we can be sure of is that people will decide on their dog's diet based on many factors including convenience, price, health, time... And that is their choice and they should be able to access information about all the choices easily.

> And that is their choice and they should be able to access information about all the choices easily.

Of course :) I feel that people with a new puppy/dog should feel encouraged to experiment with food with their dog (sensibly, of course) rather than just stick to one brand from the beginning :) :)

Good point shiv

It makes sense that quite aside from degrees of tameness that enabled them to live closer to humans, the very early dogs/proto-wolves perhaps evolved digestive variations that enabled them to scavenge more effectively alongside nomads/ village dumps. Meat would probably be quite a scarce resource in some communities so early dogs would have had to be able to live on other human food waste (including fecal matter) in order to make best use of that ecological niche.

>What this tells us is that dogs are more capable of digesting starches than wolves.

>It does not tell us in any way that dogs require starch etc.

>I feel it is dangerous to draw such a conclusion from this study....

Which, Shivj, is exactly why I put in the OP
(Note: for the food fascists and semantic dissecters - I put 'is to' and not 'has to')

I feel it is equally as dangerous to *not* share information so I am very as to why you would think the OP does 'draw such a conclusion from this study' given what I have had to repeat above in bold was stated at the time?

As it seems clarification is needed:
I posted this research because

1) There still appears to be a common mantra in the dog world of the 'natural diet'  that is often seen hand in hand with 'the diet of Wolves'
(Much like the now de-bunked Wolf pack behaviours and the Dominance Myth, there are still those that bandy it around)
I believe an awerness of the research allows those that feed and are happy with the level of nutrition their dog is recieving on canine diets that include rice, potato et al. To feel not quite as 'un-natural' as some would have them believe. In the interest of fairness and balance.
 
   Semantics at play ( as I'd predicted in the OP ) as to what one person and the next person will call ( or translate to be) 'natural'..... But none the less whatever camp you set yourself in the fact remains through evolution some canine genomes can now do perfectly fine on a balanced diet that includes food sources that previously would not have been processed by a Wolf genome!

2) As I stated originally, the actual science ( for those who enjoy genetics etc ) in the research paper itself is very interesting.

HTH :-D

I think from my perspective we all know that it is Glucose and not Starch that is biologically 'needed' anyway!

I personally have no drum to bang regards starch ~ but I do think the semantics surrounding canid and Wolf 'natural' diets as they stand today needs to be more inclusive than selectively deaf. 

I do think this makes sense. Coppinger argues that dogs that could live alongside humans effectively will most likely have been the ones whose digestive system adapted or changed, those that couldn't would not pass their genes on. Perhaps the many genes that are involved in tameness have some kind of dietary component too (hope this doesn't sound too mad). The pet food industry is very new, there has been no evolutionary/adaptive process enabling only dogs that can tolerate a highly processed diet to survive. Artificial selection which is inherent in any domesticated species means that adaptive as well as non-adaptive genes will proliferate. Also I wouldn't be surprised if you get genetic throwbacks with some dogs more wolflike in terms of their digestion and therefore less able to tolerate certain if not all starch forms.

There are also differences between types of wolf- it is not clear that the grey wolf is the only/ancestor of the dog. 

Huskygal, you seem to think I'm accusing you of something. I assume this is because I posted in 'reply' to the first post, sorry if this has provoked you. However my points are not really in reply to you but just added to the thread if that's ok?

> I feel that people with a new puppy/dog should feel encouraged to experiment with food with their dog (sensibly, of course)

Now here I will disagree re puppies.

Puppies grow at an accelerated rate compared to humans, and under and over nutrition (and supplementation) can cause all sorts of developmental issues, especially orthopaedic ones.  Guess who then gets the blame, not the owner but the breeder.

So I would always say unless someone is a nutritional expert do not mess with the feeding of puppies.  It's not worth the risk.

By all means find a brand that suits your pocket, as all UK sold foods have to meet the basic requirements, though I would avoid colourants and sugars as being totally unnecessary to the dog..

> Perhaps the many genes that are involved in tameness have some kind of dietary component too (hope this doesn't sound too mad).

Not mad at all.  The experience with the Russian Fox farms where they selected purely on reduced aggression found that after generations selecting for less aggressive, then actively friendly individuals also had piggy backing with ti genes for white patches, curly tails and floppy ears, and reduced leg length.

Those were just the visible traits.

And that was in a very few generations; the genetic changes over the thousands of generations of domestication will be quite substantial.

Barbara, that would be my rationale too and additionally....

We also know that too much high value protein blocks transport of tryptophan (serotonin precursor) across the blood brain barrier and subsequently this lowers the manufacture of serotonin. There is much research out there to show a relationship between low serotonin and greater aggression, in particular impulsive aggression under threat. It's a case of proteins like meat have large amino acids and these compete with the tryptophan to cross the blood brain barrier. Carbohydrate produces more insulin which diverts many of those large meat protein molecules into muscle tissue enabling more tryptophan to cross the blood brain barrier and more serotonin to be made. Tryptophan is resistant to the diverting effects of insulin.

So it does make sense to me that there may be a relationship between the attenuated aggression thresholds we see in domesticated dogs, compared to wolves and other morphological changes which might well involve changes in biochemistry/hormone levels that regulate aggression thresholds and that are also influenced by diet. That said, this is a highly simplistic explanation and ther are bound to be billions of other factors...still, it's a compelling rationale.

Does anyone know if a Glycemic index for dogs has been published? ( in past 2-3yrs)
I researched this a few years ago but drew a blank... Wondering if its been done subsequently?

> So I would always say unless someone is a nutritional expert do not mess with the feeding of puppies

I understand what you are saying :) I have only experience of raw feeding one puppy and she is now nearly 11 and has had no problems at all - but, of course, 1 isn't a large sample :) :)

I'd be interested to hear from anyone else who has raw fed a puppy. I can't remember hearing on here of anyone having any problems ? ?

Not sure, but this link may be a starting point, though if you've researched you probably know it already- http://www.gripetfoods.com/AwardsProgram.htm

There is a huge difference between rearing pups raw if you know what your doing and advocating it to new puppy owners.

I have a litter that are now 8 months odl.  Al owners are warned to keep pups weight in check, adn what amounts to feed.

Saw couple at our club show with 4 month pup and warned them he was overweight ans not to increase his food until he had grown into the excess, or even reduce it slightly if .

At 7 months she rigns and asks me what weight shoudl a male of teh breed be (obviously didn't read all the cartefully6 preparted breed info whcih includes the breed standard with an appropriate weight).

I know few fit males that weigh 23kg until full maturity.  She told me she had thought it was a typo when she looked it up as he had been 32kg, at 7 months, and she had him down to 26kg.  Oh he had been going lame, and vet advised reduced weight and controlled excersise.

Freelancer,

Thank~you!! That's saved me a bit of trawling! their main site looks a promising start.
Owe you one!

HG, You are most welcome and I hope it is fruitful. I suppose that any good research on canine obesity or canine diabetes vis a vis diet/insulin resistance, might reveal other useful leads.

I wanted to tack on to Barbara and JG's observations about Popova's Silver Fox studies that, if memory serves, the tame foxes were found to have higher serotonin levels than the non-tame progenitors. Clearly there might be many reasons for that, so it is not a clincher, but an interesting pointer, I feel.

Thank you for sharing the study.

Personally I think its just a way to get people to think that the processed stuff they call food is good for your dog.

I look at my dogs over all health and I no I made a very good choice switching to raw.I fed grain free food, dehydrated food.
A lil about my kids.

Junior 12 yrs old has always had flaky dry skin, dry fur- looked like dandruff all over his fur-not nice being black brindle.
His teeth I have put in over 2thousand dollars into him- due to them rotting and needing pulling- plus very bad breath- spent
a fortune on his mouth. He was always pretty skinny could see his rib and a lil of his spine- I even free fed him- never much interested
in food. Started schedule feeding still not much interested in food.

T-Bone 11 yrs old always had bad breath- anal gland problems which I have had to empty like every 4-6 weeks. plus dry fur.

Moose She started to get what we figured a yeast infection in her ears. Very red and inflamed- on meds. Was told if it comes back
will have to look at allergy testing ect. The red inflamed itchy ear came back- I was cleaning it and went to make another appt. Not to mention
the on going runs- sometimes normal but very soft- then runs- I tried everything- vet visits and poor dog at such a young age kept having the
runs so bad she would mess her kennel- her lil bum was so sore this went on all the way from when we got her in Dec right up to August when I switched them.

Since I switched them all straight switch to raw all the symptoms went away- They all have very nice shiny coats, white teeth and clean smelling breath. The best one to me also
is Moose finally had normal poop- If their poo gets a lil runny I no I fed a lil to much of something and need to add a lil more bone- but next poop perfect due to the next meal.
They are all excited for their meals now best of all Junior has finally put on weight and looks good. So far so good for me- my dogs looks great!
I'd def never feed another kibble to my kids again! Just wish I did this with my other kids :-( Now I am looking at switching the ferrets.

Just My Opinion :-) Not trying to start anything- just pointing out the difference I see in my kids.

>Personally I think its just a way to get people to think that the processed stuff they call food is good for your dog.

How do you explain the genetic differences, that demonstrate that dogs are physically  designed to digest starch & grains?

dollface,

I understand where you are coming from but a diet of processed food (complete dog foods) is not the same as, say, a home cooked/made diet that includes some form of carbohydrate.

The study infers that dogs of old would have eaten much the same diet as their human counterparts, probably topped up with the odd bit of carrion and other stuff they scavenged. It was not so long ago that most if not all dogs would have lived on a mix of human table scraps, raw bones, butchers scraps and bits of wild animal like rabbit/chicken not used by humans. Dogs evolved to exploit an evolutionary niche that was not available to most wolves..part of that was making use of a readily available source of food- human food waste. We know that much of the diet had to be carbohydrate (cooked) with some meat, though I am sure ratios would vary according to the specific population. For me the study rings true on many levels.

All I no is the benefits I seen when I switched my dogs to nothing but raw- I do feed them some raw veggies & fruit for treats
but that is all.

I do no if my dogs were still on kibble I would still have the same problems if not more.

I understand its not the same- but the food is cooked to a point and stuff added to have the shelf life it needs- really to eliminate the whole
process why not just make your own? I wouldn't feed my kids just Mc Donalds all the time or processed food- I'd rather feed a healthy choice meal
knowing I am giving them the best.

Copy & pasted from someone I talk to:
My brother has a master's degree in Biology and is currently studying wildlife in the western provinces of Canada. His team does necropsies on a myriad of different wildlife including wolf, fox, bear, deer, moose, antelope and the like. Very often he finds berries of all kinds (and not just a few) in the stomach contents of wolves. It's been proven by other biologists that wolves discard the stomach contents of animals they feed on, so... where do the berries come from? Yup, they eat them right off the bushes.
The only thing I would note about raw & kibble, is that the digestive enzymes required for raw are completely different from those needed for kibble. They must be fed seperately in different meals, at least 4 or 5 hours apart.

How do you explain the genetic differences, that demonstrate that dogs are physically  designed to digest starch & grains?

Personally I would like to see/read more then one study... What I would like to see is a study done on a kibble fed dog to a raw fed dog-

Interesting read: http://rawfed.com/myths/kibble.html

My thing is how do you expect your dog to be totally healthy on a processed diet when us ourselves being human would NOT be healthy
living on a nothing but a processed diet- so in reality why would we think our dogs/cats/ferrets can?
You have rabbits, birds, horses ect are you gonna feed them anything else besides what they are naturally suppose to eat- nope!
We make sure they get what nature intended. So why with our dogs/ferrets/cats do we expect to feed them something else then what
nature has intended for them? Just how I feel and like I said after seeing a full 100% turn around with my kids I just wish I did this
years ago with my 1st dog/cat/ferret I ever owned.
  

> how do you expect your dog to be totally healthy on a processed diet when us ourselves being human would NOT be healthy

I'm not sure what you are comparing it to.  If you mean McDonalds then no, if you ate that exclusively you would not be healthy but what we feed dogs is a complete food, not the convenient, treat food that burger and chips are meant to be. 
For many years there wasn't really a human equivalent but nowadays some supermarkets here in the UK do produce healthy, complete convenience foods containing all the elements that we require within a suitable calorific range and I suppose this is more like what we have had for pets for some years.

>so in reality why would we think our dogs/cats/ferrets can?

Because they do and many of us have experience of that.
Yours dogs, for whatever reason, may not have thrived on a good complete and processed dog food diets but many millions of them do.

What I would like to see is a study done on dogs that are fed the so called complete healthy food and a
study done on a raw fed dog. Really wonder which ones would be at a vets more often.

This Eden dog food kinda explains what dogs eat: http://edenpetfoods.com/Information/information.html
Copy & pasted:
Carnivores (Cats, Lions, Dogs, Wolves)
Carnivore in Latin means "Meat eater" and the classification refers to diets that consist of mainly meat.

Sharp Tearing Teeth; Designed for tearing and slicing (not grinding) carnivores have elongated front teeth which are used to kill prey and triangular shaped molars which act like a serrated blade and operate in a vertical scissor action to give a cutting action.

Short Digestive Tract; High hydrochloric acid (pH 1-2 compared to humans at a pH of 4-5) quickly digests meat based protein and fat.

Digestive Enzymes; Amylase is not present within the saliva of carnivores hence the burden of digesting carbohydrates is taken by the pancreas. Long term over loading of the pancreas is associated with insulin resistance and ultimately the failure of the pancreas to produce of insulin as found in type 2 diabetes.


Conclusions

Key genetic features of the both dogs and cats classify them as carnivores hence they would have historically eaten a  diet almost exclusively of meat

    Pointed Teeth designed for grasping ripping and shredding
    Jaws designed to swallow whole food (not grinding)
    High Acid Stomach Type
    Short small intestines
    Digestive enzymes adapted to breakdown meat
    Absence of enzymes designed to break down vegetable matter


In the end they offer you a dried piece of kibble that they call a well balanced meal.

The kibble is offered for convenience just like a TV dinner lets say you buy from the grocery store.
Not something you would want to eat all the time but it makes for a fast convenient meal. Kibble is to make it easier & convenient to feed our pets. Yes raw is more time consuming but
at least I no exactly what is in my pets food. Kibble is a processed, commercial dog food, that contains preservatives etc to prolong it's shelf life. Think if everyone made all their own pet food
what would happen to all the jobs for the people in the kibble market? Blue dog food says its a complete dogfood, Purina says the same- actually pretty much all of them say they are a
compete balanced nutritional dogfood.- in the end its all processed dried pieces of food.  Of course a dog can survive on it- but in the long run is it really healthy?

Yes also in the long run you have to do what works best for you & your pocket.

This guy I think explains pretty good def watch from 7:36 on. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3b5_1350848575

Edit: To say people will argue their points ect- so basically agree to disagree :-) Don't mind a good argument lets say as long as its all good & no one gets
their feelings hurt :-)