An Assessment of Health in Pet Dogs

(Canis Lupis Familiaris) fed on Cooked

or Raw Diets

Hope Turner

Submitted in partial fulfilment of requirements for theBSc (Hons) Applied Animal Studies

i

Moulton College in collaboration withThe University of Northampton

23/07/2012

Author declaration

I declare that the work in this dissertation was carried out in

accordance with the Regulations of Moulton College, in

collaboration with The University of Northampton. The work is

original, except where indicated by special reference in the text, and

no part of the dissertation has been submitted for any other

academic award. Any views expressed in the dissertation are those

of the author.

Signed .................................................... Date ............................

ii

Abstract

Nutrition is the cornerstone of health, affecting every animal at the cellular level, leading to visual cues that can be an indicator of health.

This research aims to establish if there is a differential with regards to body condition, coat condition, oral health and faecal consistency in domestic dogs (Canis Lupus Familiaris) fed cooked or raw diets.

Through individual condition scoring of 41 pet dogs and questioning owners as to diet and faecal consistency, results showed no significant differences in body condition (P = 0.112) some significant differences in coat condition with results for gloss (P = 0.004), softness (P = 0.000) and feel (P = 0.001), however scale was not significant (P = 0.114). Oral health showed no overall significance with tooth colour (P = 0.116), or plaque coverage of the K9 (P = 0.087), but significant differences for plaque coverage of the first carnassial (P = 0.006), none for gum colour (P = 0.232), but high significance for halitosis (P = 0.000) and faecal consistency at (P = 0.000). All differences showed better results in raw fed dogs than in cooked fed dogs.

This backs the theory of nutritional differences between cooked and raw diets, regardless of initial ingredients and the negative effect that cooking has on vitamin and mineral stability, protein and lipid structure, digestibility and therefore health.

Leading to the conclusion that dogs fed on a nutritionally complete raw diet, high in meat and low in starch, that includes raw bones, have better coats, oral health and digestive systems, which is indicative of being healthier.

iii

ContentsAuthor declaration......................................................................................ii

Abstract......................................................................................................iii

List of tables................................................................................................v

Acknowledgements..................................................................................vi

Chapter 1 - Introduction............................................................................1

1.0 Introduction...................................................................................1

1.1 The Dog’s Domestication...............................................................3

1.2 The Evolution of Canine Food.......................................................5

1.3 Revolution: Raw feeding...............................................................9

1.4 Canine Digestion...........................................................................10

1.4.1 Apprehension..........................................................................10

1.4.2 Mastication & Swallowing.....................................................10

1.4.3 Stomach..................................................................................11

1.4.4 Duodenum...............................................................................12

1.4.5 Jejunum...................................................................................12

1.4.6 Ileum........................................................................................13

1.4.7 Large Intestine........................................................................13

1.4.8 Anus.........................................................................................14

1.5 Nutritional differences between raw & cooked diets................14

1.5.1 Nutritional recommendations...............................................15

1.5.2 Ingredients..............................................................................15

1.5.3 Ingredient effects on digestion.............................................18

1.5.4 Effects of cooking...................................................................21

1.6 Body condition effects of raw and cooked diets.......................23

1.7 Coat effects of Nutrition................................................................23

1.7.1 Deficiencies.............................................................................23

1.8 Oral effects of raw and cooked diets..........................................25

1.9 Faecal effects of raw and cooked diets.....................................27

Aims and Objectives............................................................................27

Chapter 2 – Method.................................................................................29

2.0 Method................................................................................................30

2.1 The Study Subjects.......................................................................30

2.2 Method............................................................................................30

2.2.1 Body Condition Score............................................................31

2.2.2 Coat Condition Score............................................................31

2.2.3 Oral Scoring............................................................................31

2.2.4 Faecal consistency................................................................32

2.3 Statistics..........................................................................................33

Chapter 3 – Results.................................................................................34

3.0 Results............................................................................................35

3.1 Body Condition..............................................................................35

3.2 Coat Condition...............................................................................35

3.3 Oral Health.....................................................................................38

3.3.1 Tooth Colour...........................................................................38

3.3.2 Plaque Coverage...................................................................40

3.3.3 Gum Colour.............................................................................41

3.3.4 Halitosis...................................................................................42

3.4 Faecal Consistency.......................................................................42

Chapter 4 – Discussion...........................................................................44

4.0 Discussion......................................................................................45

4.1 Body Condition..........................................................................45

4.2 Coat Condition...........................................................................45

4.3 Oral Health.................................................................................47

4.4 Faecal Consistency...................................................................51

4.5 Overall.........................................................................................52

4.6 Limitations..................................................................................54

Chapter 5 – Conclusions........................................................................56

5.0 Conclusions....................................................................................57

Chapter 7 – References..........................................................................59

7.0 References.....................................................................................60

Chapter 8 – Appendices.........................................................................88

8.0 Appendices.....................................................................................89

Appendix 1............................................................................................90

Appendix 2............................................................................................92

Appendix 3............................................................................................94

Appendix 4............................................................................................97

Appendix 5............................................................................................98

Appendix 6............................................................................................99

Appendix 7..........................................................................................100

Appendix 8..........................................................................................101

List of figures

Page

Figure 1 - Genome-wide SNP and haplotype analyses reveal a rich

history underlying dog domestication. 4

Figure 2 - Advert for Spratts from 1876 7

Figure 3 - Advertisement for Ken-L-Ration 8

Figure 4 - 80% of 3yr old dogs have periodontal disease. 25

Figure 5 – Body Condition Score Means 35

Figure 6 – Coat Condition Gloss 36

Figure 7 – Coat Condition Softness 37

Figure 8 – Coat Condition Feel 37

Figure 9 – Coat Condition Scale 38

Figure 10 – Average tooth colour per diet 39

Figure 11 – K9 Plaque Coverage 40

Figure 12 – 1st Carnassial Plaque Coverage 41

Figure 13 – Statistics from Gum Colour 41

Figure 14 – Statistics from Halitosis tests 42

Figure 15 – Statistics from Faecal consistency results 43

Figure 16 – Minky the 15 yr old cooked fed terrier cross 48

Figure 17 – Talen the 3 yr old raw fed German Shepherd cross 49

Figure 18 – Annie the 13 yr old raw fed Labrador 49

List of tables

Page

Table 1 - Generationally produced health of raw verses cooked diet

in cats. 22

Table 2- Kruskal-Wallis results for Coat Condition Tests 36

Table 3 - Kruskal-Wallis results for individual tooth colour 38-39

Acknowledgements

I should like to thank Dr. Wanda McCormick and Krista McLennan

BSc (Hons), MSc for their valuable guidance and advice with

relation to this project. I should also like to thank Caroline Griffith

bsy N.Th, TTP2, TBP Trainer, for her assistance in locating a

number of dogs to test in the Cambridge area and Carolyn Wright

BSc (Hons), for her assistance in locating a number of dogs to test

in the Rugby and Leicestershire areas. I thank both Elizabeth

Roberts, HNC, BSc (Hons) and Ruth Daynes BSc (Hons) for their

incredibly valued sense checking ability, my Aunt, Patricia Aldaya

for her familial support and Stephen Smith MBE for his support and

humour through my three years of University.

Chapter 1 - Introduction

1.0Introduction

The way in which pet owners feed their dogs has changed

drastically over the last 150 years, with a commercial shift to dried

food and the recent raw movement. Whilst “there is no or little

scientific evidence as to the benefits of raw feeding” (Case et al.,

2011), there are a great number of pro-raw feeders who have done

their own research and/or surveys leading to positive statements i.e.

“Raw feeding reduces veterinary visits by 85%” (O’Driscoll, 2005),

and cooking produces heterogeneous reproduction and disease

(Pottenger, 1983), making this shift significant and increasing

owners belief that their pets are healthier on raw rather than

commercial diets.

Veterinary surgeons and pet food manufacturers warn against raw

feeding due to the risks of bone splintering and bacterial diseases

such as salmonella and the risk of not getting the necessary

nutritional balance correct (PFMA, 2009: AVMA, 2012).

A lack or excess of one or many vitamins, minerals or essential fatty

acids can lead to “major chronic diseases” (Food and Nutrition

Board, 1989), if prolonged can be fatal (Roche, 1976) and

malnourished animals are “likely to have a compromised immune

system” (Ackerman, 2008; Agar, 2001; Gorrel, 1998), a combination

of these issues may have an effect genetics, and a combination of

genetics and nutrition are known to have an effect on aging (Brown-

Borg et al., 2012).

The age at which dogs are considered to be geriatric has lowered

from 8.85 in 1989 (Goldston) to 7 in 2009 (AVMA): in the later

decade of that time the average vet bill has increased 410% (Bruce,

2001: Petwise, 2009), and pet owners have changed the way they

feed, with a 71% shift to dried food (PFMA, 2011) and 3% of owners

feeding raw food (Case et al., 2011).

The raw food market is now increasing (Schlesinger & Joffe, 2011)

with a $100-million a year industry in the US, with an average

increase in sales of 30-40% in Canada (McAteer, 2012). This

increase in veterinary costs along with the reduced age at which an

animal is considered to be geriatric and the fact that pets are getting

sicker (Banfield Pet Hospital, 2012) could imply issues within the

genetics and/or the daily lives of our pets, or could be a reflection of

the advance in animal medicine now available.

Therefore an investigation into the health of pets on either cooked

or raw diets, that can be assessed visually by the average layman

(Vester & Fahey, 2006), would be of interest to concerned pet

owners and commercial pet food manufacturers, as these results

may sway the market further.

1.1 The Dog’s Domestication

The wolf is the ancestor of the domestic dog (Burns, 2009;

Hemmer, 1990; Wayne & O’Brien, 1987; Wayne et al., 1987; Mech,

1970) and can be traced back to three female wolves (Townend,

2009), although it is likely that current breeds derive from different

types of wolf (Derr, 2012: Clutton-Brock, 1999; Riddle, 1987) as

shown genetically by Bridgett et al. (2010) (see figure 1).

Figure 1 - Genome-wide SNP and haplotype analyses reveal a rich

history underlying dog domestication. (Bridgett et al., 2010)

There is little question that wolves became domesticated due to

humans taking pups and taming them to assist with hunting

(Serpell, 1995), followed by use for herding after the

commencement of livestock breeding (Gibson, 1996).

The first evidence of dogs living with man is from 14,000 years ago

(Morey, 2006). Canine evolution has specialised through tandem

repeats of DNA (Savolainen et al., 2000) (an exaggeration of a

particular attribute) via selective breeding, this has shaped the dog

breeds we have today, however internal anatomy and physiology is

only differentiated in size when comparing wolves and dogs

(Schultze, 1998: Yarnall, 1998).

Dogs have only been separated into breeds for around 300-400

years, and have only had a central register for breeds in the UK

since 1873 (The Kennel Club, 2008).

1.2 The Evolution of Canine Food

“The wolf’s diet consists almost entirely of highly concentrated and

easily digested fat and protein”, obtained by the majority from deer,

moose, caribou, elk, sheep, beaver, bison and hare, their

preference when it comes to domestic animals are: cattle, sheep,

deer, horse, pig and goat (Mech, 1970). Smaller prey are known to

be mice, mink, muskrats, squirrels, rabbits, birds, fish, lizards &

snakes in addition to grass-hoppers, earthworms, berries and duck.

Wolves tend to eat in a specific order, first rump, then intestines,

followed by heart, lungs, and liver, but never the stomach (Mech,

1970).

Wolves assisting the hunt were undoubtedly fed scraps from the kill

and are known to have scavenged waste from human

encampments (Serpell, 1995). The delineation between working

dogs and pets cannot have occurred until there was inequality

within the realms of men, as basic hunter gatherers would not have

had a food surplus for non-productive pets.

The first dog specific food was a biscuit sold in 1856 (Purina, N.D.)

by James Spratt, made from wheat, vegetables, beetroot and beef

blood (see figure 2), very similar to the Bonio made today by Nestle.

Figure 2 - Advert for Spratts from 1876 (British Veterinary Journal,

1876)

In the 1920’s canned dog food was introduced by Chappel Bros Inc.

under the name Ken-L-Ration (see figure 3), this was mostly horse

meat as in the 1930’s vast numbers of horses and mules were

being replaced by cars and tractors after World War I.

Figure 3 - Advertisement for Ken-L-Ration (Ken-L-Ration, 1932)

A lack of horse meat and concerns over the costs of feeding fresh

meat and vegetables lead to the use of waste products from the

human food industry and the initiation of dried foods. Changing from

the use of expensive ingredients to grains for energy, legumes for

calcium, seeds for fat soluble vitamins etc. (McNamara, 2006).

Dried food as it is known today started hitting the shelves in large

bags made by Purina in 1957. The popularity of dried food

increased dramatically in the 1980’s and has seen an increase in

market share of 90% in the last decade (PFMA, 2011).

1.3 Revolution: Raw feeding

A raw diet is based on the premise that dogs are 99.8% wolf

(Wayne, 1993) and therefore should eat a diet more akin to their

ancestor. Books written on raw feeding with menu

recommendations are often used as guides by pro-raw feeders,

dominated mostly by those of Ian Billinghurst (2001), Thomas

Lonsdale (2001) (Australian Veterinary Surgeons) and Juliette de

Baïracli Levy (1992).

The above detailed books advocate raw feeding as being both more

natural and healthier for animals, however they do not back this with

science, a new self-published book however does (Griffith, 2012),

but does not reference its data.

Whilst pet food manufacturers show clearly the science of their

recipes and have shown that there are bacteria issues with raw food

(Weese et al., 2005) with regards to what goes and in and what

comes out of the animal (Case et al., 2011).

1.4 Canine Digestion

In order to assess which foods and diets are more species

appropriate, and therefore promote health, it is important to consider

the physiology of the gastro-intestinal tract and how certain foods

affect it (Hofmann, 2000).

Dogs have strong stomach acid and a relatively short intestinal

tract, with a fast transit time (Mash, 2011). An incorrect diet can

produce changes in absorptive function, which are associated with

damage to colonic microstructure (Rolfe et al., 2002).

1.4.1 Apprehension

Canine teeth and the scissor action of their jaw have evolved

to puncture and rip flesh from carcasses, with shearing

carnassials (Wayne & Vila, 2001) and crushing post-

carnassials (Bradshaw, 2006).

1.4.2 Mastication & Swallowing

Dogs have little to no lateral jaw movement due to the

grounding of the temperomandibular joint by the postglenoid

process, preventing the possibility of dislocation during the

hunt (Mech & Boitani, 2003), no flattened teeth (Goody,

1997) and therefore are not designed to chew fibrous plant

matter.

The salivary glands of a dog (Parotid, Mandibular,

Sublingual, Buccal and Zygomatic) do not produce amylase

(Altman & Dittmer, 1968), necessary for digesting starch, as

starch is not a large part of their natural daily intake (Mech,

1970).

Dogs have a wide oesophagus to allow large pieces of torn-

off food to pass to the stomach (Goody, 1997), due to the

limited amount of mastication performed.

1.4.3 Stomach

The canine stomach is where the majority of food breakdown

occurs through a combination of mechanical and chemical

digestion.

Gastrin is released from the stomach wall, which activates

the release of hydrochloric acid at a pH of 1-2 (National

Research Council, 2006). This pH level is kept low by diets

high in protein, but is raised by grains, rendering lipase

irreversibly inactive below pH 1.5 and negatively effecting

pepsin activity over pH 2.0, (Carriere et al., 1991: Maskell &

Johnson, 1993). Proteins stay in the stomach for longer than

grains, which speed up the release of chime, reducing the

ability for the stomach to digest the proteins available (Brown

& Taylor, 2005) therefore grains can have a negative effect

on digestion.

1.4.4 Duodenum

Chyme passes from the stomach to the duodenum after 4-8

hours (Brown & Taylor, 2005), where it is further broken

down by pancreatic enzymes, peristalsis and bile (Case,

2005). When working at peak efficiency pancreatic enzymes

and bile at a pH of 7.1-82 (Banta et al., 1979) are

bacteriocidal for Escherichia coli, Shigella, Salmonella and

Klebsiella and bacteriostatic for coagulase positive and

negative Staphylococci and Pseudomonas whilst inhibiting

Candida albicans (National Research Council, 2006). The

release of bile is in response to lipids, but only to the right

lipids (Erasmus, 1993), low fat diets will have reduced bile

release and there is therefore an increased risk of contraction

of said pathogens.

1.4.5 Jejunum

The jejunum is lined with villi, further capturing nutrients.

Proteins enable probiotics (good bacteria) to flourish in this

environment, however refined sugar and starch molecules

change the environment, making it unsuitable for the

probiotics to breed and feeding the pathogenic bacteria. This

can create an imbalance in this rather large part of the

immune system.

1.4.6 Ileum

Short chain fatty acids derived from unabsorbed starch and

fibre stimulate motility of the ileum (Scheppach, 1994:

Kamath et al., 1987) inhabited by anaerobic bacteria

(National Research Council, 2006).

1.4.7 Large Intestine

Movement is vital to the large intestine via peristalsis, certain

foods can affect the speed of movement and cause

constipation, this movement is slowed down if the diet is

grain rather than meat based (Brown & Taylor, 2005:

Clemens and Stevens, 1980), but can be sped up by high

fibre content, possibly leading to reduced absorption of

electrolytes and water (National Research Council, 2006).

1.4.8 Anus

Anal glands are naturally expressed if the faecal matter

passed is firm (Ashdown, 2008:Gordon, 2001).

1.5 Nutritional differences between raw & cooked diets

Commercial cooked diets have differing processes: dried food,

which contains raw and pre-cooked ingredients, is mixed, heat and

pressure extruded, formed, dried into shape and coated (Pet Food

Institute, 2010), having an effect on its’ nutritional value (Lanhorst et

al., 2007). Canned or tinned foods also contain both raw and pre-

cooked ingredients, which are heat cooked and sterilised (Pedigree

Pet Foods, 1993). A raw diet is either served fresh or frozen to

maintain shelf life. Fatty Acids are not broken down by freezing,

even up to -80°, however most cells and whole organisms are

(Pond, 2000), in effect the freezing process can destroy most

pathogenic bacteria in the same way as cooking, but without the

deleterious effect of destroying the nutrients required for the health

and wellbeing of the consumer.

Regardless of nutritional differences between raw and cooked diet

ingredients, the digestibility of those nutrients in the form it is

provided is effected, the cooking process has an effect on vitamin

retention, the nature of proteins, digestibility and cellular use of the

resultant food stuffs.

1.5.1 Nutritional recommendations

The Waltham Centre for Pet Nutrition has produced a list of

minimum nutrient requirements for dogs per 400 Kilocalories

(kcal) of metabolisable energy (Kelly & Wills, 1996), however

this list only details, 5 of the 7 major minerals, (generally

required in large amounts by all animals), 6 of 10 essential

trace minerals, 12 vitamins, fat and protein content and 1

fatty acid. There are no recommendations for the myriad of

other vitamins, minerals and amino acids currently accepted

by the BSAVA (British Small Animal Veterinary Association)

as required, nor is there such a thing as a Recommended

Daily Allowance (RDA) as with human guidelines, or any

estimate of safe levels of nutritional bioavailability (Burger &

Rivers, 1989).

1.5.2 Ingredients

UK-made cooked pet foods may contain the following

ingredients according to DEFRA (2011):

• “material from animals that passed inspection for

human consumption prior to slaughter - hides, skins,

horns, feet, pig bristle, feather and blood (unless they

are from ruminants requiring TSE testing, in which

case they can only be used if they are tested and give

a negative result)

• material from on farm slaughter of rabbits and poultry

• hatchery waste, eggs, egg by-products and day old

chicks killed for commercial reasons

• fish and by-products from fish processing plants

• material from the production of food including

degreased bones

• products of animal origin (POA) or foodstuffs

containing products of animal origin no longer

intended for human consumption for commercial

reasons or because of packaging problems, etc.

• PAP derived from the above materials • imported pet

food

• pet food and feeding stuffs of animal origin, or feeding

stuffs containing animal by-products or derived

products, which are no longer intended for feeding for

commercial reasons or due to problems of

manufacturing or packaging defects or other defects

from which no risk to public or animal health arises,

blood, placenta, wool, feathers, hair, horns, hoof cuts

and raw milk originating from live animals that did not

show any signs of disease communicable through that

product to humans or animals

aquatic animals, and parts of such animals, except

sea mammals, which did not show any signs of

disease communicable to humans or animals

• animal by-products from aquatic animals originating

from establishments or plants manufacturing products

for human consumption.

• shells from shellfish with soft tissue or flesh

• hatchery by-products

• eggs and egg by-products

• day old chicks killed for commercial reasons

• some species of aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates

• some rodents and lagomorphs (rabbits).”

UK-made raw pet food may contain:

• “Only material from slaughterhouses, or game killed

for human consumption, can be used in raw pet food

manufacture. (EU Control Regulation Article 10 (a)

and (b) (i) and (ii)). Material that:

• has been passed as fit for human consumption but is

not going to be used in this way for commercial

reasons. e.g. clean tripe

• came from animals that passed ante-mortem

inspection but was rejected as unfit for human

consumption, e.g. livers with fluke. For such material

to be used there must not have been any signs of

communicable disease. “ (Defra, 2011)

Therefore there is legally a significant difference in what can

be included in these cooked and raw products.

1.5.3 Ingredient effects on digestion

The starch content and reduced protein content of dried and

tinned foods, whilst increasing energy availability, inactivates

lipase and pepsin by reducing the acidity of hydrochloric acid

in the stomach, having a negative effect on protein digestion

(Brosey et al., 2000: Jin et al., 1994; Maskell & Johnson,

1993; Allen et al., 1981; Carpentier et al., 1977; Villareal et

al., 1955) and motility (Clemens & Stevens, 1980). Dietary

fibres, soy, corn and beet pulp further hinder digestion, by

reducing retention time and digestibility of other ingredients

(National Research Council, 2006; Silvio et al., 2000;

Harmon et al., 1999; Muir et al., 1996; Colonna et al., 1992;

Fahey et al., 1990: Fernandez & Phillips, 1982; Burrows et

al., 1982), lead to dental disease (Baer & White, 1961;

Auskaps et al., 1957) and consequently systemic diseases

(Yudkin, 1969) and impact the immune response (Field et al.,

1999).

Manufactured pet foods are high in water soluble fibre, this is

kept in the stomach for longer, slowing down stomach

digestion (Fogle, 2002). It is also high in insoluble fibre,

retaining water, speeding up movement through the

intestines and bulking out faecal matter (Fogle, 2002);

without which it would be diarrhoea (Strombeck, 1999).

These adjustments of the speeds at which digestion occurs

in differing areas of the gastro-intestinal tract, affects the

amounts of individual nutrients are able to be absorbed, as

different areas of the gastro-intestinal tract concentrate on

the digestion and absorption of different nutrients.

This insoluble fibre may be fermenting or non-fermenting,

fermenting fibre is actively digested by bacteria in the large

intestine, slowing down transport and having a negative

effect on the digestion of proteins (National Research

Council, 2006) and a negative effect on the immune

response (Field et al., 1999).

Biologically appropriate food is high in fresh meat protein,

and low in carbohydrates (Diez et al., 2002), as dogs have no

requirement for carbohydrates in their diet (Baldwin et al.,

2010; National Research Council, 1985). Raw meat has 95%

digestibility, a positive effect on stomach acid pH and

absorption (National Research Council, 2006), however a

raw diet has not been fully investigated for its health benefits

or failures.

1.5.4 Effects of cooking

Cooking de-natures proteins (Fester Kratz, 2009: Pond,

2000) altering their physical and chemical structure by

literally unfolding it’s genetic structure (Fester Kratz, 2009).

Only folded polypeptides are functional, these control

metabolism, transport, communication and basic cell function

(Fester Kratz, 2009), therefore as cooking proteins renders

them inert, all these basic functions will be adversely

effected.

Cooking also impairs the storage stability of vitamins and

minerals (Lugwigshafen et al., 1984). Phospholipids found in

the cell walls of plant and animal material and essential for

the health of each living cell are also broken down by heat

(Pond, 2000). Phospholipids are needed in great quantities

by the immune system, especially in the formation of purulent

material in infected wounds (Pond, 2000).

A long term experiment by Francis Pottenger (1983) showed

a generational difference between cats fed a raw or cooked

diet (see table 1). These animals were fed meat, cod-liver oil

and milk, with one set raw and one cooked, the experiment

lasted 10 years. Whilst this experiment was performed on

cats rather than dogs, the premise is the same.

Table 1 - Generationally produced health of raw verses

cooked diet in cats. (Pottenger, 1983)

Cooked diet Raw diet

Reproduction Heterogeneous

reproduction, with total

sterility by the fourth

generation

Reproductive

ease

Physical

Aspects

physical degeneration,

increasing with each

generation

Optimal health

Tooth

overcrowding

Smaller palates with over

crowding and crossing of

teeth

Wide palates

with plenty of

space for teeth

Bone density Bones became soft &

pliable

Good bone

structure and

density

Endo & Ecto

parasites

Vermin and parasites

abounded

No parasites

Behaviour Suffered from adverse

personality changes

Gentleness

Disease Suffered from

hypothyroidism and most

of the degenerative

No disease

diseases encountered in

human medicine

1.6 Body condition effects of raw and cooked diets

Most cooked diets contain carbohydrates in the form of grains,

these are often protein and fibre rich sources of nutrition, however

the starch content has been known to increase weight gain

(National Research Council, 2006).

1.7 Coat effects of Nutrition

Nutrition has been shown to have an effect on coat condition, these

observable effects can also be indicative of other visceral issues.

1.7.1 Deficiencies

In order to grow a thick glossy coat, dogs need good quality protein

and oils, with the nature of these being affected by the cooking

process, there is a likelihood of reduced gloss and increased

dandruff.

Course, dry hair is due to a deficiency of particular fats (Codner &

Thatcher, 1990), most notably essential fatty acids (EFAs)

(Erasmus, 1993) these are often the first signs of a fatty acid

deficiency which can lead to visual impairment, polyneuropathy and

reduced learning ability (Tinoco, 1979; Holman et al., 1982;

Neuringer et al., 1988; Conner et al., 1992; Uvay et al., 1989) along

with renal and reproductive abnormalities, a decreased growth rate,

a negative effect on the immune system weakened cutaneous blood

vessels with an increased tendency to bruise, decreased wound

healing, hypertrophy of sebaceous glands and an increase in water

loss from the epidermis, along with other degenerative changes in

organs and fragile cell membranes (Hansen et al, 1948 & 1954;

Hansen & Weise, 1951; Weise et al., 1965 & 1966; Holman, 1971).

EFAs are Linoleic acid and Alpha-linolenic acid, otherwise known as

Omega 6 and Omega 3 respectively. Deficiencies in Omega 6

produce eczema-like skin conditions and hair loss, which can be

signs of other visceral issues i.e. hepatic and renal degeneration

and cardiac dysfunction (Erasmus, 1993).

Another observable deficiency with regard to coat condition is a

greying coat, which has been recognised as a “clear sign of zinc

deficiency” (Burger & Rivers, 1989).

1.8 Oral effects of raw and cooked diets

According to the British Association of Veterinary Dentistry, 80% of

dogs over the age of 3 have periodontal disease (see figure 4)

(Milella, N.D.; Hamp et al., 1984) which can be up to 40% of the

workload of veterinary practices (Watkins, 2008) and susceptility

increases with age (Cox & Lepine, 2009).

Figure 4 - 80% of 3yr old dogs have periodontal disease. (Milella,

N.D.)

Bacteria found in tartar have been shown to produce an

immunological response, (Warinner, 2012; Nonnemacher et al.,

2002) therefore tartar in dogs impacts the immune system

(Lonsdale, 1995): it is logical then that the larger the quantities of

tarter, the larger the immune response, which could have an effect

on the immune response of said animal to other pathogens.

Periodontal diseases have been associated with degeneration of

the hepatic, renal, circulatory and respiratory systems (DeBowes et

al., 1996; Pavlica et al., 2008; Milella, 2012).

One of the first signs of periodontal disease is halitosis (Kortegaard

et al., 2008; Zero, 2004;Rawlings & Culham, 1998; Benamghar et

al., 1982) arising from the waste material of bacteria feeding on food

debris attached to plaque, tartar, calculus, (Dogan et al., 2007) and

a bacterial overgrowth of intestinal microflora (Barbara et al., 2005)

potentially leading to gum disease as bacterial proliferate and begin

to consume epithelial cells and blood.

In order to combat this problem pet food manufactures are

introducing polyphosphates into their diets in order to reduce tartar

(Cox & Lepine, 2002), and have developed specialist chews

designed in shape and consistency to effectively “brush the teeth” of

pets, as compared to manual and power brushing (Quigley & Hein,

1962) and therefore reduce the need for dental surgery (Logan,

2006; Kortegaard et al., 2008).

A raw diet includes raw bones, which whilst they do have the

potential to splinter and lodge in the gastro-intestinal tract, are much

less likely to do so than cooked bones (Mash, 2011) and do give the

animal the opportunity to clean their teeth via abrasion, a much

easier option with a quicker effect due to the chipping off of

calculus and tartar, than the other recommended routes of rope-toys

or tooth-brushing (Rawlings & Culham 1998; Benamghar et al.,

1982) and less costly than dental surgery (Cox & Lepine, 2009).

1.9 Faecal effects of raw and cooked diets

Commercial diets contain large quantities of non-digestible fibre, in

order to increase the speed of peristalsis in the large intestine and

prevent constipation; this makes for rather soft faecal matter

(National Research Council, 2006). Raw diets are generally high in

bone content, not all of which is digested, making for harder faecal

matter. It could be argued that whilst there is a risk of constipation

on a raw diet, that conversely there is a risk of non-expressed anal

glands with a cooked diet.

Aims and Objectives

The Aim of this study was to investigate if there is an

observable differential in coat condition, body condition, oral

health and faecal consistency of pet dogs dependent on

whether they are fed a cooked or raw diet.

The objectives of the study were:

To ascertain if there is a difference in body condition

of dogs on raw or cooked diets.

To ascertain if there is a difference in coat condition of

dogs on raw or cooked diets.

To ascertain if there is a difference in oral health of

dogs on raw or cooked diets.

To ascertain if there is a difference in faecal

consistency of dogs on raw or cooked diets.

Chapter 2 – Method

2.0 Method

2.1 The Study Subjects

The animals used in this study are all pets kept in private homes in

the East Midlands area of Britain.

The forty-one animals in this study were tested in their owners’

presence, after pre-arrangement by a third party, either at their

home or at a dog show. Each dog was delayed from their normal

routine for no more than five minutes. The dogs were pre-selected

by a third party, therefore the tester was not aware until after testing

of what diet the dogs were on, also the owners were told that it was

a simple “Health Check” and were given no details as to the nature

of diet comparison for this test, making it ‘blind’, reducing the risk of

bias when taking data.

A risk assessment was performed (Appendix 1 & 2), and an ethics

assessment (Appendix 3) and authorised by Moulton College tutors.

2.2 Method

Details of the name, age, sex and whether spayed or neutered,

along with details of how many minutes exercise each dog had per

day, were taken prior to scoring (detailed below); after which details

of diet, including treats and any history of veterinary dentistry, or

use of chew toys were taken, along with details of any health

issues.

2.2.1 Body Condition Score

Body condition was allotted a score 1-9 as per appendix 4

and discussed by Alex German (2010).

2.2.2 Coat Condition Score

Coat condition was allotted a score 1-5 for gloss, softness,

feel and scale as per appendix 5 and discussed by Rees et

al., (2001).

2.2.3 Oral Scoring

2.2.3.1 Plaque Check

Percentage visible plaque on upper canine and

primary carnassial were estimated by the same

researcher for all test subjects in order to maintain

consistency.

2.2.3.2 Tooth Colour

Each tooth on the left side of the upper jaw was

compared with dental colour charts (Appendix 6) and

numbered accordingly on a dog specific tooth chart

(Appendix 7).

2.2.3.3 Gum Colour

Gum colour was allotted a number 1-5, 1 being

anaemic, 5 being deep pink as per appendix 8.

2.2.3.4 Halitosis

Each dogs’ breath was smelt and allotted a figure from

0-5 indicating the condition of the breath, 0 being

none, 5 being very bad. This was performed by the

same researcher for all test subjects in order to

maintain consistency.

2.2.4 Faecal consistency

Owners were asked to compare average faecal consistency with a

chart of recognisable foods for consistency, each numbered 1-9, 1

being like water, 9 being like ‘rock cake’.

This system differs from the “Fecal Scoring System” produced by

Purina as it does not account for faecal consistency observed from

raw fed animals. It was deemed that the food comparison was

easier for owners to comprehend, after a small pilot trial.

2.3 Statistics

Software used for analysis was Minitab version 13.20. Data was

grouped by diet into those fed a raw diet and those fed a cooked

diet. All data was normality checked, none of the data sets were

normally distributed therefore the Kruskal-Wallis test was utilised to

assess differences according to diet.

Chapter 3 – Results

3.0 Results

3.1 Body Condition

There was no significant effect of diet on body condition score when

analysed by Kruskal-Wallis (P = 0.112; df = 5; H = 8.94) (see figure

5).

Raw Cooked4.9

4.95

5

5.05

5.1

5.15

5.2

Body Condition Score

Body Condition

Figure 5 – Body Condition Score Means (Standard Error = 0.158114

– 0.213001)

3.2 Coat Condition

There was a significant effect of diet on three of the four areas

assessed for coat condition scoring when analysed by Kruskal-

Wallis (gloss, softness and feel) (see table 2 & figures 6, 7, 8 and

9).

Table 2- Kruskal-Wallis results for Coat Condition Tests

Coat Condition P value df H

Gloss 0.004 5 17.04

Softness 0.000 4 23.60

Feel 0.001 4 18.28

Scale 0.114 4 7.45

raw cooked0

0.51

1.52

2.53

3.54

4.55

Coat Condition - Gloss

gloss

Figure 6 – Coat Condition Gloss (Standard Error = 0.266667 –

0.28732)

raw cooked3.6

3.8

4

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

Coat Condition Softness

soft

Figure 7 – Coat Condition Softness (Standard Error = 0.152753 –

0.214946)

raw cooked0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Coat Condition Feel

feel

Figure 8 – Coat Condition Feel (Standard Error = 0.3 – 0.273338)

Figure 9 – Coat Condition Scale (Standard Error = 0.305505 –

0.211202)

3.3 Oral Health

3.3.1 Tooth Colour

There was varied significant effect of diet on tooth score when

analysed by Kruskal-Wallis, showing significant differences in tooth

colour, with raw fed dogs having whiter teeth in all but the K9 (tooth

204) (see table 3).

Table 3 - Kruskal-Wallis results for individual tooth colour

Tooth No P Value df H

201 0.002 8 24.13

202 0.002 8 24.13

203 0.004 9 24.48

204 0.544 8 6.93

205 0.022 10 20.87

206 0.022 10 20.87

207 0.021 10 20.94

208 0.021 10 20.94

209 0.021 10 20.94

210 0.021 10 20.94

Whilst there was no significant effect of diet on mean tooth colour

when analysed by Kruskal-Wallis (P = 0.116; df = 24; H = 32.44) the

data does show a trend, that the raw fed dogs had whiter teeth (see

figure 10).

Raw Cooked0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Mean Tooth Colour per Diet

Diet

Toot

h Co

lour

Figure 10 – Mean tooth colour per diet (Standard Error = 0.26923 –

0.731765)

3.3.2 Plaque Coverage

There was no significant effect of diet on plaque coverage of the

upper left canine when analysed by Kruskal-Wallis (P = 0.087; df =

10; H = 16.49).

There was a significant effect of diet on plaque coverage of the

upper left first carnassial, indicating reduced plaque coverage on

dogs fed a raw diet, when analysed by Kruskal-Wallis (P = 0.006; df

= 13; H = 29.42) (see figures 11 and 12).

raw cooked0

5

10

15

20

25

Percentage Plaque Coverage of K9

K9

Figure 11 – K9 Plaque Coverage (standard error = 0 - 0.032745)

raw cooked05

101520253035404550

Percentage Plaque Coverage of 1st Carnassial

1st Carnassial

Figure 12 – 1st Carnassial Plaque Coverage (standard error =

0.015352 – 0.127409)

3.3.3 Gum Colour

There was no significant effect of diet on gum colour when analysed

by Kruskal-Wallis (P = 0.232; df = 3; H = 4.29) (see figure 13).

raw cooked3.2

3.25

3.3

3.35

3.4

3.45

3.5

3.55

3.6

3.65

Gum Colour

Gum Colour

Figure 13 – Statistics from Gum Colour tests (Standard Error =

0.305505 – 0.127409)

3.3.4 Halitosis

There was a significant effect of diet on halitosis when analysed by

Kruskal-Wallis (P = 0.000; df = 3; H = 23.07), with less halitosis in

raw fed animals (see figure 14).

raw cooked0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Halitosis

Halitosis

Figure 14 – Statistics from Halitosis tests (Standard Error = 0 –

0.286232)

3.4 Faecal Consistency

There was a significant effect of diet on faecal consistency when

analysed by Kruskal-Wallis (P = 0.000; df = 3; H = 23.07), showing

that raw fed dogs had harder faecal consistency than cooked fed

dogs (see figure 15).

raw cooked0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Faecal Consistency

Faecal Consistency

Figure 15 – Statistics from faecal consistency results (Standard

Error = 0.133333 – 0.103695)

Chapter 4 – Discussion

4.0 Discussion

4.1 Body Condition

Whilst the average body condition score of dogs fed a cooked diet

was higher than those on a raw diet (see figure 5), implying that

cooked fed dogs carried more weight than raw fed dogs, statistical

analysis showed that the differential was not significant (P = 0.112).

Body condition can imply health, particularly if a dog is significantly

overweight (13% of cooked fed dogs tested, no raw fed dogs),

which increases susceptibility to diabetes and heart conditions

(Banfield Pet Hospital, 2012), or underweight (23% of cooked fed

dogs tested, 10% of raw fed dogs) implying malnutrition and a

compromised immune system, however it has not proved significant

with the particular test subjects.

4.2 Coat Condition

Differences in coat condition of dogs can imply many things,

including nutrient deficiencies (Ackerman, 2008). Overall the

differences in coat condition were significant, showing that dogs on

a raw diet had healthier coats than those on a cooked diet.

.

4.2.1 Gloss

A glossy coat implies a good supply of oils and requires a balance

between Omega 3 and Omega 6, as demonstrated in Figure 6, this

was more evident in raw fed dogs with 80% of those tested having

optimum gloss, than cooked fed dogs with 32% of those tested

having optimum gloss, with a significance value of P = 0.004.

4.2.2 Softness

Whilst rough coats are the breed standard in certain cases, this was

taken into account when scoring, Figure 7 shows that there was a

significant difference in the softness of the coats of dogs on cooked

or raw foods, with a P value of 0.000, showing that dogs on a raw

diet had soft coats (70%) as opposed to 42% of cooked fed dogs.

4.2.3 Feel

‘Feel’ refers to the absence of a greasy or dry feel to the coat,

therefore, if the scale was zero that meant that the coat neither felt

dry or greasy. There was a significant difference observed in the

feel of coats of dogs on different diets, observable in Figure 8 with a

P value of 0.001. Dryness or greasiness of a coat, is dependent on

a number of factors, a biotin or vitamin A deficiency (Ackerman,

2008), stress, a generic pre-disposition or other nutritional

imbalance.

Of the dogs tested the ones on a raw diet had better coat feel than

those on a cooked diet, with 90% having no dryness or greasiness

to their coats, as opposed to 55% of those on cooked food.

4.2.4 Scale

Scale refers to dandruff present in the dogs coats, whilst Figure 9

shows a clear difference between the amount of scale present on

the coats of raw feed dogs (20% with scale) compared to that of

cooked fed dogs (52% with scale), it was not statistically significant

P = 0.114.

4.3 Oral Health

All aspects of Oral Health analysed were better when the dogs in

question chewed bones. Dogs are “hypercarnivores (animals that

eat more than 70% meat)” (Gill, 2012) and have evolved to chew

bones, “providing periodontal stimulation” (Dierenfeld, 2005)

therefore it follows that this is advantageous to their health; whereas

dried pet foods crumble when chewed, providing little mechanical

removal of plaque (Millella, 2012).

The effect that diet had on teeth varied from one extreme (see

figure 16) to another (see figure 17), with the teeth of elderly cooked

fed dogs, closer to that of figure 16 and the teeth of elderly raw fed

dogs, closer to that of figure 18.

Figure 16 – Minky the 15 yr old cooked fed terrier cross (Turner, 1,

2012)

Figure 17 – Talen the 3 yr old raw fed German Shepherd cross

(Turner, 2, 2012)

Figure 18 – Annie the 13 yr old raw fed Labrador (Turner, 2011)

4.3.1 Tooth Colour

Individual tooth colours were statistically significant (see Table 3),

the mean data in Figure 10 shows an observable differential

between the tooth colours of dogs fed on a cooked diet with an

average tooth colour of C1 (see Appendix 5) or raw diet with an

average tooth colour B1 – A1 (see Appendix 5), the statistical

analysis deemed otherwise with a P value of 0.116.

4.3.2 Plaque Coverage

Whilst the data in Figure 11 for plaque coverage of the K9 is not

considered statistically significant with a P value of 0.087, the

percentage of dogs with plaque coverage for these teeth on a raw

diet was 0% and on a cooked diet was 77%; showing a marked

difference.

The data in Figure 12 for plaque coverage of the first carnassial was

statistically significant with a P value of 0.006. Of the dogs on a raw

diet 40% had plaque on their first carnassial, whereas over 90% of

cooked fed dogs had plaque coverage.

Findings of this research confirm findings by Clarke & Cameron

(1998) showing that animals eating a species appropriate diet, had

significantly less plaque and calculus, due to eating a diet

containing bones.

4.3.3 Gum Colour

As seen in Figure 13 there was a marginal difference in gum colour

between the subjects tested, but this was not statistically significant

with a P value of 0.232.

4.3.4 Halitosis

There was a vast differential in halitosis (P = 0.000) in the animals

tested, as seen in Figure 14, with over 87% of cooked fed dogs and

0% of raw fed dogs having bad breath.

This relates significantly to oral health, as most of the odour is a

bacterial waste product, either from the bacteria in plaque, tartar

and calculus on the teeth of from those within the digestive tract

(Brown & Taylor, 2005).

4.4 Faecal Consistency

There was a significant statistical difference (P = 0.000) between

the owners opinion on the consistency of their pets faecal matter, as

demonstrated in Figure 15. This shows that the consistency of

faecal matter of dogs fed on a raw diet, was closer to that of a wild

dog or wolf (Mech, 1970), was much harder and therefore going to

have a more positive outcome on anal glands than that of dogs on a

cooked diet. Only one of the dogs tested had an anal gland

problem, this dog was on a cooked diet.

4.5 Overall

Whilst condition scoring methods are considered subjective, they

“perform the job adequately” according to Ackerman (2008).

Diagnosis of nutrient deficiencies are much more common than

those of overdose (McNamara, 2006), indication of deficiencies

have been noted here, with examples of:

Crusty lesions of nares – indicating Vitamin A deficiency

(Ackerman, 2008)

Dry, scaly skin, brittle hair – indicating Biotin deficiency

(Ackerman, 2008)

Poor skin and coat condition – indicating Zinc deficiency

(Ackerman, 2008)

These examples were not found in raw fed dogs.

A large differential in not only the way these animals have been fed,

but the constituent ingredients and nutrient degeneration, when

looked at in combination with details on how canine digestion

functions, shows that starchy foods such as grains and potato that

are utilised in cooked diets to increase energy consumption,

decrease the ability of the dog to digest protein, necessary for

effective digestion in many areas of the gastro-intestinal tract. This

negative effect on digestion, impacts nutritional absorption, and

therefore cellular function. If each individual cell is malnourished,

then so is the animal, which has a further negative impact on

immunity and therefore health.

The consistency differential between cooked and raw foods has an

effect on oral health (Watson, 2005: Morley et al., 2006: Chengappa

et al., 1993), with soft cooked foods and crumbly dried foods having

little to no effect on the removal of plaque, whilst bones being highly

abrasive provide effective removal. Starch contained in cooked

foods also have an effect, as starch feeds the bacteria present in

plaque, due to not being able to be broken down in any way whilst

in the oral cavity due to the lack of amylase in canine saliva. Whilst

national statistics show that 80% of dogs over the age of 3 have

periodontal disease (Millela, N.D.) and the number one diagnosis for

dogs over the age of 3 in America is periodontal disease (Banfield

Pet Hospital, 2012), it is evident that there are issues with oral

health that relate highly to diet.

Vegetation utilized in both types of diets, have differing effects on

health, with raw vegetables having been shown to have a lower risk

for cancer than cooked vegetables (Micozzi et al., 1989). A raw diet

has better retention of nutrients and provides the ability to utilise

proteins and lipids whereas the cooking process can destroy

vitamins and minerals and denatures proteins and lipids rendering

them useless to the consumer. This has been reflected in the

results with significant differences in coat condition, oral health and

faecal consistency, where those dogs on a raw diet presented as

healthier in these areas, indicating improved visceral health and

therefore improved general health.

4.6 Limitations

This study was limited to 41 pet dogs, on a wide variety of diets,

including tinned, dried, and raw, made by a number of differing

manufacturers with differing formulations, or concocted by the

owners themselves, whose expertise in animal nutrition was varied.

The dogs were of differing breeds, ages and sexes, and came from

a number of different environments, with individual exercise routines

and medical statuses.

A more concise results could be obtained, by taking a number of

same breed, preferably closely related bitches, feeding them a

variety of diets from weaning, i.e. exact same diet raw, home

cooked, tinned and dried, (using pet food manufacturer procedures

on the later two types of diet), for 1 year, mating them to the same

male, keeping their environment, and all other factors constant and

following their and their pups nutritional and health progress until

their natural death.

In this type of laboratory situation, with conditions kept stable at all

times, liver and kidney function tests could be monitored, as well as

hair analysis, urea and faecal testing. Precise measurements could

be taken on nutrition both being provided and passed, in order to

access what was digested and utilised by the body, which in

combination with health statistics would provide a clear analysis of

canine health dependent on food preparation technique.

Chapter 5 – Conclusions

5.0 Conclusions

Annual veterinary health checks are performed mainly by

observational methods (as well as listening to heart and lungs) and

include checking for skin and coat issues (Purina, 2012) some of

these methods can be employed by the average layman in order to

assess the health status of a pet dog.

These tests can imply potential health issues, i.e. the risk of

diabetes via body condition scoring, deficiencies in certain nutrients

via coat condition scoring, the potential for periodontitis via tooth

colour and plaque, issues with renal, hepatic, and cardiovascular

systems implied by plaque, tartar and calculus accumulation, and

issues with the digestive tract via halitosis & faecal matter

consistency.

Overall the conditions of subjects included in the study was good,

with subjects that were fed a raw diet, showing better results with

regards to coat condition, oral health and faecal consistency, which

are indicative of health at a cellular level. In order for this to be

achieved both the nutrition and digestion of these dogs, must be

better, as cells cannot be at optimum health without them.

The coat condition differential was noticeable, implying a greater

absorption of essential fatty acids, biotin and zinc. The oral health

differential was similarly noticeable implying improved teeth

cleaning qualities of raw diets, most notably from the inclusion of

bones in the diet, and showed a significant improvement on

halitosis, due to the lack of effluent produced by the metabolism of

pathogenic bacteria, also implying greater immunity to such

pathogens and reduced risk of associated diseases to the hepatic,

renal and cardiac systems.

This research implies improved health in raw fed dogs, compared to

that of cooked fed dogs, with raw feeding owners spending a great

deal of time researching and preparing what they believe to be a

nutritionally complete diet, having a greater effect on health than

owners who simply fed a pre-packaged, ‘balanced’ cooked diet.

Word Count: 7602

Chapter 7 – References

7.0 References

1. Ackerman, N. (2008) Companion Animal Nutrition.

Edinburgh. Elsevier.

2. Agar, S. 2001 Small Animal Nutrition, Butterworth

Heinemann, London p. 77

3. Allen, S.E. Fahey, G.C. Corbin, J.E. Puch, J.L. & Frankin,

R.A. (1981) Evaluation of By-product Feedstuffs as Dietary

Ingredients for Dogs. Journal of Animal Science. 53:1538-

1544

4. Altman, P.L. & Dittmer, D.S. (1968) Digestion and

Absorption. In: Metabolism. Bethesda, Md. Federation of

American Societies for Experimental Biology.

5. Ashdown, R.R. (2008) Symposium on Canine Recto-Anal

Disorders – 1: Clinical Anatomy. Journal of Small Animal

Practice. 9[7]:315-322

6. Auskaps, A. Grupta, O. & Shaw, J. (1957) Periodontal

disease in the Rice Rat. III. Survey of Dietary Influences.

Journal of Nutrition. 63:325-343

7. AVMA (2009) Frequently Asked Questions about Caring for

an Older Pet. [Online] Available from:

http://www.avma.org/animal_health/care_older_pet_faq.asp

[accessed 07/07/2012]

8. AVMA (2012) Policy on Raw or Undercooked Animal-Source

Protein in Cat and Dog Diets. [Online] Available from:

http://atwork.avma.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Resolutio

n_5_raw-food.pdf [Accessed 20/07/2012]

9. Baer, P. & White, C. (1961) Studies on Periodontal Disease

in the Mouse IV. The Effects of a High Protein, Low

Carbohydrate Diet. Journal of Periodontology. 32:328-330

10.Baldwin, K. Bartges, J. Buffinton, T. Freeman, L. Grawbow,

M. Legred, J. & Ostwald, D. (2010) AAHA Nutritional

Assessment Guidelines for Dogs and Cats. Journal of the

American Animal Hospital Association. 46:286-296

11.Banfield Pet Hospital (2012) State of Pet Health 2012 Report.

[Online] Available from:

http://www.stateofpethealth.com/pdf/State_of_Pet_Health_20

12.pdf [accessed 07/07/2012]

12.Banta, C.A. Clemens, E.T. Krinsky, M.M. & Sheffy, B.E.

(1979) Sites of Organic Acid Production and Patterns of

Digestive Movement in the Gastrointestinal Tract of Dogs. J.

Nutr. 109:1592-1600

13.Barbara, G. Stanghellini, V. Brandi, G. Cremon, C. Di Nardo,

G. De Giorgio, R. & Corinaldesi, R. (2005) Interactions

Between Commensal Bacteria and Gut Sensorimotor

Function in Health and Disease. The American Journal of

Gastroenterology. 100:2560-2568

14.Benamghar, L. Penaud, J. Kaminsky, P. Abt, F. & Martin, J.

(1982) Comparison of Gingival Index and Sulcus Bleeding

Index as Indicators of Periodontal Status. Bulletin of World

Health Organisation. 60[1]:147-151

15.Billinghurst, I. (2001) The Barf Diet, Warrigal Publishing, New

South Wales, Australia p. 17, 29-46

16.Bradshaw, J. (2006) The Evolutionary Basis for the Feeding

Behavior of Domestic Dogs (Canis familiaris) and Cats (Felis

catus) Journal of Nutrition. 136:1927-1937

17.Bridgett, M. vonHoldt, John P. Pollinger, Kirk E. Lohmueller,

Eunjung Han, Heidi G. Parker, Pascale Quignon, Jeremiah

D. Degenhardt, Adam R. Boyko, Dent A. Earl, Adam Auton,

Andy Reynolds, Kasia Bryc, Abra Brisbin, James C. Knowles,

Dana S. Mosher, Tyrone C. Spady, Abdel Elkahloun, Eli

Geffen, Malgorzata Pilot, Wlodzimierz Jedrzejewski, Claudia

Greco, Ettore Randi, Danika Bannasch, Alan Wilton, Jeremy

Shearman, Marco Musiani, Michelle Cargill, Paul G. Jones,

Zuwei Qian, Wei Huang, Zhao-Li Ding, Ya-ping Zhang,

Carlos D. Bustamante, Elaine A. Ostrander, John Novembre

& Robert K. Wayne (2010) Genome-wide SNP and haplotype

analyses reveal a rich history underlying dog domestication.

Nature 464:898-902

18.British Veterinary Journal (1876) Advert British Veterinary

Journal 4

19.Brosey, B.P. Hill, R.C. & Scott, K.C. (2000) Gastrointestinal

Volatile Fatty Acid Concentrations and pH in Cats. American

Journal of Veterinary Research. 61:359-361

20.Brown, S. & Taylor, B. (2005) See Spot Live Longer. Oregon.

Creekobear Press

21.Brown-Borg, H. Anderson, R. McCarter, R. Morley, J. Musi,

N. Olshansky, S.J. Shukitt-Hale, B. St. Jaques, P. Walson, J.

& Wilcox, B. (2012) Nutrition in Aging and Disease: Update

on Biological Sciences. Aging Health. 8[1]:13-16

22.Bruce, K. (2001) Dog Owners Voice Concern Over High Vet

Fees, [Online] K9 Online, K9 Media Solutions Ltd, Notts,

from:

http://www.pressbox.co.uk/detailed/International/Dog_Owner

s_Voice_Concern_Over_High_Vet_Fees_1064.html

(accessed 07/04/2010)

23.Burger, I.H. & Rivers, J.P.W. (1989) Waltham Symposium 7

Nutrition of the Dog and Cat. Cambridge University Press.

Cambridge p. 14

24.Burns, J. (2009) Domestic Dog Origins Challenged, BBC

News, from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8182371.stm

(accessed 06/03/2010)

25.Burrows, C.F. Kronfeld, D.S. Banta, C.A. & Merritt, A.M.

(1982) Effects of Fibre on Digestibility and Transit Time in

Dogs. Journal of Nutrition. 112:1726-1732

26.Carpentier, Y. Woussen-Cokre, M.C. & de Graef, J. (1977)

Gastric Secretions from Denervated Pouches and Serum

Gastrin Levels After Meals of Different Sizes of Meat

Concentration in Dogs. Gasteroenterol Clinical Biology. 1:29-

27

27.Carriere, F. Moreau, M. Raphel, V. Largier, R. Berricourt, C.

Junien, J. & Verger, R. (1991) Purification and Biochemical

Characterizaion of Dog Gastric Lipase. Eur. J. Biochem.

202:75-83

28.Case, L.P. (2005) The Dog: Its Behavior, Nutrition and

Health. 2nd Ed. Iowa. Blackwell Publishing.

29.Case, L. P., Hayek, M.G., Daristotle, L. & Raasch, M.F.

(2011) Canine & Feline Nutrition, Moseby Inc, Missouri p.

170

30.Chengappa, M. M. Staats, J. Oberst, R.D. Gabbert, N.H. &

McVey, S. (1993) Prevalence of Salmonella in Raw Meat

used in Diets of Racing Greyhounds. Journal of Veterinary

Diagnostic Investigation. 5[3]:372-377

31.Clarke, D.E. & Cameron, A. (1998) Relationship between

Diet, Dental Calculus and Periodontal Disease in Domestic

and Feral Cats in Australia. Australian Veterinary Journal.

76[10]:690-693

32.Clemens, E.T. & Stevens, C.E. (1980) A Comparison of

Gastrointestinal Transit Time in Ten Species of Mammals.

Journal of Agricultural Science. 94:735

33.Clutton-Brock, J. (1999) A National History of Domesticated

Mammals, Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, (Inside

Cover, p 25-128, 190-191)

34.Codner, E.C. & Thatcher, C.D. (1990) The Role of Nutrition in

the Management of Dermatoses. Semin. Vet. Med. Surg.

(Sm. Animal) 5:167-177

35.Conner, W.E. Nuringer, M. & Reisback. S. (1992) Essential

Fatty Acids: The Importance of n-3 Fatty Acids in the Retina

and Brain. Nutr. Rev. 50:2129

36.Cox, E.R. & Lepine, A.J. (2002) 2793 Use of Polyphosphates

in Canine Diets to Control Tartar. Seq #257 – Nutritional

Factors and Dental Health. IADR/AADR/CADR 80th General

Session (March 6-9, 2002) San Diego, California

37.Cox, E.R, & Lepine, A.J. (2009) Influences on Dental Health

in the Field Dog. P&G Pet Care Publications. 4[1]:51-58

38.De Baracli Levy, J. (1992) The Complete Herbal Handbook

for the Dog and Cat. Faber and Faber, London

39.DeBowes, L. Mosier, D. & Logan, E. (1996) Association of

Periodontal Disease and Histologic Lesions in Multiple

Organs from 45 Dogs. Journal of Veterinary Dentistry.

13[2]:57-60

40.Defra (2011) Pet Food Manufacturers. [Online] Defra,

London. Available from:

http://animalhealth.defra.gov.uk/managing-disease/animalby

products/food-and-feed-businesses/pet-food-

manufacture.htm#5 (Accessed 25/04/2012)

41.Derr, M. (2012) How the Dog Became the Dog. London.

Duckworth Overlook

42.Dierenfeld, E. S. (2005) Nutrition of Captive Cheetahs: Food

Composition and Blood Parameters. Zoo Biology. 12[1]:143-

150

43.Diez, M. Nguyen, P. Jeusette, I. Devois, C. Istasse, L. &

Biourge, V. (2002) Weight Loss in Obese Dogs: Evaluation of

a High-Protein, Low-Carbohydrate Diet. Journal of Nutrition.

132:1685-1687

44.Dogan, E. Okumus, Z. & Yanmaz, L. (2007) Periodontal

Diseases in Pet Animals. Veterinary Research. 1[1]:17-22

45.Erasmus, U. (1993) Fats that Heal – Fats that Kill. Canada.

Alive Books.

46.Fahey, G.C. Merchen, N.R. Corbin, J.E. Hamilton, A.K.

Serbe, K.A. Lewis, S.M. & Hirakawa, D.A. (1990) Dietary

Fibre for Dogs: I. Effects of Graded Levels of Dietary Beet

Pulp on Nutrient Intake, Digestibility, Metabolizable Energy

and Digesta Mean Retention Time. Journal of Animal

Science. 68[12]:4221-4228

47.Fernandex, R. & Phillips, S.F. (1982) Components of Fibre

Impair upon Iron Absorption in the Dog. American Journal of

Clinical Nutrition. 35:107-112

48.Fester Kratz. R. (2009) Molecular and Cell Biology for

Dummies. New Jersey. Wiley Publishing Inc.

49.Food and Nutrition Board (1989) Recommended Dietary

Allowances, National Academies Press, Washington D.C. p1-

9

50.Fogle, B. (2002) Caring for your Dog. Dorling Kindersley Ltd.

London

51.Field, C.J. McBurney, M.I. Massimino, S. Hayek, M.G. &

Sunvold, G.D. (1999) The Fermentable Fibre Content of the

Diet Alters the Function and Composition of Canine Gut

Associated Lymphoid Tissue. Veterinary Immunology and

Immunopathology. 72:325-341

52.German, A. (2010) Obesity in Companion Animals. In

Practice. 32:42-50

53.Gibson, N. (1996) Wolves. Morayshire. Colin Baxter

Photography.

54.Gill, V. (2012) Dogs’ Evolution Shows Why They ‘Love’

Gnawing on Bones. Canada, BBC. [Online] Available from:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/18767817 [Accessed

10/07/2012]

55.Goldston, R.T. (1989) Geriatrics and Gerontology. The

Veterinary Clinics of North America, Small Animal Practice.

19[1]:202

56.Goody, P.C. (1997) Dog Anatomy. J.A. Allen, London

57.Gordon, P.H. (2001) Anorectal Anatomy and Physiology.

Gastroenterology Clinics of North America. 30[1]:1-13

58.Gorrel, C. (1998) Periodontal Disease and Diet in Domestic

Pets. Journal of Nutrition. 128[12]:2712-2714

59.Griffith, C. (2012) The Best Dog Diet Ever by Caroline

Griffith. Northampton. Love, Woof & Wonder Publishing.

60.Hamp, S.E. Olsson, S.E. Farso-Madsen, K. Vilands, P &

Fornell, J. (1984) A Macroscopic and Radiological

Investigation of Dental Diseases in the Dog. Veterinary

Radiology. 25:86-92

61.Hansen, A.E. Weise, H.F. & Beck. O. (1948) Susceptibility to

Infection Manifested by Dogs on a Low Fat Diet. Fed. Proc.

7:289

62.Hansen, A.E. & Weise, H.F. (1951) Fat in the Diet in Relation

to Nutrition of the Dog. I Characteristic Appearene and Gross

Changes of Animals fed Diets with and without Fat. Tex.

Rep. Biol. Med. 9:491-515

63.Hansen, A.E. Sinclair, J.G. & Weise, H.F. (1954) Sequence

of Histologic changes in Skin of Dogs in Relation to Dietary

Fat. J. Nutr. 52:541-554

64.Harmon, D.L. Walker, J.A. Silvio, J.M. Jamikorm, A.M. &

Gross, K.L. (1999) Nutrient Digestibility in Dogs Fed Fibre-

containing Diets. Veterinary Clinical Nutrition. 6:6-8

65.Hemmer, H., 1990, Domestication – the decline of

environmental appreciation, Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge p. 35-80

66.Hoffmann, R.R. (2000) The Structure of Digestive Systems in

the Feeding of Mammals: A Comparative Approach. In:

Nijboer, J. Hatt, J.-M. Kaumanns, W. Beijnen, A. &

Gansloβer, U. (Eds) Zoo Animal Nutrition. Furth. Filander-

Verl. 163-181

67.Holman, R.T. (1971) Essential Fatty Acid Deficiency. Prog.

Chem. Fats Lipids. 9:275-348

68.Holman, R.T. Johnson, S.B. & Hatch, T.F. (1982) A case of

Human Linolenic Acid Deficiency involving Neurological

Abnormalities. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 35:617-623

69.Jin, H.O. Lee, K.Y. Chang, T.M. Chey, W.Y. & Dubois, A.

(1994) Physiological role of Cholecystokinin on Gastric

Emptying and Acid Output in Dogs. Digestive Diseases and

Sciences. 39:2306-2314

70.Kamath, P.S. Hoepfner, M.T. & Phillips, S.F. (1987) Short-

chain Fatty Acids Stimulate Motility of the Canine Ileum.

American Journal of Physiology. 4:G427-G433

71.Kelly, N. & Wills, J. (1996) Manual of Companion Animal

Nutrition and Feeding, BSAVA, Gloucester p. 254

72.Ken-L-Ration (1932) Advertisement

73.Kortegaard, H. Eriksen, T. & Baelum, V. (2008) Periodontal

Disease in Research Beagle Dogs – An Epidemiological

Study. Journal of Small Animal Practice. 49:610-616

74.Lankhorst, C. Tran, Q. D. Havenaar, R. Hendriks, W. H. &

van der Poel, A. F. B. (2007) The Effect of Extrusion on the

Nutritional Value of Canine Diet as assessed by in vitro

indicators. Animal Feed Science and Technology.

138[3]:285-297

75.Logan, E. (2006) Dietary Influences on Periodontal Health in

Dogs and Cats. Veterinary Clinic of North American Small

Animal Practice. 36[6]:1385-1401

76.Lonsdale, T. (2001) Raw Meaty Bones: Promote Health,

Rivetco, New South Wales

77.Lugwigshafen, N. A. Bonn, G. B. Elmshorn, D. D.

Hess.Oldend, W. K. Cuxhaven, K. K. Grenzach, H. L. (1984)

Vitamins in Animal Nutrition, AWT, Bonn p.42

78.Mash, H. (2011) The Holistic Dog. The Crowood Press Ltd.

Marlborough

79.Maskell, I.E. & Johnson, V. (1993) Digestion and Absorption

p.25-44 In: The Waltham Book of Companion Animal

Nutrition. Burger, I. Ed Oxford, Pergamon Press

80.McAteer, A. (2012) Raw Meat for Dogs: Is the Theory Half

Baked? Canada. The Globe and Mail. [Online] Available

from: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/relationships/a-

raw-deal-why-more-owners-are-choosing-raw-food-for-their-

dogs/article4401112/ [Accessed 09/07/2012]

81.McNamara, J.P. (2006) Principles of Companion Animal

Nutrition. New Jersey. Pearson Prentice Hall.

82.Mech, L.D. (1970) The Wolf – The Ecology and Behaviour of

an Endangered Species. University of Minnesota Press,

Minneapolis p. 168-192

83.Mech, L.D. & Boitani, L. (2003) Wolves: Behavior, Ecology

and Conservation. Chicago. University of Chicago Press.

84.Micozzi, M. S. Beecher, G.R. Taylor, P.R. & Knachik, F.

(1990) Carotenoid Analyses of Selected Raw and Cooked

Foods Associated With a Lower Risk for Cancer. Journal of

the National Cancer Institute. 82[4]:282-285

85.Milella, L. (N.D.) Understanding the Need for Dental

Treatment in Dogs. Educational Resources for Veterinarians.

British Veterinary Dental Association

86.Milella, L. (2012) Prophylactic Dental Care in Cats.

Veterinary Nursing Journal. 27:14-16

87.Morey, D. F. (2006) Burying Key Evidence: the Social Bond

Between Dogs and People, Journal of Archaeological

Science, 33[2]:158-175

88.Morley, P. S. Strohmeyer, R. A. Tankson, J. D. Hyatt, D. R.

Dargatz, D. A. & Fedorka-Cray, P.J. (2006) Evaluation of the

Association between feeding of Raw Meat and Salmonella

enterica Infections at a Greyhound breeding facility. Journal

of the American Veterinary Medical Association.

228[10]:1524-1532

89.Muir, H.E. Murray, S.M. Fahey, G.C. Merchen, N.R. &

Reinhart, G.A. (1996) Nutrient Digestion by Ileal Cannulated

Dogs as Affected by Dietary Fibres with Various

Fermentation Characteristics. Journal of American Science.

74:1641-1648

90.National Research Council (1985) Nutrient Requirements of

Dogs. Washington D.C. National Academic Press

91.National Research Council (2006) Nutrient Requirements of

Dogs and Cats. Washington DC. The National Academic

Press

92.Neuringer, M. Anderson, G.J. & Conner, W.E. (1988) The

Essentiality of the n-3 Fatty Acids for the Development and

Function of the Retina and Brain. Am. Rev. Nutr. 8:517-541

93.Nonnenmacher, C. Flores-de-Jacoby, L. Dalpke, A.

Zimmerman, S. Mutters, R. & Hegg, K. (2002) 0767 DNA

from Periodontopathogenic Bacteria Induces Mouse and

Human Cells to Produce Cytokines. IADR/AADR/CADR 80th

General Session (March 6-9, 2002) San Diego, California

94.O’Driscoll, C. (2005) Shock to the System. Abbeywood

Publishing (Vaccines) Ltd. London

95.Pavlica, Z. Petelin, M. Juntes, P. Erzen, S. Crossley, D. &

Skaleric, U. (2008) Periodontal Disease Burden and

Pathological Changes in Organs of Dogs. Journal of

Veterinary Dentistry. 25[3]:97-105

96.Pedigree Pet Foods, (1993) Product Information, Waltham,

Leicester

97.Pet Food Institute (2010) How Dry Pet Food Is Made.

[Online] Washington DC: Pet Food Institute. Available from:

http://www.petfoodinstitute.org/Index.cfm?Page=DryPetFood

(Accessed 25/04/2012)

98.Petwise, (2009) Why Insure your Pet?, Petwise Health

Insurance, from:

http://www.petwise-insurance.co.uk/pages/whyinsure.asp

(accessed 07/04/2010)

99.PFMA (2009) Feeding a Raw Meat and Bones Diet to Pets.

[Internet] Available from:

http://www.pfma.org.uk/_assets/images/general/file/Raw

%20Meaty%20Bones%20Diets%20190509.pdf (accessed

21/06/2012)

100. PFMA (2011) Has the Market Changed Over the

Years? (Internet) Available from:

http://www.pfma.org.uk/statistics/index.cfm?

id=133&cat_id=58 Pet Food Manufacturers Association,

London (accessed 06/10/2011)

101. Pond, C. M. (2000) The Fats of Life, Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge p. 5-26

102. Pottenger, F. (1983) Pottenger’s Cats – A Study in

Nutrition, Price-Pottenger Foundation Inc, California

103. Purina (N.D.) Spillers Foods 1851-1900. [Online]

Available from:

http://www.purina.co.uk/apps/OurHistory/OurHistory.aspx?

NRMODE=Published&NRNODEGUID=%7BC25C061A-

D25F-4A26-820A-616900CC6EE7%7D&NRORIGINALURL=

%2FHome%2FAbout%2BPurina%2FOur%2BCompany

%2FOur%2BHistory.htm&NRCACHEHINT=Guest [accessed

06/10/2011]

104. Purina (2012) Annual Vet Check-up [Online] Available

from:

http://www.purina.co.uk/Home/All+About+Dogs/Health+and+

Wellbeing+Dog/Healthy+Living+Dog/

Annual+Vet+Checkup.htm [accessed 13/07/2012]

105. Quigley, G.A. & Hein, J.W. (1962) Comparative

Cleaning Efficacy of Manual & Power Brushing. Journal of

American Dental Association. 65: 26-29

106. Rawlings, J. & Culham, N. (1998) Halitosis in Dogs

and the Effect of Periodontal Therapy. Journal of Nutrition.

128:2715-2716

107. Rees, C.A. Bauer, J.E. Burkholder, W.J. Kennis, R.A.

Dunbar, B.L. & Bigley, C.E. (2001) Effects of Dietary Flax

Seed and Sunflower Seed Supplementation on Normal

Canine Serum Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids and Skin and

Hair Coat Condition Scores. Veterinary Dermatology.

12[2]111-117

108. Riddle, M. (1987) Dogs Through History, Denlinger,

Virginia p. 8-59

109. Roche (1976) Vitamin Compendium, F. Hoffmann-La

Roche & Co. Ltd, Basle, Switzerland p. 7

110. Rolfe, V.E. Adams, C.A. Butterwick, R.F. & Batt, R.M.

(2002) Relationships between Fecal Consistency and

Colonic Microstructure and Absorptive Function in Dogs with

and without Nonspecific Dietary Sensitivity. American Journal

of Veterinary Research. 63[4]:617-622

111. Savolainen, P. Arvestad, L. & Lundeberg, J. (2000)

mtDNA Tandem Repeats in Domestic Dogs and Wolves:

Mutation Mechanism Studied by Analysis of the Sequence of

Imperfect Repeats. Molecular Biology. 17[4]:474-488

112. Scheppach, W. (1994) Effects of Short Chain Fatty

Acids on Gut Morphology and Function. Gut. 35:S35-S38

113. Schlesinger, D. P. & Joffe, D. J. (2011) Raw food Diets

in Companion Animals: A Critical Review. The Canadian

Veterinary Journal. 51[1]:50-54

114. Schultze, K.R. (1998) Natural Nutrition for Dogs and

Cats. California. Hay House Inc.

115. Serpell, J. (1995) The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution,

Behaviour and Interaction with People. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge P. 9-10

116. Strombeck, D.R. (1999) Home-prepared Dog and Cat

Diets. Iowa. Iowa State University Press.

117. Tinoco, J. (1982) Dietary Requirments and Functions

of α-Linolenic Acid in Animals. Prog. Lipid. Res. 21:1-46

118. The Kennel Club (2008) About the Kennel Club.

[Online] Available from:

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/aboutthekc [Accessed

16/07/2012]

119. Townend, L. (2009) Animals in the Womb: Dogs,

Channel 4, London

120. Turner, H.B. (2011) Annie the 13 yr old raw fed

Labrador. Photograph [online] Available from:

http://caninehealth101.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/annie-13-

year-old-raw-fed-labrador.html [accessed 13/07/2012]

121. Turner, H.B. (2012) Talen the 3 yr old raw fed German

Shepherd cross. Photograph [online] Available from:

http://caninehealth101.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/teeth-as-

indicator-of-health.html [accessed 13/07/2012]

122. Turner, H.B. (2012) Minky the 15 yr old cooked fed

terrier cross. Photograph. unpublished

123. Uvay, R. Peirano, P. & Hoffman, D.R. (1989) Essential

Fatty Acid Metabolism and Requirements during

Development. Sem. Perinatol. 13:118-130

124. Vester, B.M. & Fahey, J.R. (2006) The Importance of

Nutrition in Coat Quality and Skin Health of Dogs and Cats.

Proceedings of Alltech’s 22nd Annual Symposium. Lexington,

Kentucky, USA 23-26 April 2006 p. 261-267

125. Villareal, R. Ganong, W.F. & Gray, S.J. (1955) Effet of

Adrenocorticotrophic Hormone upon the Gastric Secretion of

Hydrochloric Acid, Pepsin and Electrolytes in Dogs.

American Journal of Physiology. 183:485-494

126. Warinner, C. (2012) Tracking Ancient Diseases using

… plaque. [Online] TED. Available from:

http://www.ted.com/talks/christina_warinner_tracking_ancient

_diseases_using_plaque.html (Accessed 24/04/2012)

127. Watkins, J.D. (2008) Letter Submitted to the

Veterinary Record. June 7 2008

128. Watson, A.D.J. (2008) Diet and Periodontal Disease in

Dogs and Cats. Australian Veterinary Journal. 71[10]:313-

318

129. Wayne, R. K. (1993) Molecular Evolution of the Dog

Family. Trends in Genetics. 9[I6]:218-224 1/6/93, Elsevier

Ltd, Oxford

130. Wayne, R.K. & O’Brien, S.J. (1987) Allozyme

Divergence within the Canidae. Systematic Biology.

36[4]:339-355 Oxford Journals, Oxford

131. Wayne, R.K. Nash, S.J. & O’Brien, S.J. (1987)

Chromosomal Evolution of the Canidae. Cytogenetic and

Genome Research. 44[2-3]:134-141 Karger, Basel,

Switzerland

132. Wayne, R. & Vila, C. (2001) The Genetics of the Dog;

Phylogeny and Origin of the Domestic Dog. Wallingford:

CAB. International. p. 1-13

133. Weese, J. S. Rousseau, J. & Arroyo, L. (2005)

Bacteriological Evaluation of Commercial Canine and Feline

Raw Diets. The Canadian Veterinary Journal. 46[6]:513-516

134. Weise, H.F. Bennet, M.J. Coon, E. & Yamanaka, W.

(1965) Lipid Metabolism of Puppies as Affected by Kind and

Amount of Fat and of Dietary Carbohydrate. J. Nutr. 86:271-

280

135. Weise, H.F. Yamanaka, W. Coon. E. & Barber, S.

(1966) Skin Lipids of Puppies as Affected by Kind and

Amount of Fat and of Dietary Carbohydrate. J. Nutr. 89:113-

122

136. Yarnall, C. (1998) Natural Dog Care. New Jersey.

Castle Books.

137. Yudkin, J. (1969) Dental Decay is Preventable: Why

not prevented? Br. Dent. J. 127[9]:425-429

138. Zero, D. (2004) Sugars – The Arch Criminal? Journal

of Caries Research. 28:277-285

Chapter 8 – Appendices

8.0 Appendices

Appendix 1

Moulton College Risk Assessment

Risk

Assessment

RA No.

Identified Hazard :

Risk of knocks or bites from subjects

Persons at Risk :

Author

Likelihood of Injury : 1Unlikely 2 Possible 3 Likely

4Very Likely

1

Severity of Injury : 1 Minor 2Major 3 Multiple 4

Fatality

1

90

Frequency of operation : 1Infrequent 2Weekly 3 Daily

4 Hourly

2

Controls in Place to Reduce Risk :

Never deal with the animals unless in the presence of the owner.

Author is a highly trained behavioural consultant and should be able to

mitigate any risks that present themselves.

Level of Risk : ( Low – Medium – High ) Low

Assessment By : Signed : Date

Date of Assessment Review :

Further Details of Assessment

91

Appendix 2

Moulton College Risk Assessment

Risk

Assessment

RA No.

Identified Hazard :

Risk whilst driving to location

Persons at Risk : Author

Likelihood of Injury : 1Unlikely 2 Possible 3 Likely

4Very Likely

2

Severity of Injury : 1 Minor 2Major 3 Multiple 4

Fatality

2

Frequency of operation : 1Infrequent 2Weekly 3 Daily

4 Hourly

2

92

Controls in Place to Reduce Risk :

Care must be taken whilst making one mile trip to location. Author is a

confident driver with no points on license obtained over fifteen years ago.

Level of Risk : ( Low – Medium – High ) Low

Assessment By : Signed : Date

Date of Assessment Review :

Further Details of Assessment

93

Appendix 3

Moulton College

Approval for Undergraduate Research Projects

Name of student: Hope Turner

Name of supervisor: Dr. Wanda McCormick

Course: BSc (Hons) Applied Animal Studies

(Top-up)

Project title An assessment of whether cooked or

raw diets produce healthier pets (Canis

Lupus Familiaris)

Where will the project be

carried out?

Various locations in the East Midlands

Brief outline of aims and

objectives of research

Aim

To investigate if there is an observable

health differential between dogs a

cooked or a raw diet.

Objectives

To make detailed observations on dogs

fed a raw and cooked diet

To mark the differential with regards to

94

condition scoring

Brief description of

methods (include species

and number of animals

used if appropriate)

A number of dogs to be condition scored

on body condition, coat condition, oral

health and faecal consistency

Ethical Considerations

and precautions

Dogs only to be approached whilst being handled by owners

Dogs not delayed from their normal routine for more than 5 minutes each

Risks and precautions Risk whilst driving to location– Pay attention whilst driving

Risk of knocks or bites from subjects – author to only deal with subjects in presence of owner, owner to have backup of author

Notes on discussion by panel/ additional precautions to be put in

place

95

Project approved by panel? Yes / No

Supervisor signature _________________________ date

_____________

Student signature __________________________ date

_____________

Supervisor at external __________________________date

_____________

Organization/ commercial unit (if appropriate)

96

Appendix 4

(German, 2010)

97

Appendix 5

(Rees et al., 2001)

98

Appendix 6

99

Appendix 7

100

Appendix 8

101