Dogs and Wolves

Test time here!

"True" or "false": 

Dogs are not wolves.

If you said "True"....oops, you flunked. While there are minor differences, dogs and wolves actually belong to the same genus and species.

But you certainly would not be alone in this belief. Plenty of conventional authors and canine "nutritionists" are calling attention to an article published in "Nature" magazine Jan 23, 2013. This article claims that dogs have only recently developed the ability to digest carbohydrates. We now see many canine nutrition websites blaring the headline: "DOGS ARE NOT WOLVES"! The purpose of such sensational and misleading headlines seems to be to justify the pet food industry's continued abuse of dogs' digestive systems by intentionally feeding them a carbohydrate-based diet like kibbled dog food.


What this study does not highlight, however, is the fact that, genetically, dogs ARE wolves. Based on genetic research done by evolutionary and molecular biologist Dr. Robert Wayne at UCLA, in 1993, dogs were re-classified from Canis familiaris" to "Canis lupus" ssp "familiaris"

In other words, dogs are the same genus and species as the gray wolf. They are merely a subspecies of the grey wolf and do not differ significantly from the grey wolf. All breeds of dogs are still just variations on the grey wolf.

Let's repeat that again, for emphasis. In all significant ways, there is no meaningful difference between the grey wolf and the dog. The gray wolf and the dog share 99.8% of the same mitochondrial DNA. For comparison, the gray wolf and the coyote only share 96% of the same mitochondrial DNA. Dogs are directly descended from the gray wolf, sharing their anatomy and physiology.

The basic definition of a species is the ability to breed and produce fertile offspring, and dogs bred to wolves produce fertile offspring.

Simply because selective breeding in dogs has produced various types and colors, sizes and shapes does not mean that dogs are a separate species from wolves. It's been long established that dogs and the gray wolf have the same genes, and the same basic anatomy and physiology. Based on appearance alone, dog breeds are more dissimilar from each other than these breeds are from their prototype ancestor, the grey wolf. Are Chihuahuas a different type of animal than a Scottish Deerhound? Nope. Any difference wrought by human selective breeding could be wiped out in just a generation or two of breeding back to the grey wolf.

However, let's examine the digestive tract, which seems to be the "proof" that is spurring this recent claim that because dogs can digest carbohydrates, they are therefore separate and distinct from wolves. Dogs and wolves both have jaws that move only up and down, not side to side, with teeth that mesh in a scissors-type fashion. Their sharp pointed teeth are meant for shearing, not grinding. They are carnivores. Omnivores and herbivores have flat molars and jaws that can move in a side-to-side fashion designed for grinding grains, fruits and vegetables. Neither dogs nor wolves have saliva that produce amylase (the enzyme that begins digestion of starch in the mouth). Dogs and wolves both have short intestinal tracts, designed for quick digestion of proteins and fats. Vegetable matter takes many hours to digest and process in an animal's gut. Unless carbohydrates in the diet are highly processed and refined, they are not able to be digested and absorbed by dogs.

And we all know how much valuable nutrition is left in processed, refined foods, right? Think white flour or white rice. Nothing left there but "empty calories"....or so dieticians have informed us for years. Virtually no vitamins or minerals remain after processing. But now, we are supposed to believe that empty calories are beneficial for our canine pals.

The dog's liver produces all the vitamin C he ever needs. No need to derive that from fruits. There is, however, a significant need for specific amino acids in large quantities in the diet, particularly during growth and development. Proteins that are complete, in significant amounts, are necessary to keep a dog healthy. Rather than try to keep complete proteins at the essential bare minimum, dogs should be fed more in line with their natural diet which is protein-rich. No need to feed your dog on the "minimum wages of nutrition" that are so stingily provided in commercial foods.

It is well-documented in multiple studies that unless a dog has kidney or liver disease, protein in the diet does not pose any sort of health risk whatsoever. Even elderly dogs with compromised kidney function related to old age do better with higher protein than was currently believed to be "safe".

The fact that dogs (and wolves) can ingest some carbohydrate-based foods is not a secret, nor is it any new development. Check any scientific wolf website and you will find that wolves do eat fruits, vegetables and berries in small amounts. However, at issue is the huge percentage of carbohydrates that we feed the domestic dog in the way of commercial dog food. (Usually well over 50% carbs). No wolf or indeed any canid can remain healthy on a diet that is primarily grain-based carbohydrates.

In fact, recent studies on HUMAN diet demonstrates that high amounts of carbohydrates are unhealthy for us, too. Since mankind began to farm, and agriculture "improved" our lives to provide us a diet based on grains, the human brain has become significantly smaller. Vegetarian humans also have smaller brains than their omnivorous counterparts. Hmmm. Why even herbivores like cows are said to thrive more healthily on diets where they graze on natural grasses and vegetation instead of being fed strictly grains in a feed lot.

Evolution over 10,000 years of domestication has failed to produce any significant mutations that separate dogs from wolves to the extent that they have evolved into a different species.

For some reason, folks out there....veterinarians, dog food companies, canine "advisors"...are just itching to turn back the clock of genetic science and molecular biology and convince us that dogs and wolves are DIFFERENT. After all, you can tell just by looking at them...it's obvious, right?

Wrong again. Looks only show us the characteristics that man has intentionally bred for. All those characteristics had their potential in the genetic makeup of the wolf. THAT is what should be obvious to anyone with a background in science.

It's convenient for some to attempt to justify the recommendation for feeding a cheap diet based on grains, and to try to support the status quo of using inferior foodstuffs from the dregs of the human food chain, but it also is disingenuous to our claim of caring enough about our dogs to want to provide them with optimal nutrition.

The Russian Roulette Diet

Having done extensive research on canine nutrition, I noted with interest Caroline Coile's article "How Would You Like That Cooked?" in the August issue of the AKC Gazette. However, eager anticipation soon gave way to disappointment as I realized that the article included flawed studies and reasoning commonly spouted by the staunchest critics of raw diets. There was some valid information, but the poor data predominated.


A study was cited that found that cats fed frozen raw rabbit developed taurine deficiency, while those fed a commercial kibble did not. There are several problems with this study. First, it only included cats with malabsorption issues. It is well known from human studies that highly refined and processed foods are more easily digested by those with malabsorptive digestive disorders. It is possible that the underlying health condition caused the difficulty with taurine absorption, and not the food itself. A commercial food is, in effect, "predigested" by being highly processed, a situation that may be beneficial for animals with malabsorption problems.


A diet consisting exclusively of rabbit is not advisable because taurine levels in rabbit are much lower than other meats. A 2003 UC Davis lab study tabulated taurine content in various meats fed to pets:


Whole rabbit carcass ....... 373 (+/- 399) mg taurine per kilogram wet weight
Chicken dark meat.......... 1690 (+/- 370) mg taurine per kilogram wet weight
Turkey dark meat .......... 3960 (+/- 690) mg taurine per kilogram wet weight
clams fresh ................. 2400mg taurine per kilogram wet weight

So if the kibble-fed cats had a diet that included other meats that just rabbit, and was supplemented with powdered taurine as well, they of course were not as prone to develop taurine deficiency as those fed rabbit exclusively. The act of freezing may be a consideration too. It is possible that freezing may destroy taurine, just as high heat cooking does. Grinding also destroys taurine.

And, we might need to remind ourselves, cats are not dogs. Dogs can produce at least some taurine from other amino acids, while cats cannot.

The take home message from this study is that frozen, ground raw rabbit should not comprise the sole diet for months on end of cats with malabsorption problems. That's it! This is even more evidence of the need for variety in the diet.

Then, a large portion of the artice was devoted to bacterial contamination of food. That section highlighted concerns about salmonella. It is interesting to note that a large percentage of all dogs carry salmonella, regardless of diet. The AVMA admits that, based on studies done on kibble-fed dogs, a full 36% carry salmonella in their GI tracts. Salmonella can be transmitted to dogs from humans, and salmonella is also, incidentally, transmitted to humans from other humans, not just by food or kisses from a pet. Salmonella is in the environment, and is a natural part of life for our pets, and for us too. Naturally, it can be a concern for the immunocompromised.


However, commercial dried foods have been recalled for salmonella contamination frequently; more often than raw diets. Once a food is processed at high heat, all microbes, both good and bad, are killed. This leaves the resultant meal in effect a petri dish, ready to be overrun by the first disease-causing micro-organism the food comes in contact with after processing. There no longer are beneficial bacteria in the food to help keep disease-causing organisms in check.


I would be interested to see the 2009 study the article refers to, that claims NO pathogens in the stools of kibble-fed dogs. I would be very skeptical of such results. I have seen multiple other studies out of University of Guelph, cited as part of an agenda to ban therapy dogs from partaking of a raw diet. However, studies used as "evidence" have been either statistically insignificant due to small numbers, or did not include a group of dogs fed kibble. In the studies with large numbers of participating dogs, most all of them have done a great job of highlighting the bacteria in the stool of raw fed dogs while ignoring the significant amount of pathogens in the stool of kibble-fed dogs. In most studies, the amount of pathogens is comparable and for some pathogens (such as C. difficile and MRSA) the rates are significantly HIGHER in kibble-fed dogs.

The article seems to attempt to justify use of highly processed "sterilized" commercial pet food by highlighting overblown salmonella risks. If the risk of transmission of salmonella varied with diet, then health care personnel would be ordered to not to eat peanut butter, almonds, eggs, mayonnaise, a rare-cooked burger, strawberries, or any of the other foods that have been found to carry salmonella. 

An example of a raw diet included in Ms. Coile's article involved the practice of feeding racing greyhounds inferior foods. It should go without saying that when feeding a home-made diet, the ingredients should be fresh; not stale, rotting or rancid.  Concerns about parasites are certainly valid, and the reason that even most raw feeding advocates do not recommend feeding of raw fish or raw game animals. Deep freezing can also help reduce the risk of parasites.

Ms. Coile's article pointed to studies that analyzed home-prepared recipes, claiming they were "unbalanced". This thought process is also flawed, as home-prepared diets are based on the concept of variety rather than eating the same, homogenized recipe each and every day. You do not need "balance" in each bite. What is needed is balance over time. This wrong-headed thinking about balance needed in each bite comes from the habit of opening a bag and pouring out the same dry formula every day, day after day.

A diet made of shredded shoe leather, motor oil and ground coal could also pass AAFCO certification as "complete and balanced". Still, it's certainly not something I'd like to feed my pet.


In this article, much ado was made of nutrient deficiency or excess in home prepared diets, but nothing is mentioned about the multitude of deaths and recalls related to the use of "balanced" commercial foods. These foods can be dangerously "imbalanced" and it is a most serious situation when the naive consumer buys and feeds one food exclusively, trusting it to be "complete and balanced".

Vitamins and minerals have to be supplemented in commercial diets due to the poor quality and overprocessing of the ingredients used. When measurements are off, the results can be deadly. Many deaths and recalls have resulted due to thiamine deficiency, the most recent in 2011 by Wellness brand. In 2006, Mars' Royal Canin brand was recalled due to massive overdosing of Vitamin D. Other vitamins and minerals have been problematic over the years in commercial "balanced" diets, including zinc, calcium, and Vitamin A. Then there are the hazards of incidental ingredients such as fluoride in rock phospate, an ingredient included in almost all pet foods to provide minerals. We also find potential carcinogenic preservatives and even drugs like pentobarbital and tylenol in some commercial pet foods.

You can be certain of three things: death, taxes and future recalls for mycotoxins in pet foods. Recalls for deadly aflatoxicosis and vomitoxicosis are common; the risk for those is unavoidable in commercial foods where dry ingredients sit in warehouses prior to production, and then once manufactured, the food sits on a shelf for months prior to purchase. High levels of aflatoxins kill outright, but chronic, longterm consumption of low levels of aflatoxins (present in virtually ALL kibbles) eventually produces liver cancer.

Let's not forget the frequent recalls for metal shavings and pieces; as well as the horrific 2007 near-universal contamination with melamine and cyanuric acid which were INTENTIONALLY added to foods to make protein content look higher. I daresay such "ingredients" are just as risky (if not more risky) to dogs as any bone fragment in a raw diet ever was. Bones don't kill thousands of dogs in one fell swoop.

Commercial diets have killed countless dogs, yet we are left with the impression in the closing statement that "dogs are living longer than ever now on diets formulated for health."

Is there actual evidence that dogs really are living longer today, on average, than those who lived decades ago? And if so, is that attributable to diet or to other factors? Yes, many owners ARE feeding their pets higher quality foods today; and not necessarily just commercial, over-processed foods. But aside from that, fewer dogs are allowed to roam these days, reducing the possibility of accidental death which was the major cause of death "back in the day". There have been great advances in veterinary care, and more and more pet owners these days take their pets in for routine care and dental cleanings, thereby promoting a longer life. On the other side of the coin, some breeds suffer from genetic health problems that shorten lifespans, and these factors are unrelated to diet or quality of veterinary care. So please let's not jump to conclusions about lifespans based on nonexistent, faulty or incomplete evidence.

We need to quit relying on meals poured from a bag, and begin to use our common sense when feeding our animals. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to formulate a balanced diet for dogs; just a bit of information. Look for some of the many excellent canine diet resources available now. Lew Olson, a canine nutritionist, has a book out on raw and natural nutrition for dogs and has great articles on her website; http://www.b-naturals.com/

A good eye-opener to the perils of commercial canine cuisine is Ann Martin's book "Food Pets Die For". Another interesting book with good research is "See Spot Live Longer" by Steve Brown and Beth Taylor.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the AVMA, BVMA, and the CVMA may have opposition to a raw diet (as stated by Ms. Coile) not because of health concerns, but rather due to a conflict of interest brought about by the financial support these groups garner from the pet food industry. Perhaps the AKC and the "Gazette" have a similar conflict, considering the heavy advertising and financial support they accept from Purina and Eukanuba. I can think of no other reason for AKC to print such a biased and flawed article on diet for dogs in the "Gazette".

Feeding commercial kibble? You may well be playing "Russian Roulette" with your dog's life.

Risky Business

Truth is, commercial pet food is mostly garbage.

That's right, you heard me correctly. It's garbage.

"OK, fine!" you might say. "Dogs love to eat garbage....and they are even expert poop 'recyclers'! There's no food on the planet that can be a worse for them than poop, right? How bad can pet food garbage really be? Companies have to label it honestly, and they can't sell it if it isn't safe. Right?"

Wrong. As many thousands of owners of pets who were sickened and killed by their dog food will tell you. Dead Wrong.

The undisputed fact is that pet food is composed of the waste products from the food industry.

To make a pet food into that familiar crunchy hard kibble, it is necessary to use mostly dry ingredients. Dry foodstuffs like "meals" are used, along with large quantities of grain products, starches such as peas and potatoes, and dried plant proteins known as "glutens". Add to the mix other non-nutritious ingredients like beet pulp (fiber), rock phosphate for minerals (carrying with it a high load of incidental fluoride) and of course the nondescript "by-products". Some sort of preservative is needed for a long shelf life. These ingredients are then extruded under extreme high heat and pressure into the final kibble-foromed product. As we know from studies on people, overprocessed food lose much of their nutritional value. When you feed kibble, you certainly are not providing your pet with anything that could be fairly considered life-sustaining, much less healthful.

Canned food has the advantage of moistness, lack of chemical preservatives, and improved palatablity. However, the meat used in pet food whether it is canned or kibbled, is amost invariably what is referred to as "4D"..... from Dead, Diseased, Dying or Disabled animals. Yes, even most premium brands use 4D meats.

Another disturbing discovery is the use of rendered companion animals in the ingredient tagged as "meat meal". In the 1990s, some vets reported that dogs seemed to be developing a tolerance to pentobarbital, the drug used to euthanize them. Were they somehow ingesting low doses of pentobarbital? Pentobarbital is never used to kill animals who are destined to be food; it is only used to kill companion animals. Was pentobarbital in pet food? There would have only been one way it could have gotten there...by including the remains of euthanized pets in the meat meals that were produced by rendering plants

In 1998, the FDA did a random sampling of commercial pet foods to check for pentobarbital. Shockingly, 31 of the 37 brands tested had measurable amounts of the toxic drug. A followup study in 2000 found that the highest levels of pentobarbital were found in Ol' Roy, Kibbles and Bits, and Pet Gold. Other popular brands like Purina Pro Plan and Nutro Premium also tested positive for pentobarbital.

The uncomfortable fact is that companion animal carcasses have long been accepted by plants who specialize in "rendering". These carcasses join the dead, diseased livestock and road kill and are ground up, boiled at high temperatures and separated into fats and "meat". This "meat" is then further dried to produce a "meat meal." Meat meal is a major ingredient in many brands of commercial pet foods...and the Pentobartital evidence trail proves that companion animals have been a part of the mix...despite denials by the pet food companies.

So how can we avoid pet food made up of "4D" animals or recycled pets? You can look for a label that touts "human grade" meat, but there is no requirement and certainly no guarantee that "human grade" is ever actually used.

AAFCO is the industry group that certifies pet foods as "complete and balanced", usually with their stamp of approval right on the label! AAFCO is made up of individuals from the pet food industry. In effect, the industry polices itself. The fox is guarding the henhouse.

AAFCO certification means simply that the food in question lists a nutrient profile on the label that meets predetermined criteria for fat and protein content. Alternatively, a certification by AAFCO might mean that a feeding trial was done. To pass an AAFCO feeding trial, 6 out of 8 animals must complete a 26 week course of a steady diet of that particular diet without showing clinical or pathological signs of nutritional deficiency or excess. And 6 of the 8 must not lose over 15% of their initial starting weight. This is supposed to prove that the food is "complete and balanced"? Lack of weight loss is not exactly a ringing endorsement. In my estimation, AAFCO certification is completely worthless.

Think about it for about ten seconds. Dogs and cats are carnivores. How can a food based primarily on grains and carbs, with a bit of "4D" meat thrown into the mix, possibly supply them the necessary vital nutrition? Instead of fresh meats and vegetables, our pets are consuming the sweepings from granary floors, fibrous wastes from beet sugar production, and grains that have been warehoused so long that they are often rancid and infested with mites and mold. Proteins are derived in large part from vegetable sources like wheat, corn and soybeans....and dogs and cats cannot effectively digest plant-derived protein. The little meat included in commercial pet food is "rendered" from dead, diseased, dying and disabled animals.

But the proof is certainly in the pudding, as events in recent years have demonstrated. Recalls occur regularly. Most frightening are deaths due to contaminants like poisonous mold, which naturally grows on stored foodstuffs and produces toxic chemicals that are known as "aflatoxins". Equally horrifying were thousands of pet deaths due to eating food that included glutens tainted with melamine and cyanuric acid. Melamine and cyanuric acid are both high-nitrogen substances. They were illegally cut into glutens to increase the bulk of the product as a way to cut costs. Thankfully, the melamine problem seems to have abated with vigilant monitoring. However, aflatoxins remain an ongoing concern, with a recent recall by Kroger in over 10 states in December 2010 due to high levels of cancer-causing aflatoxins. Aflatoxins, produced by mold on foodstuffs, cause liver damage and liver cancer with long-term low dose exposure, or can kill outright at higher doses by inducing liver failure.

Even more damning evidence of the hypocrisy of the claims of "complete and balanced" pet food lies in the many recalls for vitamin or mineral insufficiencies or, conversely, toxic overdoses. We've seen recalls for lack of vitamin A...something that carnivores have traditionally depended on their meat and organ-based diet to provide. Plant-based beta carotene is useless to dogs and cats as they cannot convert it to vitamin A. Most recently, in 2009, thiamine deficiency in pet food caused deaths. There have been recalls for toxic vitamin D excesses and zinc overdoses.

Contamination with Salmonella, a bacteria that can cause diarrhea and illnes, and often cited as a concern with raw foods, actually has been the source of multiple recalls of dry kibbled pet foods. Apparently, when food is cooked until all microorganisms, both good and bad, are dead, you have just created a petri dish ripe for growing unchecked colonies of the first bacteria or fungus that happens to come in contact with that food. Oops!

The heavy overprocessing of meats used in pet foods degrades vital amino acids including taurine. This often causes actual taurine deficiency disease, manifested by cardiomyopathy. So lets cook the hell out of the food and then make a feeble attempt to add taurine back in? Wrong solution to the problem; taurine is abundant in fresh meats.

Most supplements, including the powdered taurine supplement that is added to pet foods, are exclusively sourced from China, leaving us with no safe haven when it comes to additives in our food supply. The glutens tainted with melamine and cyanuric acid were also sourced from China. I'm doubtful that this new world global economy is beneficial to either us or our pets.

Tainted ingredients are often found in different brands during recalls because dozens of different pet food brands are often made in the same production plant. Yes, even the premium brands are produced right alongside the grocery store brands by large "co-packers". Contaminants have been shared among various brands in recent recalls, premium foods as well as grocery store brands .

Transforming garbage into cash is a magical feat that has been perfected by these pet food industry giants. Is it any wonder that pet food companies are able to sponsor dog shows, and heavily lobby the veterinary schools with grants and freebies intended to push their products on society? You'll notice that most vets foolishly advise owners against feeding their pets fresh foods prepared at home.

Carnivores like dogs and cats rely on their traditional diet of fresh foods to keep them healthy and happy. Give your dog a bone. Give your dog some fresh ground beef, or maybe a chicken wing or back. Scramble him up an egg. Share your fish dinner with him. But please, say NO to commercial pet foods.

Sadly, many out there are so indoctrinated to commercial pet foods that they will remain skeptical of this information. "My pets are just fine and I've fed XXXXX brand for years!" they proclaim. This is comparable to playing a game of Russian Roulette with our pets' lives. And, sadly, for those who die, in hindsight the risk could easily have been avoided.

I rest much easier at night since I made the switch to frozen raw or sun-dried meats, and since I made the decision to share my freshly prepared ricotta cheese and egg casserole with my dogs.

And I cringe whenever I see that bag of "Ol' Roy" dog food ready for checkout in the cart ahead of me at WalMart!

More info:

http://www.homevet.com/petcare/foodbook.html

http://seespotlivelonger.com/seespotbook.html

Info on mycotoxins:

http://vetmed.iastate.edu/diagnostic-lab/diagnostic-services/diagnostic-sections/chemistry-/-toxicology/mycotoxins

And here is a recent Saturday Night Live spot that is more factual than they might realize! A fictional ad for "Mostly Garbage" dog food:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/99942/saturday-night-live-mostly-garbage-dog-food

Gosh that never gets old! I love that SNL spot!