raw food

Re: raw food

pete coleshaw — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 10:22:35 GMT

[quote user="alex gough"]we should be seeing most dogs fed RMB to be living to their late teens? [/quote]

maybe you should ask my 15 & 17 year old jack russells?

though of course one or two (AD reared) swallows doesn't make a summer

pete

Re: raw food

sophia guymer — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 09:49:06 GMT

[quote user="Jon Bray"]

Hadn't realised that the endoscopic removal ones were quite as nasty - was thinking along the lines that the surgical candidates would be nastier than stomach/gut but yes, come to think of it I'd be more nervous taking a endoscope to an oesophagus (haven't had to yet for FB extraction, other than one fish hook which rather embarrassingly I eventually found attached to the tonsils so doesn't really count) than I would to the gut.

[/quote]

I find it very hard reading all your (as in multiple, not just Jon's) posts and get past all the sarcasm. Not always sure wether something is meant seriously or sarcasticly. Can we not just be straight forward?

[quote user="Jon Bray"]

Would anyone be interested in doing a similar questionnaire, to get a better idea of the issues* with various food types (eg RMB, BARF, other raw, canned commercial, dried commercial, single-protein-source canned commercial, single-protein-source dried commercial) specifically?

[/quote]

Hoping that that was meant seriously and not sarcasticly: Finally a constructive point rather than the ussual bickering back and forth! I would be up for it but not a lot of use at the moment as I only work 2 am a week. I have been telling people about RMB lately but is difficult to follow up as the rest of the practice is not on my side on this subject and I have not got any records of people actually changing over or not. Still, great idea!!!

Sophia

Re: raw food

Jon Bray — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 00:09:51 GMT

[quote user="alex gough"]Removing oesophageal foreign bodies in my experience is a much more major procedure than removing a gastric or small intestinal foreign body, with risks of oesophagitis, stricture, oesophageal necrosis and rupture with fatal mediastinitis.[/quote]

Roger is probably about to point out that the nasty pointy bones should be (mainly) wrapped in meat if RMB is fed properly. I don't doubt that some pointy bits will still be present but I imagine that the meat would make them considerably safer.

I'd be happy to code the front end and database if we can come up with some mutually satisfactory questions - but I'm a locum so can't very easily circulate it to lots of clients. In particular we'd need those of you with lots of RMB using clients on board.

I'd also not have a clue where to start as far as statistical analysis was concerned, so any offers on that would be handy!

------------

*pros and cons - there's nothing to stop us looking at requirement for dental care etc. as well as the incidence of blockages and anal gland problems.

Re: raw food

Roger Meacock — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 00:07:33 GMT

[quote user="alex gough"]Am I the only one that sees the irony of Roger suggesting a paper is superior because it is more recent, when the main piece of "evidence" he continually quotes is a 1947 opinion piece?[/quote]

I think you'll find I always pair that peer-reviewed paper by Sir Frank Colyer with the Dentistry text book by Prof Harvey from 1993 to show that there has been no change from then until the present day. The other difference is that there has been no recent paper on dentistry comparing RMB with any other practice that supersedes those I've quoted. I am therefore quoting the latest research unlike Niall.

On that note - funny how the companies that have the financial resources to do such a direct comparison between their chews and RMB that would totally endorse their products shy away from such a direct comparison .... or is it the same as the tobacco industry where the trials have been done but suppressed?

If I had the deepest financial pockets to back up a new idea that compared favourably with a practice that was being portrayed as the holy grail to make mine look like a step backwards I'd be doing a direct comparison trial to knock opposition ideas on the head and clear the way for my product to seize the market. If my new product was better than the proclaimed holy grail I'd be screaming the trial results from the roof top and portraying the opponents as the ones damaging welfare! On the other hand if my new idea was a step backwards I'd not publish my direct comparison results, but publish others that portray my product in some sort of favourable light that make the product look better than doing nothing and bluff my way out of opposition cries by claiming the opposition are cranks. Mmmm - where do the pet food manufacturers fit into that idea?!

Cheers

Roger

Re: raw food

Roger Meacock — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 23:49:38 GMT

[quote user="alex gough"]It's a shame you aren't going to do a prospective trial Pete, it would be hugely more valuable, because relying on owner's subjective opinions over the last 18 months is going to lead to a huge possible source of error.[/quote]

On the contrary if Pete relies on his medical records then there can be no bias claimed because at the time before he had converted to raw he believed in commercial and cannot be accused of selectively noting conditions that a pro raw feeder will equate with commercial. Each pet Pete has records for before and after swapping diets will be a direct comparison of the effect of dietary change. For example if dogs regularly need anal glands expressing like clockwork before but don't after it must be a strong endorsement of the raw. Of course these results will be most useful in analysing the effect on chronic illness that was previously stabilised before a dietary change with sufficient individuals suffering with each condition.

[quote user="alex gough"]the benefits and risks to the animal probably balance each other relatively closely[/quote]

Not if you look at the results of the survey - 92% who swapped to raw to address a health issue had a complete or partial cure with only 3% claiming no change. Hardly a close call!

[quote user="alex gough"]I have also seen a lot of ex racing greyhounds which i believe are often fed raw meat and bones.[/quote]

On the contrary many greyhounds are fed commercial greyhound feed. Many are "brown-breaded" when young so that early trial times are slow to enable a killing on the betting later. Hocks are snapping not because of bad luck but because frequently the joints generally are of poor health because of poor diet. The hock takes most pressure so it goes with a bang but other joints are equally diseased. Again because of poor veterinary knowledge I doubt many trainers keep to a strict RMB diet and will be feeding unnecessary carbs such as pasta etc because human athletes will often stock up on carbs in that way.

Your experience and impression just goes to show how important it is that vets know how to advise on raw feeding properly. Certainly with the RMB diet dogs seem to thrive in all ways.

Roger

Re: raw food

Roger Meacock — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 23:29:07 GMT

[quote user="Jon Bray"]Interesting survey - just the sort of thing we need (a controlled one would be even better). Was this strictly a RMB diet or was it potentially BARF?[/quote]

Hi Jon,

The survey was of "raw fed" which presumably includes BAR, RMB and other variations on the raw theme, some of which only fed raw as part of the diet which means in reality that some of the infections quoted might have been derived from the commercial element.

[quote user="Jon Bray"]Roger, can you define "recreational bone" please? [/quote]

By recreational bone I would think this would be bare bones as often seen in pet food shops which are primarily beef marrow bones that the RMB diet recommends owners stay away from due to their bone density being most likely to crack teeth.

In some way this gives a fairly realistic picture of the results of people feeding raw both correctly and incorrectly. I believe that if a properly controlled trial were to be conducted on strict RMB fed as per Tom's books then the cracked teeth and intestinal obstruction would be reduced to virtually 0%. Of course cracked teeth could also have arisen from dogs chewing stones etc as they do!

Cheers

Roger

Re: raw food

Alex Gough — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 21:08:49 GMT

Removing oesophageal foreign bodies in my experience is a much more major procedure than removing a gastric or small intestinal foreign body, with risks of oesophagitis, stricture, oesophageal necrosis and rupture with fatal mediastinitis. The sort of bones that get stuck in the oesophagus are nasty and pointy, and dont come out easily with endoscopy.

I do get your point about dentals, and I think that the most likely benefit of RMB is in improving dental health. It is unproven though whether this is the best way of improving dental health. It may also be that reducing periodontitis reduces the incidence of other diseases, although this is even less well proven. I also think that there is a potential benefit in raw food from increased levels of nutrients that are lost through cooking, such as taurine. What is far from proven though is whether these theoretical and unquantified benefits outweight the non-theoretical, and slightly better but still only tenuously quantified risks of RMB. Could the same benefts be achieved in a safer way?

And if you think subjective opinion and experience is sufficient to make your mind up on the best diet, consider the CAST trial in humans, a prospective trial that looked to test the rather obvious assumption that treating ventricular dysrhythmias with anti-dysrhythmics would decrease mortality level. Sadly the trial proved that mortality was increased with this intervention, contrary to expectation, and people were dying because the assumption hadnt previously been tested. Even smoking took some serious epidemiological studies to show up the link with cancer. Of course you could claim that big scale epidemiological studies may show up that pet food is worse than smoking, and maybe that's true, but there is no reason to believe that on current best evidence, and the work hasn't been done.

Re: raw food

Jon Bray — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 18:21:07 GMT

[quote user="alex gough"]I wouldnt be hugely comfortable recommending a diet in which 1 in 200 of my patients required major surgery as a consequence of feeding it.[/quote]

I see your point, but the incidence of animals requiring dentals (as in to remove molars which are rocking around, not quick S&P's) is probably considerably higher than that. Admittedly the surgery is not as "major" in that the complication rate is less but it's arguably more painful surgery if done without local blocks (and I'm not confident that all of mine always work). There is a also the issue that this condition is a chronic suffering issue which may or may not get addressed - like I said the dog with a bone in its gut is a pretty open and shut case.

If this figure was mainly oesophageal FBs requiring surgery rather than just endoscopy to remove that would carry more weight with me though.

Re: raw food

Alex Gough — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 14:21:04 GMT

[quote user="pete coleshaw"]

huuuuummmmmm - where does that come from? Again I repeat that my experience is not of an equal balance - 98% good, 2% bad probably nearer the mark

[/quote]

Just my clinical impression from talking to owners and seeing dogs who feed raw, together with the extended life expectancy in good health that we see in many commerically fed dogs. If RMB is significantly improving health and life expectancy compared to commercial diet by such a vast amount that it was blatantly obvious by observation, rather than being necessary to be proved by clinical trial, then we should be seeing most dogs fed RMB to be living to their late teens? I haven't observed that myself, do those feeding more RMB think it is the case?

Alex

Re: raw food

pete coleshaw — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 13:20:56 GMT

[quote user="alex gough"] I have experience of raw food, I have had a number of clients doing this over the years. [/quote]

Alex

main problem is clients dont understand fully and get involved in barf and other nonesense

and there are no vets to guide them properly

many also wont admit that they are feeding raw as they have all heard of, (or have had) vets be very dismissive of/horrified at/ or otherwise anti feeding raw

I am sure there are genetic components involved - some individual dogs &/or breeds seem to produce a lot more tartar - all the more reason to educate clients to doing it right

and quality is still important for rmb - not sure every racing greyhound gets A1

products[quote user="alex gough"]the benefits and risks to the animal probably balance each other relatively closely. [/quote]

huuuuummmmmm - where does that come from? Again I repeat that my experience is not of an equal balance - 98% good, 2% bad probably nearer the mark

pete

Re: raw food

Alex Gough — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 12:46:20 GMT

[quote user="Roger Meacock"]

I see you're still insisting on quoting the old paper from 1997 instead of the more recent one of a couple of years ago that put dogs at 16,000 years since domestication. How convenient.

[/quote]

Am I the only one that sees the irony of Roger suggesting a paper is superior because it is more recent, when the main piece of "evidence" he continually quotes is a 1947 opinion piece?

Alex

Re: raw food

Alex Gough — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 12:17:17 GMT

[quote user="pete coleshaw"]The virulent anti RMB vets who claim to have open minds have no experience of feeding raw. [/quote]

Are there any virulent anti RMB vets on this list? If you mean me, I would be happy to recommend RMB if I had evidence it was safe and effective. My personal opinion on this and other unproven treatments, is that I would be likely to recommend treatments or diets in the following order of preference: 1. Reiki (no evidence for or against efficacy, no likelihood of harm). 2. Homeopathy (preponderance of evidence against efficacy, no likelihood of harm) 3. RMB (possible anecdotal evidence for efficacy, anecdotal evidence of harm).

It's a shame you aren't going to do a prospective trial Pete, it would be hugely more valuable, because relying on owner's subjective opinions over the last 18 months is going to lead to a huge possible source of error. A prospective trial wouldn't be that much harder to do would it, and could produce some really interesting results. You could even try to get a little funding eg from RCVS and do some comparative faecal trials with an aged matched cohort of commercially fed animals. If it could be shown that feeding RMB genuinely didnt increase the risk of zoonosis, then it comes down purely to a cost benefit ratio to the animal, which is less of concern, because the benefits and risks to the animal probably balance each other relatively closely. Factoring a risk to humans into the equation tilts it firmly away from RMB, since in my book human life and health always comes before animal life and health.

Regarding whether I have experience of raw food, I have had a number of clients doing this over the years. My overall impression is that they have been somewhat unthrifty, prone to GI upsets and of no greater health than dogs fed commercial diets. I have also seen a lot of ex racing greyhounds which i believe are often fed raw meat and bones. They seem to have very poor teeth in many cases, and I wonder if this is genetic. However, this is all just anecdotal impressions, not enough to sway me one way or the other.

Alex

Re: raw food

pete coleshaw — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 11:03:03 GMT

I'm not going to go through any of the points discussed 100x before - the main thing as far as I am concerned is the proof of the pudding. The virulent anti RMB vets who claim to have open minds have no experience of feeding raw. Client 'anecdote' is all there is at the moment, which may not be controlled clinical trial, but is valuable evidence none-the-less.

Regret that I will not be doing clinical trials - plan is to do a retrospective survey on problems before and after switched to raw.

In 18 months of converting as many clients to raw as possible, both rmb and 'ground prey', the only problem we have had is one client who fed rmb 7 days after surgery to remove a peach stone. Not surprisingly we had a problem - and I specifically suggest rmb not to be appropriate for dogs that have had GI surgery.

We have not had one zoonotic incident - client or pet, despite selling 200kg of raw ground chicken a week!

And I never cease to be amazed at the chronic conditions previously treated with every medication under the sun that improve within days.

Re meat plus bone meal, I would not be totally averse myself - ground bone with organs and meat better, but in view of the seeming impossibility of vets to try RMB, the half-way house is a good way of not challenging either client or vet too far. It doesnt give the dental or emotional benefits, but once one is happy that one's pet and self survive the process, the next step to RMB isn't too much of a jump.

Main concern would be source of bone meal - may be of very dubious!

pete

Re: raw food

Alex Gough — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 09:47:53 GMT

[quote user="Jon Bray"]The 0.5% -ish occurrence of owners who have experienced their dogs FBs requiring surgery actually seems pleasantly low - surgery to remove a body foreign body is a nice concrete "yes/no" question. [/quote]

I wouldnt be hugely comfortable recommending a diet in which 1 in 200 of my patients required major surgery as a consequence of feeding it.

Re: raw food

Jon Bray — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 22:59:14 GMT

Interesting survey - just the sort of thing we need (a controlled one would be even better). Was this strictly a RMB diet or was it potentially BARF?

Roger, can you define "recreational bone" please?

As far as the bacterial infection is concerned, I think the consensus is that adult dogs on RMB generally don't show signs of infection - this survey was looking at clinical disease in the dog. It is probable that the number of shedders is higher (as it would be also with commercial diets - just saying that its probably not a good idea to assume that clinical disease equates with shedding, based on what we know of dogs in the general population).

The 0.5% -ish occurrence of owners who have experienced their dogs FBs requiring surgery actually seems pleasantly low - surgery to remove a body foreign body is a nice concrete "yes/no" question. Can anyone easily get at their clinical data and tell us what the incidence of surgery for other FBs is?

(actually bony FBs are one of the nicer types to deal with because its pretty easy to diagnose radiographically - its the bits of plastic that can throw you).

Re: raw food

Roger Meacock — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 22:44:28 GMT

[quote user="Niall Taylor"]

Dingoes are feral dogs, descended from the Asian dog introduced to Australia around 5,000 years ago (http://www.wolfweb.com.au/acd/genvarindingo.htm). Sureley you're not suggesting that the grey wolf is more dog like than the dog Roger?

Interestingly, as you'll see when you read the article in the 5,000 years since the isolation of what is now recognised as the Dingo there has been considerable genetic diversification from the original dog stock, so much so that it is now recognised as a distinct and separate entity and efforts are being made to preserve its genetic integrity.

[/quote]

Given that there seems to have been "considerable genetic diversification" within the dingo population to the extent suggested I guess it's possible that if dogs have outbred enough to wild canids sufficiently removed from the dog genetic profile then it might be the situation that dingoes are further removed from dogs than dogs are from the grey wolf. Without the absolute figures it's impossible to know for sure.

Regardless of the present genetic relationships between dogs/dingoes/wolves I don't think dingoes have evolved that much further from 1977 or 1983 to the present day to have altered their diet from the obviously carnivorous one the 2 studies I gave identified.

[quote user="Niall Taylor"](http://www.mnh.si.edu/GeneticsLab/StaffPage/MaldonadoJ/PublicationsCV/Science_Dog_Paper.pdf)[/quote]

I see you're still insisting on quoting the old paper from 1997 instead of the more recent one of a couple of years ago that put dogs at 16,000 years since domestication. How convenient.

[quote user="Niall Taylor"]Almost enough time to have adapted to a different diet wouldn't you say?[/quote]

No! Dingoes haven't adapted in 5000 years according to the studies so why should dogs have adapted any more in 16,000 years?

[quote user="Niall Taylor"]kindly supplied by Roger, although he seems now to be denying their existence[/quote]

I don't remember denying any such thing. I'd forgotten about that survey but as you've drawn attention to it the figure for salmonella infection was "0.5% (deer meat)" of 11% that reported a range of problems = 0.055% of the total survey. It would certainly appear from that survey that feeding raw significantly reduces the Salmonella incidence from 1% found in another study previously reported in earlier postings. The fact that "other bacterial infections" were attributed to raw feeding in the survey doesn't confirm that the raw food was the source. You wouldn't believe what vets are prepared to attribute to a raw diet given half a chance! However the figure for that still only came to 7.5% of 11% = 0.825% of the total survey . This really puts the 30% figure for Salmonella given earlier by Alex under some considerable questions as to the grade of food used for the commercial BARF diets used in the studies as I earlier pointed out. The total number of owners in the survey was 1870 owners many of whom I suggest had multiple pets fed raw which makes the figures even better given that % results quoted are done in relation to the number of owners and not the number of animals.

[quote user="Niall Taylor"]raw fed dogs can expect some degree of problem ranging from gastro-enteric problems, blockages, salmonella and other bacterial infections to fractured teeth[/quote]

I note how you order the problems with the most serious ones in your opinion first to make them read more significant and worse than they really performed in the survey, Niall. Most people would list the problems in the order of incidence with the commonest problem first which would have been broken teeth (recreational bones commonly noted) at 64.9% of 11% = 7.139% instead of leaving it to last as a throw away listing. You didn't really think you'd get away with that one did you?

Anyway thanks for completely undermining Alex's concerns over contamination with Salmonella etc.

Cheers

Roger

Re: raw food

Niall Taylor — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 20:52:35 GMT

[quote user="Roger Meacock"]My mistake - I didn't think dingoes were that closely related but maybe they are although I don't know the genome% cross-over figure.[/quote]

So presumably there must have been even more diversification between the grey wolf and the domestic dog in the 100,000 years since the wolf was domesticated (http://www.mnh.si.edu/GeneticsLab/StaffPage/MaldonadoJ/PublicationsCV/Science_Dog_Paper.pdf)

Almost enough time to have adapted to a different diet wouldn't you say?

Oh and for anyone looking for figures relating to the potential risks of feeding raw the results of a survey (kindly supplied by Roger, although he seems now to be denying their existence) suggesting that 11% of raw fed dogs can expect some degree of problem ranging from gastro-enteric problems, blockages, salmonella and other bacterial infections to fractured teeth can be found here - http://www.rawfitpet.com/pb/wp_fa7e8251/wp_fa7e8251.html

Niall

Re: raw food

Roger Meacock — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 20:46:45 GMT

I don't see the reference to the 1% Salmonella figure mentioned.

The fact that commercial BARF diets were used does rather beg the question as to the hygiene standard of the ingredients used at the manufacturer's plant and the standards of hygiene in the processing itself. Personally I use human-grade RMB products and so it is quite possible that the bacterial contamination figure will be much lower. It is a personal belief of mine that the vegetable component of BARF diets (as opposed to RMB diets) may serve to neutralise the stomach acids and this might reduce the effectiveness of the stomach in neutralising any bacterial contamination present.

It would be interesting to compare faecal isolation in dogs fed both raw and commercial diets for individuals that roam in the countryside and scavenge and behave as dogs in the real world rather than in a laboratory situation. The differences may not be quite so large under those circumstances either where other possible sources of contamination are included within the overall picture.

It should also be pointed out that commercial kibble diets have also been identified as sources if human food-poisoning outbreaks and must also be considered as such when handled.

If RMB food is sourced from human grade standard food of course the real test is not to look at the dogs/cats necessarily but to look at the owners relative to non-owners who regularly handle meat for themselves. It wouldn't surprise me for one instant if there was an insignificant difference as I suspect most contamination of people comes from handling meat products and not the pets. I think most people take better precautions when handling pet faecal matter than when handling raw meat products.

Whilst raw feeding owners are still the minority they are nonetheless a significant number in absolute terms (far higher than the usual numbers used in trials) and I think if there is a particularly high incidence of bacterial zoonosis in raw feeding owners it would have been flagged by now.

I still maintain that the risk of bacteria is minimal in the real world if human quality RMB products are used. If people are really worried then they can always rinse poultry products in dilute hydrogen peroxide to surface cleanse them but I think that's going OTT.

I see no figures for saliva contamination either given that Alex's main concern appeared to be the pet licking a child rather than the child playing with faecal matter.

Cheers

Roger

Re: raw food

Alex Gough — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 19:43:13 GMT

Some abstracts below. The point is that there is a risk with anything. But why increase that risk for an unknown and possibly unreal benefit. And who can predict how many human hospitalisations and deaths will occur because we have increased the shedding of salmonella from 1% of dogs to 30%? At the moment, while feeding raw food is still a minority, probably not many. But if all vets in the UK recommended it, what would the figure be then? I dont understand how people can be so sanguine about increasing the risk to human life.

Can Vet J. 2002 June; 43(6): 441–442.

PMCID: PMC339295

Preliminary assessment of the risk of Salmonella infection in dogs fed raw chicken diets

Daniel J. Joffe and Daniel P. Schlesinger

Landing Animal Clinic, C155–1600, 90th Avenue SW, Calgary, Alberta T2V 5A8.

This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.

Abstract

This preliminary study assessed the presence of Salmonella spp. in a bones and raw food (BARF) diet and in the stools of dogs consuming it. Salmonella was isolated from 80% of the BARF diet samples (P < 0.001) and from 30% of the stool samples from dogs fed the diet (P = 0.105). Dogs fed raw chicken may therefore be a source of environmental contamination.

Clinical Infectious Diseases 2006;42:686–691

1058-4838/2006/4205-0017$15.00

DOI: 10.1086/500211

FOOD SAFETYINVITED ARTICLE

Human Health Implications of Salmonella‐Contaminated Natural Pet Treats and Raw Pet Food

Rita Finley,¹

Richard Reid‐Smith,^2,3 and

J. Scott Weese⁴

¹Foodborne, Waterborne, and Zoonotic Infections Division and ²Laboratory for Foodborne Zoonoses, Public Health Agency of Canada, and Departments of ³Population Medicine and ⁴Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada

Human salmonellosis occurs mainly as a result of handling or consuming contaminated food products, with a small percentage of cases being related to other, less well‐defined exposures, such as contact with companion animals and natural pet treats. The increasing popularity of raw food diets for companion animals is another potential pet‐associated source of Salmonellaorganisms; however, no confirmed cases of human salmonellosis have been associated with these diets. Pets that consume contaminated pet treats and raw food diets can be colonized with Salmonella organisms without exhibiting clinical signs, making them a possible hidden source of contamination in the household. Pet owners can reduce their risk of acquiringSalmonella organisms by not feeding natural pet treats and raw food diets to their pets, whereas individuals who investigate cases of salmonellosis or interpret surveillance data should be aware of these possible sources of Salmonella organisms.

It has been estimated that 1.4 million people are infected with Salmonella organisms annually in the United States [7, 8]. The illness is usually self‐limiting, but 15,000 cases of salmonellosis result in hospitalization of the infected individuals, and 500 of the total number of cases are fatal each year [7]. Although 95% of cases of nontyphoidal salmonellosis in humans are associated with foodborne contamination, an unknown proportion of these cases are the result of contact with infected pets and contaminated pet food products. Sporadic cases, some of which could be caused by pet exposure, usually are not investigated thoroughly or reported to the local health authorities, especially cases that occur in adults. In the United States, it is estimated that 1% of the number of cases of salmonellosis reported annually are associated with contact with companion animals [9].

The risk to human health posed by the handling and feeding of pet treats and raw food diets remains unquantified, although data are accumulating to the point that formal quantified risk assessment may be possible and well‐designed epidemiologic studies may be conducted. Factors contributing to the lack of information include the ability of dogs and cats to shed Salmonella species without exhibiting clinical signs of illness, the underreporting of health risks by those in human medicine or companion animal veterinary medicine, and the limited information regarding risk factors for Salmonella infection in companion animals. Underreporting of the prevalence of Salmonella colonization and salmonellosis in dogs and cats is principally a consequence of the cost to pet owners of culture and susceptibility testing, as well as the lack of a formal system for collecting data on zoonoses in companion animals.

Can Vet J. 2007 January; 48(1): 69–75.

PMCID: PMC1716752

The risk of salmonellae shedding by dogs fed Salmonella-contaminated commercial raw food diets

Rita Finley, Carl Ribble, Jeff Aramini, Meredith Vandermeer, Maria Popa, Marcus Litman, and Richard Reid-Smith

Department of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College (Finley, Ribble, Aramini, Vandermeer, Popa, Reid-Smith), and Animal Care Services (Litman), University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1

Address all correspondence to Dr. Carl Ribble; e-mail: cribble@ucalgary.ca

This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.

Abstract

Twenty-eight research dogs were enrolled to determine the prevalence of salmonellae shedding after consumption of 1 Salmonella-contaminated commercial raw food diet meal. Sixteen dogs were exposed to Salmonella-contaminated commercial raw food diets and 12 to Salmonella-free commercial raw food diets. Seven of the exposed dogs shed salmonellae 1–7 days after consumption ofSalmonella-contaminated raw food diets. None of the dogs fed Salmonella-free diets shed salmonellae. No clinical signs were observed in either group. Five of the 7 dogs shed the same serotypes as those recovered from food samples used for feeding. Results showed the same serotypes and antimicrobial resistance pattern in 2 of the 7 shedders. Dogs fed Salmonella-contaminated raw food diets can shed salmonellae and may, therefore, be a source of environmental contamination potentially leading to human or animal illness.

Can Vet J. 2005 June; 46(6): 513–516.

PMCID: PMC1140397

Bacteriological evaluation of commercial canine and feline raw diets

J. Scott Weese, Joyce Rousseau, and L. Arroyo

Department of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1.

Address all correspondence to Dr. J. Scott Weese; e-mail: jsweese@uoguelph.ca

See letter "Just how pathogenic to pets and humans are the bacteria in the concentrations found in raw pet foods." on page 967;authorreply968.

This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.

Abstract

Twenty-five commercial raw diets for dogs and cats were evaluated bacteriologically. Coliforms were present in all diets, ranging from 3.5 × 10³ to 9.4 × 10⁶ CFU/g (mean 8.9 × 10⁵; standard deviation 1.9 × 10⁶). Escherichia coli was identified in 15/25 (64%) diets; however, E. coli O157 was not detected. Salmonella spp. were detected in 5/25 (20%) diets; 1 each of beef-, lamb-, quail-, chicken-, and ostrich-based diets. Sporeforming bacteria were identified from 4/25 (16%) samples on direct culture and 25/25 (100%) samples using enrichment culture. Clostridium perfringens was identified in 5/25 (20%) samples. A toxigenic strain of C. difficile was isolated from one turkeybased food. Staphylococcus aureus was isolated from 1/25 (4%) diets.Campylobacter spp. were not isolated from any of the diets.

Articles

Prevalence of Salmonella in raw meat used in diets of racing greyhounds

MM Chengappa, J Staats, RD Oberst, NH Gabbert, and S McVey

Department of Pathology and Microbiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan 66506.

One hundred twelve samples of commercial raw meat used in greyhound diets were collected and cultured for Salmonella using standard procedures. Fifty (44.64%) of these samples were positive for Salmonella. Salmonella typhimurium was the most frequently isolated serovar (48%), followed by S. newport (12.76%), S. agona (8.51%), and S. muenster (6.38%). The remaining 10 serovars recovered in this study represented 27.59% of the total Salmonella isolates. In addition, the meat samples were screened for Salmonella using a commercial DNA probe. Of the 106 samples tested, 70 (66.03%) were positive for Salmonella, which indicated that the DNA probe assay was more sensitive than the culture method for screening of Salmonella in raw meat. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing revealed that most of the Salmonella isolates were sensitive to a variety of antimicrobials, particularly amikacin and apramycin, and resistant to some others, such as clindamycin, erythromycin, penicillin, and sulfadimethoxine. The cumulative percentages of susceptibility (MIC50 and MIC90) of the Salmonella isolates were also determined. Most isolates were susceptible (MIC90) to low concentrations of gentamicin (2.0 micrograms/ml), imipenem (< or = 0.25 microgram/ml), and ciprofloxacin (< or = 0.5 microgram/ml). Marked resistance was found with the other antimicrobial agents. However, the high MIC values found for these isolates would not be achievable in vivo with the normal recommended doses of antimicrobial agents, so their use would not be beneficial. Numerous plasmid patterns were found in 17 randomly selected Salmonella isolates. Eight of the 17 isolates had 2-7 plasmids ranging from 2.4 to 15 kilobases in size. Eight isolates also exhibited large plasmids in the range of 50-60 and 95-105 kilobases.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Re: raw food

Alex Gough — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 19:11:16 GMT

Did I say anything disrespectful anywhere, except to repeatedly call for politeness in this debate?

Re: raw food

Roger Meacock — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 18:56:26 GMT

Hi Jon

My mistake - I didn't think dingoes were that closely related but maybe they are although I don't know the genome% cross-over figure.

With that in mind here are some other dingo studies that found the following:-

Western Australia, dingo study
•160 dingo stomachs. 14 empty stomachs
•70% by volume was kangaroos
•Small amount of domestic sheep, birds, small mammals, reptiles, insects.

‘Dingos seemed to be opportunistic feeders and to prefer wild animals to domestic stock even though those were usually equally available.’
Whitehouse, S J O (1977) The diet of the dingo in Western Australia, Australian
Wildlife Research, 4:2 145–50

South Eastern Australia, dingo study
•530 dingo stomachs
•89.3% by occurrence was large to medium sized marsupials
•26 dingos with sheep or cattle remains, 11 of which had eaten it as carrion
•4% feral pig
•7.8% rabbit

Newsome, A E et al (1983) The feeding ecology of the dingo, Australian Wildlife
Research, 10:3 477–486

I hope these help by showing how much they are carnivores when given that opportunity. As with wolves on the borders of starvation I'm sure they may resort to vegatation or if near a human settlement then no doubt they'll scavenge a more omnivorous diet. However as with people - the diet frequently chosen when there is an easy option isn't always the most healthy!!

Cheers

Roger

Re: raw food

Jon Bray — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 17:24:44 GMT

[quote user="Roger Meacock"]If I really have to spell it out for you then I will but I think most people, even non--scientists, would have understood already. I'll try to use very simple words. [/quote]

Kids, kids! Play nice (both of you) or we'll separate you!

Seriously guys, its a controversial topic and I can understand the frustration on both sides, but the more it degenerates into a flame war the less any of us learn.

Re: raw food

Jon Bray — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 17:19:10 GMT

[quote user="alex gough"]In terms of the proportionality of risks, I dont consider the risk to the life or health of one child is worth the unknown benefit of a RMB diet. [/quote]

To put this into context, according to a study cited by Ed Hall at the LVS, in a study of 200 UK rescue centre dogs, over 30% had Campylobacter (although only less than 1% had salmonella; a separate study cited by VIN <a src="http://www.veterinarypartner.com/Content.plx?P=A&A=2232&S=1">here</a> suggests that the figure for salmonella in raw-fed dogs is about 30%) - my point being that although the risk to children may be increased by feeding raw, it can also be decreased by owner education - and if you're seriously worried about the residual risk maybe you should be point-blank advising dog owners with children to get rid of one or the other?

Re: raw food

Jon Bray — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 16:57:48 GMT

[quote user="Roger Meacock"]You've largely answered your own question which is why it is important to feed the raw meat on the bone rather than separated. Once the stomach acid has largely broken down the bone it is either dissolved or the sharp edges blunted for remaining shards before they progress to the intestines.[/quote]

That would actually fit with a picture that the paper shows - the bone fragments in the faeces didn't look particularly scary and I guess the acid might make the tips more likely to crumble

[quote user="Roger Meacock"]If you're going to compare dogs to wild animals at least use the grey wolf as a reference given that the domestic dog is a sub-species of it sharing 99.8% of its genome. Dingoes are not that closely related.[/quote].

I was under the impression that it was the RMBites who tended to compare dogs to wild animals; I felt justified in using the Dingo as a comparator seeing that its Linnean name is Canis lupus dingo; if more proof of the subspecies association is required there is concern that interbreeding between dogs and dingos are polluting the dingo gene pool.

The only reason I picked dingos over wolves is because a previous google (+wolves +rickets) just led to sports reports, and I would frankly rather read through "Work Wonders" again.

Re: raw food

Roger Meacock — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 16:35:32 GMT

[quote user="alex gough"]It is in the shedding of pathogenic organisms which is shown to be increased by feeding a raw diet. And either that is a potential risk to people, or it isnt, in which case we dont need to warn people of zoonotic risks from their pets.[/quote]

By using the term "increased" the implication is that dogs shed pathogenic organisms regardless of diet. So you answer your own question - we always warn owners dogs can be a source of bacteria - it's nothing new. Diarrhoea in owners feeding raw is not a problem and just because someone gets D+ who feeds raw doesn't automatically mean the raw pet food was the cause or the dog. You still haven't answered my point that with kibble-fed dogs producing 3 times as much sloppy faeces into the environment that hangs around far longer than faeces derived from raw fed dogs that they are a far bigger environmental contamination risk.

[quote user="alex gough"]because you have enough evidence to satisfy you already[/quote]

It's not about satisfying me. The point is that whilst the veterinary profession waits for an unachievable level of proof, owners are already seeing the proof they need in front of their own eyes and the previous high regard for the veterinary profession continues to spiral downwards.The proof is there in reality but you, as others do, are being blinded by the bad science put before you by the pet food companies for some reason.

[quote user="alex gough"]Well domestic dogs have probably been fed from leftovers for thousands of years. So if there isnt a problem with dog diets, it isnt a new problem, which I think is what you have asserted, ie it isnt kibble's fault, it is any and every diet except one that carefully adheres to RMB.[/quote]

As I said it's not about 100 or even 100 years ago - it's about what the situation is now. For sure periodontal disease is unlikely to be a new issue I agree - I never said it was, but because of environmental changes pets are now living to an age where the other diseases that arise from periodontal disease are significant. This makes periodontal disease far more significant not just as a disease in itself but as the precursor to other diseases than it was when pets died at a much earlier age. So now the causes of periodontal disease are much more important too which is why if we are to maximise a healthy life we should be recommending the healthiest diet - RMB. Given that kibble is the main source of food for most pet owners it puts the blame of perio in this day and age very much at kibble's door. I agree however that any diet that does not address the species-appropriate biological needs in both the chemical and physical sense is potentially disease-causing which is why I have a problem with some "home" diets too.

[quote user="alex gough"]Read and dismissed as unsatisfactory[/quote]

Nothing you read will ever be satisfactory for you I feel. You've got your nice little way of doing things and you don't want that boat to rock.

Roger