HOWEDY steve,
"steve" <none.RemoveThis@000.com> wrote in message
news:457556_e1c80af9da292c1991675989a15837b4@petforumz.com...
> Thanks, Dale and Janet.
What kinda pathetic miserable stinkin mental case are you, steve?
janet and dale are a couple FRAUDS LIARS COWARDS an DOG ABUSERS who couldn't
tell a doggy toy from a sexual device even
if WON was BUZZING.
> I am considering doing what you say.
IDIOT.
dale gave you the wrong directions for an elimination diet.
janet was blowing smoke up your ignorameHOWES arses.
ALL commercial dog foods are GARBAGE.
> At this time I have a soft heart and I give
> in to my dog's begging at the dinner table.
You can EXXXTINGUISH beggin in just a couple instances of
brief, variably alternating non physical distraction INSTANTLY
follHOWED by PROLONGED NON PHYSICAL PRAISE.
> My heart tells me that if I was the doggie, I
> would rather eat the really nice dinner food :)
As long as it's not too salty and well balanced,
"human" food is BEAST for your dog <{}: ~ ) >
> But I do understand what I need to do now.
No you don't. You're listening to LYIN DOG ABUSIN
COWARDS and your veterinary malpracticioner who
SELLS prescription GARBAGE diets.
Here's janet:
"Loop the lead (it's basically a GIANT nylon or leather
choke collar) over his snarly little head, and give him a
stern correction" --Janet Boss
http://tinyurl.com/5m6ppt
(janet's CUSTOM made pronged spiked pinch choke collar)
Here's janet's SUCCESS training dogs:
"J1Boss" <j1b....RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040324071828.07753.00000001@mb-m18.aol.com...
He was next to me and I could see his neck
muscles pulsing. He didn't even blink an eye.
Janet Boss
"sionnach" <rhyfe....RemoveThis@msn.com> wrote in message
news:c3qi15$2biuoh$1@ID-45033.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "J1Boss" <j1b....RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20040323173916.10096.00001938@mb-m17.aol.com...
> > I can't imagine needing anything higher
> > than a 5 with it, even with an insensitive
> > dog like a Lab.
An INSENSITIVE DOG???
> > I can't remember what model of Innotek I have, but
> > I had a pointer ignore a neck-muscle-pulsing 9.
Do you think the citronella collar is CRUEL
cause the SMELL LINGERS after the dog's
been sprayed in the face and the dog won't
know HOWE COME IT was MACED?
janet CONtinues:
> > My dogs are not human children wearing fur- they are DOGS.
> > I don't have anything against electronic bark collars, but they
> > should be used in conjunction with actually working at training
> > your dog(s).
They're DUMB ANIMALS these MENTALLY ILL LYING
DOG ABUSERS HURT INTIMIDATE and MURDER.
-------------------
LIKE THIS:
"J1Boss" <j1b....RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote in message
On 6 Feb 2006 17:41:08 GMT, Mary Healey
<mhhea....RemoveThis@iastate.edu>,
clicked their heels and said:
> Does that include tone of voice? Some tools are easier
> to ban than others.
yes - screaming banshees are told to shut up! And I
always have to remind spouses that they may NOT do the
"honey - you're supposed to be doing it like THIS"......
--
Janet B
www.bestfriendsdogobedience.com
From: sionnach (rhyfe...@email.msn.com)
Subject: Re: Correct use of prong collar
Date: 2001-05-05 13:03:14 PST
> And Sally responded:
> > Who said that? I would never do or recommend
> > that, and neither would most of the regulars
> > on here.
> >Sally Hennessey
> I've posted my entire quote, since Patch failed
> to do so. Take it out of context and you'd think
> I was flinging puppies across the room!
> here's what I said (keep in mind that we're
> talking about a 12 week old ~25# FCR puppy):
> A small scruff shake is appropriate if he's very persistant.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Um, may I suggest a re-wording that might make
it clearer- given that "scruff shake" is too easily
misinterpreted as "pick the puppy up by the scruff
of the neck and shake the puppy in the air"?
I think I'd phrase it something like "if the puppy
is very persistant, it can be appropriate to take
hold of the loose skin at the back of the neck and
give a slight shake to the *skin*".
Janet's not talking about actually shaking
the puppy, which I think we ALL agree is
abusive."
----------------------
"After Numerous Training Classes, Behavioral
Consultations, And Hundreds Of Dollars In Vet
Bills, I Killed My Dalmatian Several Years Ago
Due To Extreme Dog-Aggressiveness," mustang sally.
"I'll bet you don't know a thing about me.
I volunteered as assistant to the euthanasia
tech at our local shelter for a while, and
I know a bit about overpopulation and unwanted
animals.
This however has nothing at all to do with
responsible breeders, because responsible
breeders don't contribute to that problem,"
Mustang Sally.
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001
Subject: Re: shock collars
Sally Hennessey <greyho....RemoveThis@ncweb.com> wrote in message
news:b8m1dtsv6vuiblo63h8ekqiforibadrff2@4ax.com...
Aside from being incredibly offensive and self-
righteous, this post shows and absence of knowledge
in the differences in dogs' temperaments, or perhaps
a lack of ability to perceive same.
The fact that you, Alison, have never met a dog to
whom corrections and discomfort, even pain, were
unimportant does not mean that such dogs do not exist.
What it means is that you don't know as much about
dogs as you think you do, and you surely don't know
a damn thing about Harlan or anyone else's dog here.
I had a Dalmatian that would instigate fights with
one of her housemates; that dog had no fear or
anything, and pain incurred during a fight meant
nothing to her.
I know that that dog is not unique, and I'm sure many
people here can tell similar stories. The fact that
you, Alison, continue to say things to people such as
what you said to Theresa about causing her dog to
suffer (at least I guess that's what you meant by
"you cause your dog suffers" - - must be the King's
English you guys talk about over there) means that
you are an ignorant, arrogant, insensitive person
who is not worth further notice.
Sally Hennessey
"Sally Hennessey" <greyho....RemoveThis@ncweb.com> wrote in message
news:54nuetsqgkhp26qqv128jnumgmb2m27opr@4ax.com...
Nope. No more than you'd convince Patch that
prongs and e-collars, in the right hands, are not
intrinsically abusive; or that dogs trained properly
with prongs or e-collars are not fearful, in pain, or
intimidated; or that any one of us here knows our
own dogs and their reactions better than someone
who has never seen them or us...hmmm.
I'm starting to see some similarities here.
Sally Hennessey
---------------
racetrack silly's "SHELTER" MURDERS 67% of the dogs they "RESCUE".
Here's janet's PARTNER:
"The actual quote is misleading when taken out of context,"
sinofabitch writes:
> > What I have said- repeatedly - is that he
> > took posts from two different people,
No, there was ONLY WON quote.
> > took pieces of them out of context,
Of curse. QUOTED. You wanna see it in context?
> > cobbled them together,
No. There was WON DIRECT QUOTE.
> > then added his own words:
"Neatly," and "Smartly."
> > and a fake signature.
"sinofabitch" instead of sionnach.
> > Which is exactly what he did.
INDEEDY. That's HOWE COME you deny it.
> > The actual quote is misleading
That so?
> > when taken out of context,
We'd been talkin abHOWET beatin the dog with a shoe...
> > and Jerry's faked "quote"
The WON sinofabitch totally DENIES.
> > is downright meaningless.
Only if you're a MENTAL CASE.
Here's Jerry's version
"I Dropped The Leash, Threw My
Right Arm Over The Lab's Shoulder,
Grabbed Her Opposite Foot With My
Left Hand, Rolled Her On Her Side,
Leaned On Her, Smartly Growled Into
Her Throat And Said "GRRRR!" And
Neatly Nipped Her Ear," sinofabitch.
Here's yours:
"I dropped the leash, threw my
right arm over the Lab's shoulder,
grabbed her opposite foot with my
left hand, rolled her on her side,
leaned on her, said "GRRRR!" and
nipped her ear.
--Sara Sionnach
--------------------
"The actual quote is misleading when taken out of context"
See?
Here's janet's "more positive experience"
with a REAL LIFE IN PERSTON "student":
Subject: Muttley: Now a question of Life or Death
"Paul E. Schoen" <pst....RemoveThis@smart.net> wrote
It is a shame that Muttley will probably be put
down (his appointment is next Wednesday),
Subject: Muttley: Now a question of Life or Death
"Paul E. Schoen" <pst....RemoveThis@smart.net> wrote
Hello everyone:
If you have followed some of my posts, you know
something about the ongoing story of Muttley, the
large GSD/Chow dog I have been trying to adopt
or place in a better home.
I will add a bit more history later in this post.
Last Tuesday, toward the end of Janet's obedience
class, Muttley and I had just finished fairly successfully
performing a sit/stay/come routine, and then he was
sitting by my side.
The final routine was to be a "down", which Muttley
has had some difficulty with, and frankly I have not
had the time to work with him much on that.
I was kneeling at his side, trying to hold his collar
while pushing his front legs down to the position,
while he resisted. Suddenly he lunged, knocking
me over onto the parking lot, and I lost grip of the
leash as I reflexively broke my fall.
Muttley took the opportunity to attack a young black
male Lab to my left, and it was a very brutal attack.
Janet and the instructors tried to gain control, and as
soon as I could get to my feet I grabbed the leash and
pulled him off.
That was the end of the class, and the other dog,
Bernie, was taken to an animal hospital for treatment.
When everyone had left, Janet counseled me about
what should be done about Muttley.
She said this was more than ordinary aggression,
and only intensive (and expensive) one on one
training would have any chance at working, and
in any case, he was not suited to group training.
She advised me that Muttley could be dangerous,
and she recommended that he be euthanized.
"They can't all be saved".
<snip>
--------------
BWEEEAAAHAAAHAAA~!~!~!
Subject: Muttley: Now a question of Life or Death
"Paul E. Schoen" <pst....RemoveThis@smart.net> wrote
<snip>
If I did not have to worry about my cat, I would
probably keep him, and I am certain I could avoid
any more dangerous episodes. I probably would
not have taken him to obedience classes at this time
if that was not such a difficult issue, and if people
here had not essentially shamed me into doing so.
Then he would only be a bratty dog with a mind of
his own, but he would not have been identified as
dangerous.
--------------------------
BWEEEAAAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!
> I guess I will start reducing the human food,
THAT'S ABSURD. You should GET RID of ALL your
commercial dog food and feed a WHOWELSOME fresh
home made diet.
Hey, ignorameHOWES?? WHAT do you think dogs
ate PRYOR to commercial garbage dog food??
> and see how it goes.
dale's dogs are DYIN from SEIZURES and dysplasia, both
are the result of vitamin and mineral deficiences and STRESS.
janet's DEAD DOG Franklin just recently died at the age of six
from cancer and his REPLACEMENT, Rudy, got tumors and
chronic PISSIN problems from her abuse.
> Will also look at the dog food and changing it if the problem is still
> there.
IDIOT.
> Thanks, steve
Angell Animal Medical Center - Boston Page 1 of 15
Feeding Raw Diets to Family Pets
Rebecca L. Remillard, Ph.D., D.V.M., ACVN Diplomate
Angell Emergency and Critical Care Service
Any discussion about feeding raw meat and eggs to pets seems to easily glide
into other tangential topics such as "natural" diets, supplements, digestive
enzymes, GI physiology, immunity, and ultimately evolution. This article
will be confined to the two most important health issues concerning pet
owners and veterinarians: food safety and nutritional integrity.
Part 1: Food Safety
Fact: Our meat and egg food supply is contaminated with microbes.
Meat from healthy animals becomes contaminated at slaughter. The meat
surfaces become infected with microorganisms we associate with food
poisoning during the handling, packaging, processing, storage and
transportation of the products. 1,,23 These organisms reside within the
gastrointestinal tract or feathers of domestic animals. The meat product is
contaminated between slaughter and the store display case. Herein lies a
fundamental difference between feeding store bought meat and the "fresh
kill" raw meat consumed by wild carnivores and omnivores.
The interior and exterior of the egg harbor salmonella as the organism is
known to be residing with the hen. Until recently, Salmonella was associated
with cracked eggs or eggs dirty with fecal matter and were controlled by
cleaning procedures implemented in the egg industry. In 1988, the CDCa
reported new cases of salmonella associated with disinfected Grade A eggs.
It was then determined that the eggs were contaminated during ovulation
within the hen, and thus were contaminated with the bacteria before the
shell was formed. 4
.. Within the genus Salmonella, there are 5 species, 7 subspecies (spp) and
an unknown number of strains causing a variety of gastro-intestinal (GI)
signs.
.. Salmonellosis from any source is an infection estimated to cause over 1
million cases of illness and 500 deaths in the U.S. annually.
.. In 2001, the CDC estimated that 118,000 illnesses were caused by the
consumption of Salmonella contaminated eggs.
Approximately one third of the poultry sold for human consumption has tested
positive for Salmonella.5 Although many procedures have been regulated into
the meat and poultry industry to reduce the level of contamination, none the
less, bacteria persist and we should consider all products contaminated.
Some bacteria produce meat spoilage while others are pathogenic (cause
disease) in people and pets.
Clarification on USDA meat inspection and grades:
?? Under the Federal Meat Inspection Act, all meat and poultry products for
human consumption and interstate commerce are subject to mandatory USDA
inspection. There is no nutritional advantage to feeding a pet food touting
the fact that they use "100% USDA inspected" ingredients from a
"USDA-inspected facility" and ingredients are not USDA "approved".
a Center of Disease Control
Angell Animal Medical Center - Boston Page 2 of 15
?? Under the same Act, all cattle, sheep, swine, goats and horses undergo a
mandatory antemortem (before death) inspection on the day of slaughter.
Animals showing symptoms of disease are set apart and slaughtered separately
(4D meat). Meat product determined to be fit for human consumption is
labeled ''Inspected and passed''. Carcasses or parts of carcasses not fit
for human consumption are labeled ''Inspected and condemned''.6
?? The Meat Inspectors are Civil Service employees and the Federal
government bares the cost of having food inspectors in the plant, so
inspectors are independent of the plant management.
?? Meat products are graded by the USDA based on palatability, yields and
other economically important traits (appearance, fat content, edible
proportions, etc). There is no "human grade ingredients" and should hope
there never will be.
Fact: Raw meat diets have been on the market for many years and used by
zoos, mink farms, dog racing facilities, and other professional
establishments.
The FDA has presumed these purchasers were aware of the potential risk for
using such products, from both a food safety and nutritional deficiency
perspective and could take measures to mitigate those risks.7,8 However,
this relatively new trend of pet owners who may not be as aware of the
potential for harm feeding raw meat diets to companion animals has raised
concerns. The diets prepared by pet owners and companies selling raw diet
product that may be contaminated with micro-organisms most often associated
with food poisoning pose an increased public health risk. Raw meat consumed
by household pets could be from various sources (fed intentionally, from
hunting or the scavenging of garbage or carrion). Raw meat diets prepared by
pet owners fed to dogs and cats have been documented to contain pathogenic
Yersinia enterocolitica 4/O:3, Salmonella spp and E coli O157:H7.9,,
1011Twenty-one commercially available raw meat diets (beef, lamb, chicken
and turkey) sampled over a 4 month period from the marketplace were cultured
for non-type specific E.coli, Salmonella and Campylobacter. No samples
cultured positive for Campylobacter, however, E.coli was cultured from all
and ten samples cultured positive for S. enterica. Ninety-nine percent of
samples were aerobic bacteria positive and 79% were gram negative bacteria
positive.12 Hence the FDA has drafted guidelines for companies selling such
products to pet owners.13 One options for pet owners making a raw meat
homemade diet would be to feed whole (not ground) meat that has a braised
surface and then fed to the pet rare. Most of the food poisoning organisms
are on the surface of the meat and searing the surface would significantly
reduce the potential bacterial dose while preserving any advantages to
feeding raw meat in the interior of the slab.
Fact: Dogs and cats fed contaminated raw meat diets shed viable organisms in
their feces.
There is now evidence to validate this public health risk. Pets fed homemade
raw meat diets have been documented to shed viable organisms in their feces.
The presence of Salmonella spp. was isolated from 80% of the BARF diet
samples and in 30% of the stool samples from dogs consuming those diets.14
Greyhounds fed raw meats diets have been documented to shed the same
subspecie of salmonella in their feces as that found in their diets.15 Sled
dogs have been documented to be subclinical shedders of Salmonella spp while
eating a contaminated diet.16 Campylobacter spp infected dogs excrete
organisms in their feces yet can remain clinically normal.17 However,
serovars of Campylobacter isolated from the diarrhea of dogs was the same as
that isolated from the poultry carcasses fed to the dogs.18 Therefore, pets
fed contaminated raw meat diets are a source of household environmental
contamination to people and other pets.
Angell Animal Medical Center - Boston Page 3 of 15
Fact: Food borne organisms fed to pets can infect people.
Feeding infected raw diets increases the likelihood of infection to others
(people, children and other pets) in the household. Human infections of food
borne pathogenic organisms may occur when handling contaminated meat and egg
products as well products intended for pets (bones, pig ears and treats).19
Individuals who clean the cat's litter box or pick up their dog's stool
should consider the feces contaminated with viable pathogenic microbes.
Extra precautions should be taken when persons (or other pets) in the
household have immune suppressive diseases (HIV, Felv or FIV)b infections,
under going chemotherapy or using anti-inflammatory medications. Household
transmission of food borne pathogenic organisms from dogs to people has been
documented.20 Additional caution should be emphasized when there are young
children in the household as fecal-oral contamination is possible.
.. Case example: A 4-month-old male infant manifested with chronic diarrhea
had Salmonella virchow isolated from his stool. The pathogen was repeatedly
isolated from the infant over one month despite three regimens of treatment
with antibiotics, to which the isolate was known to be sensitive. Three
household dogs were kept in his home and S. virchow was isolated from two of
them. The infant was admitted to hospital and was treated with antibiotic,
and then the pathogen was finally eliminated from the infant. Antibiotic
sensitivity and PFGE pattern of an isolate from the infant was identical to
those of the isolates obtained from the dogs.21
Veterinarians are trained in zoonotic diseases (those shared between animals
and people) and have a responsibility to inform the pet owner who wants to
feed a raw meat or egg diet of the potential health dangers. Food safety
practices when handling the food, feeding dish and feces should be
emphasized and the need for good personal hygiene reinforced.
Fact: Pets infected with food borne organisms can be sick.
It has been stated without supporting evidence that dogs and cats have
"stronger stomachs, that food borne pathogenic organisms are normal
inhabitants of their gastrointestinal tract and therefore are not made sick
by these organisms". The veterinary literature offers evidence to the
contrary.
Dogs, cats and people have remarkably similar gastro-intestinal morphology
and physiology, and all 3 species get sick with very similar clinical signs
as a result of a pathogenic infection of food borne organisms.22 Only 36% of
healthy dogs and 17% of healthy cats harbor low levels of pathogenic
salmonellae which indicate that most household dogs and cats would not
"naturally" be harboring these pathogenic subspecies.23 Dogs and cats
infected with an effective dose of food-borne pathogens do have
gastrointestinal signs similar to people.24 There are many different
subspecies of bacteria with varying degrees of pathogenicity. The severity
of clinical signs is related to the dose of microbes or toxin ingested, and
the condition of the host.
A family pet presented to a local veterinarian for intermittent episodes of
vomiting or diarrhea would initially treat the case symptomatically and not
send samples for bacterial culture and identification.22 Hence, in most, if
not all, cases of food poisoning in the family pet are not
bHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV); Feline leukemia virus (Felv); Feline
immunodeficiency virus (FIV).
Angell Animal Medical Center - Boston Page 4 of 15
diagnosed and go unreported due to a low level of suspicion and financial
restraints. Even upon the death of a pet, rarely is an attempt to isolate
the causative agent made although it is more likely when the owner suspects
a malicious poisoning. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification and
identification of a pathogenic organism is not within the reach of
veterinary practitioners or owners financial commitments. Hence, it is
highly unlikely that local veterinary practitioners are going to make a
specific diagnosis of food poisoning, identify the organism and then the
source.
However, Salmonella, E. coli and Campylobacter infections in people are
notifiable diseases, i.e., physicians and health laboratories are required
to report cases (even an individual case) to local health departments in
accordance with procedures established by each State.4 Veterinarians who
recommend the feeding of raw meat or eggs without giving full disclosure of
the risks and precautions may face serious legal ramifications.25, 26
Fact: Food borne infections cause illness in pets.
This is a sampling and should by no means be considered a complete list of
possibilities.
.. Salmonella gastroenteritis and septicemia were diagnosed in two cats
presented for necropsy. Both cats resided in the same household and were fed
a home-prepared, raw meat-based diet. Salmonella was isolated from multiple
organs in both cats and from samples of raw beef incorporated into the diet
fed to one of the cats. Subtyping of the bacterial isolates yielded S.
newport from one cat and from the diet it had been fed.27
.. Infections of Neorickettsia, also known as salmon poisoning can occur when
raw salmon infected with a fluke is fed to dogs. The clinical signs become
serious within days and if not treated promptly, mortality can be greater
than 50%.28
.. The syndrome " Alabama rot" in Greyhounds fed raw meat diets is closely
associated with an E. coli infection because this organism is known to
produce a toxin that causes large areas of skin to ulcerate.29
.. Food-borne illnesses in dogs may also result from viruses (pseudorabies)
and mycobacterium (tuberculosis) infections particularly when fed raw pork
or meat from wildlife species (bear, elk, rabbits and aquatic mammals like
beaver and muskrats).25
.. There are larval forms of parasites embedded in the skeletal muscles of
beef, sheep, goats and swine as part of their normal life cycles. These
parasites can be killed by cooking the meat thoroughly.
o Case example: A giant breed dog developed neurological problems that were
traced to the aberrant migration of a bovine parasite. The dog was fed a raw
beef diet. The larval form of the parasite, not in its normal host, had
therefore an atypical migration and came to rest in the dog's brain. It was
identified using an MRI scan. The aberrant larva was killed using high doses
of a common anti-parasitic drug, but the dog had permanent neurological
deficients.30
o Case example: Mesocestoides eggs were identified in a routine stool check
on an apparently healthy 5 month old poodle. This tapeworm egg was of
particular interest because the larvae borrow through the intestinal wall to
invade the peritoneal cavity and there asexual proliferates causing a severe
effusive peritonitis if not treated.31 Secondary intermediate hosts are
reptiles, amphibians, rodents and birds. The only exposure this puppy had to
a secondary intermediate host was that she was fed a raw
Angell Animal Medical Center - Boston Page 5 of 15
frozen chicken pet food product ( MSPCA Angell Animal Medical Center case
files, 2004).
o Dogs fed raw fish have been infected with parasites normally found in fish
such as an intestinal tapeworm, a trematode worm that infects the bile and
pancreatic ducts, and the giant kidney worm.25
In summary, we know our meat supply is contaminated to a varying extent and
so all sources of raw meat ("fit for", "unfit for" human consumption and
wildlife) should be presumed infected until cooked.
Correction of "popular" notions:
?? Grape seed extract itself does not kill micro-organisms and render the
meat safe. "The potent as well as nearly universal antimicrobial activity
being attributed to grapefruit seed extract is merely due to the synthetic
preservative agents contained within." Natural products do not appear to
have antimicrobial activity.32
?? Freezing does not kill all organisms and render the meat safe. Evidence:
viable E. coli cultures are stored at -70oC, and the Mesocestoides eggs were
from a frozen product.
?? Freeze-drying also does not kill all organisms and render the meat safe.
Evidence: probiotic products are stored and transported in a freeze-dried
form and then warmed and re-constituted at the point of use as viable
organisms.
There is clear evidence that pets consuming diets infected with pathogenic
organisms can be clinical and subclinical shedders of viable organisms. New
pet owners feeding a raw meat diet because they were unduly persuaded by the
breeder, rather than selecting the diet on their own, admit their pet often
has intermittent soft stools or diarrhea. There is evidence that
transmission of pathogenic organisms from pets to people does occur in the
household and we know that these organisms cause disease in people. Hence,
there are health risks to feeding a raw diet to pets. The raw meat advocates
do not deny but downplay the potential health risks. One must then balance
the risk to benefit ratio. Are there nutritional benefits to feeding raw vs.
cooked food?
Angell Animal Medical Center - Boston Page 6 of 15
Part 2: Nutritional integrity
Background:
Consumed raw, rare or cooked, the nutrient requirements of dogs and cats are
well established and it has been several decades since any new nutrient has
been recognized as essential to life. The term complete indicates the diet
contains all of the nutrients known to prevent a deficiency and be essential
for life. There are 36 essential nutrients for the dog and 38 for the cat.
These nutrients either cannot be synthesized at all in the body or their
rates of synthesis are not sufficient to meet total body demand. There is a
small group of conditionally essential nutrients. Under certain conditions
of disease or stress, a nutrient has been documented to be required in
greater concentrations than under routine conditions of health, and that
documented "need" decreases when health returns. An example of such a
nutrient is glutamine.
Different nutrients are required in different amounts as some nutrients are
stored during times of excess intake while others have no storage and must
be supplied more frequently. Expression of nutrient requirements in animals
uses a system of measure different than that used in human nutrition.
Nutrient requirements are expressed per unit of body weight (gram/lb BW)
which frustrates owners attempting to balance their pet's diet.
Additionally, the requirements are not linear but curvilinear with body
weight, in that a pound of mouse requires more calories and nutrients than a
pound of elephant. The units of measure are not particularly important as
long as they are well described and hence others can make the mathematical
conversion.
Nutritional requirements may also be expressed per unit of time (gram/lb
BW/day). Conventionally, the research data has been to present requirements
in concordance with a circadian rhythm and hence "per day" has been commonly
used. However, one may use any unit of time (per hour, per week or longer)
if desired but again the time unit must specified to be universally
understood. The nutrients stored in the body (such vitamin A) have stated
daily requirements that on average maintain those stores, and clearly if a
day should pass without an intake of vitamin A, the body would draw from
those stores. Subsequently, on a day when intake exceeded the need, storage
sites would be replenished. The recommended daily intake is suggested to
prevent deficiency, toxicity and maintain adequate stores. Nutrients for
which there are no known or very little body storage, the daily recommended
intake is again an on average suggestion to prevent a deficiency.
There are consequences from feeding an unbalanced diet long-term. It may
take weeks, months or years to see a nutritional deficiency or toxicity
depending on which nutrient and the degree of imbalance. Even then it will
most likely not be recognized as such. Nutrient imbalances affect a wide
variety of body systems and do not have classic or specific presentations as
is commonly believed. For example, anemia may be the result of a deficiency
in one or several key vitamins or trace minerals or a combination thereof,
or may not at all be related to diet intake. Unfortunately, there are no
accurate tests of "nutritional status". Although one can certainly buy
urine, blood or hair analyses, these are neither accurate nor specific
measures. Veterinarians may perform a few routine overall evaluations of red
and white blood cells, serum proteins and electrolytes as part of an annual
checkup. However, these tests are only very broad overall indications of
nutritional status and not specific to the balance of any nutrient.
Angell Animal Medical Center - Boston Page 7 of 15
The most useful unit of nutritional intake however, is per calorie consumed
(gram/kcal) as this system accounts for both body weight and time changes. A
balanced diet has nutrient concentrations in proportion to the energy
density of the whole diet. Only three nutrients drive the consumption of
food, a deficiency of water, calories or sodium. Animals normally stop
eating when the caloric intake matches their current need. A balanced diet
therefore, contains nutrients such that when the animal is satiated, has
fulfilled their caloric need, and stops eating, all other essential nutrient
needs (those that do not drive appetite) have been met as well.
Ideology: Feeding a consistently balanced diet contributes to optimal
health.
As in human nutrition, a body needs nutrients, from ingredients, such as
protein, fat and fiber to function. Ingredients are simply vehicles that
deliver a mixture of nutrients to the body. No single food or food group can
provide all the nutrients needed in proper proportions. When choosing a
diet, it's the total or final balance of nutrients (not the ingredients)
that is important.
Most pet owners request information on the "best" diet that promotes
"optimal" health. Unfortunately, at this time, we do not know the exact
nutrient concentration that ensures optimal health. We do know the average
dietary concentrations that prevent deficiencies and toxicities. After a
hundred years of research, we believe that optimal health lies within these
ranges however the span between deficiency and toxicity for a nutrient
ranges between be 5 and 40 fold but therein must lay the optimum. It would
logically follow that feeding a balanced diet that consistently met the
recommended nutrient intakes (unit per calorie) would be more conducive to
optimal health than feeding a diet with wide variations and fluctuations in
nutrient content over the course of weeks.
One may ask how did canine ancestors survive, or how do today's wild
counterparts and feral dogs survive on a raw diet not adhering to AAFCOc or
NRCd nutrient profiles? The answer is not very well and not very long. Their
goal in life is to fulfill their evolutionary duty of procreation which can
be accomplished in less than two years. They are opportunistic scavengers
striving to live long enough to reproduce (aka: specie survival). Hence,
their diet need only be good enough on average to achieve a goal far less
than that of long life and optimal health.
Clarification on the term 'carnivore':
?? The disagreement over whether the dog is a carnivore or an omnivore most
probably originates with a misunderstanding over the term carnivore as a
type of feeding behavior vs. a taxonomic classification.
?? There are three feeding behaviors: carnivore, omnivore and herbivore. In
this definition, carnivore does not mean the animal "has to eat meat", but
rather its nutritional requirements cannot be entirely met from eating only
plants, and animal products must comprise some part of the diet. Domestic
dogs can meet all of their nutrient needs consuming a vegetarian and even
vegan diet. This is no longer debatable.
?? In the phylogenic scheme, the order Carnivora contains more than 260
species and all three feeding behaviors are represented therein. Most
notably, herbivores such as the
c American Association of Feed Control Officials
d National Research Council
Angell Animal Medical Center - Boston Page 8 of 15
panda are included in the order Carnivora. Hence, the domestic dog is in the
order Carnivora and has a feeding behavior best described as an omnivore.
The family pet has moved from the backyard dog house or barn cat to our
kitchens and bedrooms. Pet owners expect their household pets to live well
beyond two years and repeatedly request to know how that may be
accomplished. Veterinarians will respond to that question making references
to the advantages of a balanced diet and the protection that comes from
vaccinations, parasite control, regular medial care and safe harbor from
trauma. Household pets are living longer and now dying of diseases
associated with the aging process such as organ dysfunction and cancer - a
new frontier under exploration. One definition of aging is the decreased
ability to successfully defeat life's biological challenges and to recover
well. The expectation that a pet will live for 10 to 20 yrs places great
demands on the diet to provide all known essential nutrients on a consistent
basis to meet every biological challenge; allowing none to gain a foothold
in the body.
Conversely, a diet providing an erratic or variable supply of nutrients
(unit per calorie) intuitively could not be conducive of optimal health and
longevity. Such a diet philosophy necessitates that there will be times of
excess and times of deficiency (feast or famine). There will be moments when
an imbalanced diet will not supply all essential nutrients to destroy an
offending organism or detect an emerging precancerous cell. Having an
essential nutrient needed to fight off an infection supplied one week after
the initial invasion of a virus would not be considered optimal timing by
most owners. Most clients seeking the optimal diet want more assurance than
to simply hope to "achieve balance over a one to three week period" in the
diet fed to their pet. Today's pet owners want a higher degree of precision
and level of competency in the diets fed to their pets than to be told to
feed a variety of all food groups over the course of a few weeks plus some
bones. They demand to know all that is available about achieving optimal
health and want that for their pets as well as for themselves. Although that
answer cannot be fully described at this time, it would logically follow
that supplying all known essential nutrients on a consistent basis within
the recognized minimums and maximums is more likely to provide optimal
health than feeding a diet with a variable, erratic and unreliable nutrient
content.
Fact: Some nutrients are lost during cooking but are irrelevant.
There is truth in saying that some nutrients are "lost" when food is cooked
however when placed into its proper perspective; the losses are small and
individual ingredient losses are insignificant to a properly balanced diet.
.. An analysis conducted by Hoffmann LaRoche, a large supplier of vitamins,
eloquently demonstrated that vitamin loss during commercial production of
pet foods was minimal. Thirteen vitamins were assessed in dog and cat,
canned and extruded commercial pet food products before and after
"processing". 33 Contrary to popular rhetoric, most of the vitamin
concentrations remained unchanged during processing. The only vitamin that
was 100% lost between pre and post processing was vitamin C which is
irrelevant given the dog and cat make ample quantities of this vitamin from
glucose in their liver.e The
e No cases of "scurvy" have been reported in the dog or cat even in
prolonged end stage liver disease where remaining functional mass is
questionable.
Angell Animal Medical Center - Boston Page 9 of 15
next greatest loss was 50% of thiamin in the canning process. Once the rate
of loss is known, additional sources can be appropriately added
pre-processing to account for the expected losses and more, if necessary,
such that the final product is complete and balanced or fortified.
.. In comparing the nutrient profile of 100 grams raw beef vs. 100 grams of
the same cut cooked (broiled) from the USDA National Nutrient Database,34
there is on average less than a 5% loss in nutrients on a dry matter basis
after cooking. Some nutrients are increased in concentration while others
are decreased.
o Vitamins B12, B6, thiamin and pantothenic suffered the greatest percent
losses (28-42%) however; one does not use meat as a major supplier of
vitamins to the diet.
o The meat portion is expected to contribute protein and essential amino
acids to the diet. Less than 15% of the protein and essential amino acids
were lost during cooking which can easily be accounted for in a
re-formulation.
o No amount of cooking less than 1100oF will destroy a mineral, however,
some mineral concentrations decreased (total ash, zinc and iron) probably
due to the physical losses in the pan. In fact, trace minerals (copper and
selenium) were increased while others are likely to be more bioavailable
given the collagen matrix is broken down by heat, water and time.
.. The nutritional alterations in the food product before and after cooking
are so minimal; it makes no practical difference in the recipe even when
balancing the diet with a sophisticated computerized assimilation program.f
The recipe given to the owner can use the raw or cooked version of the same
amount of meat interchangeably because the difference in nutrients "lost"
from the meat during cooking are so small and the changes are irrelevant.
.. Cooking destroys anti-nutrients present in foods that destroy essential
nutrients within foods. Trypsin and thiaminase are two examples. Cooking
destroys food enzymes that cause spoilage and fat rancidity in the absence
of an antioxidant system. These food enzymes are not needed by the pet to
properly digest the food as is often misstated.
.. With reference to commercially made complete pet foods, the argument is
moot because the final product is guaranteed to meet a certain nutritional
standard. If the thiamin content of the meat is 50% less after cooking, then
thiamin from a different source must be increased to cover the expected
loss. Again the final product is complete and balanced, regardless of what
losses may have occurred within individual ingredients.
o Pet food manufacturers have been portrayed as purveyors of an
uncontrollable bad event called "processing". Quite the contrary. Anyone who
has been inside a pet food plant could not help but be impressed with high
degree of finite control and technological sophistication they maintain over
the making of their products. Unfortunately very few of the industries'
critics have actually visited a U.S. plant, and extrapolating from
experiences in other countries is seriously flawed.
f Mixit 2 Plus. Agricultural Software Consultants, San Diego , CA. 2005.
Angell Animal Medical Center - Boston Page 10 of 15
Correction of "popular" misstatements:
?? The temperature range used in making extruded or dry kibble is between 80
and 200oC or 175 to 390oF for less than 5 minutes. In canning pet foods, a
core temperature in the can of 116oC or 240oF is achieved for 60 to 90
minutes.35
?? These temperatures and times are less than or comparable to cooking
temperatures used in the home. Therefore, it is misleading to say that
"extreme heat [is] common to the preparation of commercial pet foods"36 when
in fact the temperature and times are comparable to baking a casserole dish
at home.
?? There is no demonstrable difference in the nutritional profile of meat
from raised by conventional methods vs. those raised "organically". The
nutrient profile of chicken meat from a conventional grower is not different
from the "free range" chickens. There may be other differences between the
two methods but it is not nutritional.
Cooking foods improves food safety as it more reliably kills pathogenic
bacteria, viruses and parasites, and increases diet digestibility when plant
and connective tissue are broken down. To my knowledge there are no case
reports of documented nutritional deficiencies due to cooking the diet.
There are some nutrients lost during cooking; however, the quantities are
small and insignificant to the overall nutritional profile of the diet if
the formulation has been properly balanced.
Fact: Homemade diets may or may not be complete and balanced.
Homemade diets can be complete and balanced when properly formulated and
prepared, and consistency is debatable. Based on what little published data
exists, there is evidence to suspect that pets fed homemade recipe are not
receiving a complete and balanced diet. Owners need directions in providing
a balanced nutrient intake. Having raised a few children is not proof of
concept that they can provide optimal nutrition to their pets (or their
children). There is no food product designed to be complete and balanced for
people, hence we were taught to strive for variety in the hopes of randomly
hitting upon the optimal diet 'on average'. However, there is ample evidence
in the medical literature that we in the U.S. are not providing ourselves
even a rough approximation of an optimal diet.
.. 73% of U.S. children eat an unhealthy diet high in fat and deficient in
calcium. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development 2002.
.. 40% of people who rated their diet as 'good to excellent' had 'poor' diets
when reviewed by a nutritionist. Tufts Health & Nutrition 2002.
.. 50 million Americans (20%) were obese in 2001. CDC.
.. Vitamin D insufficiency among free-living healthy young adults. Am J Med
2002.
Veterinarians receive on average about 4 hrs of animal nutrition of which
maybe half is canine and feline.37 Ninety percent of the homemade diets
prescribed by veterinarians for the control of food allergy skin disease
were not balanced for long term maintenance.38 Popular selling recipe books
written by veterinarians offer little to no assurances recipes are complete
or balanced.39,,,,40414243 Not one of the many publications sold to pet
owners recommending homemade recipes and giving nutritional advice has been
authored by an animal or veterinary nutritionist, although a few
publications have asked for nutritional oversight by a qualified
nutritionist. Clearly anyone can publish a pet nutrition book; the public
will pay the royalties while the pets pay the ultimate price.
Angell Animal Medical Center - Boston Page 11 of 15
Dietary recipes or instructions published by lay writers and even
veterinarians do not sufficiently describe the ingredients to ensure a
balanced diet. Most often vitamins and trace mineral are imbalanced. A
company selling a frozen raw meat product [www.shaggypaws.com] informs the
owner that they "can decide which oils, trace minerals, vitamins and other
supplements should be added to your pet's diet." It is quite probably that
no qualified person is checking the nutritional integrity for the pets on
the receiving end of this product. Most recipes carry a "catch-all"
statement for the owner to feed a "complete multiple vitamin-mineral
supplement" and to feed the supplement "according to the label instructions".
However, there is no such veterinary product(s) available on the market and
the owner is left in the void. "Healthy powder", a mixture of yeast,
lecithin, kelp, bone meal and vitamin C, has been touted presumably as a
vitamin and trace mineral supplement, however, no nutritional analysis can
be found.39 A computer assimilationf or lab analysis of the mixture is not
realistic due to the great variability in the yeast, lecithin and kelp
ingredients, and exact ingredient information is not described.
Here follows 4 case examples of owners attempting to follow a prescribed
recipe but calcium deficiency was documented.
.. A 3 month old American Bulldog puppy fed a homemade diet presented for
generalized weakness, inability to stand on his own, and very sore left hind
leg. Radiographs reveal generalized bone decalcification, thin cortices, and
a folding fracture of left femur. Diagnosis is classic calcium deficiency
[VIN Clin Nutrition 2002].30
.. A 15 wk old English Mastiff presented for stunted growth, 4-legged
lameness, short stride, difficulty moving and a large head disproportionate
to rest of body. The "BARF" diet was fed to the whole kennel. Diagnosis is
chondroepiphysis with incomplete ossification due to a calcium deficiency
[VIN Diag Imaging 2000].30
.. A 4.5 month old male Newfoundland dog fed a modified "BARF" diet per the
breeder's instructions but the owner wanted a second opinion on the
nutritional integrity. Analysis of breeder's diet revealed 0.17% calcium and
1.31% phosphorous on a dry matter basis with an inverse Ca:Phos ratio. AAFCO
recommended minimum is 1.0% calcium and 0.8% phosphorous. The breeder's diet
was also deficient in Vitamin D with only 7.5 IU/kg while 500 IU/kg is the
AAFCO minimum recommended [ MSPCA Angell Animal Medical Center case files,
2004].
.. A 3 yr CM mixed breed dog was fed a diet described on the internet
[www.patmckay.com 8/5/02]. Owner indicated the "supplement costs are killing
me at about $100 per month" and asked for a second opinion. Although the
owner was buying the calcium supplement at $1.61 per day prescribed in the
recipe and feeding it according to label directions, the diet contained only
25% of the AAFCO recommended calcium and 41% of the phosphorous, and the
diet had an inverse Ca:Phos ratio. After balancing the diet with more
concentrated and locally available supplements, the monthly supplement cost
was reduced to $15.44
Reality check on feeding of bones:
?? About 10-30% of a ground calcium supplement may be bioavailable and
therefore the bioavailability of a large hunk of bone in the gut must be
questioned. Bones (cooked or raw) are recommended in some recipes as the
only source of calcium yet clinical calcium deficiency has been documented
in puppies eating these diets.
Angell Animal Medical Center - Boston Page 12 of 15
?? There is a serious problem if a bone should obstruct and perforate the
esophagus or small intestine. Veterinary surgeons do remove bones from the
esophagus and small intestine of dogs, and to deny this possibility is
foolish. The incidence of obstruction with bones is small, but is life
threatening and an expensive emergency surgery. GI obstruction due to bones
does create a "short bowel syndrome" when the segment of bowel removed
approaches 80% of the total available bowel. Such cases are difficult to
reconcile for owners who were following the feeding instructions written by
another veterinarian [ MSPCA Angell Animal Medical Center case files].
?? There have been cases of dogs presented for constipation, but on rectal
palpation were found to have a normal stool with many small sharp bones
fragments that caused pain so the dogs resisted defecation [ MSPCA Angell
Animal Medical Center case files].
?? Bones consumed by dogs do cause morbidity and mortality, and
bioavailability as a source of minerals is low, so one has to weigh these
risks against the 'benefits". The potential downsides can be eliminated by
feeding bone meal and oral health could be achieved through other safer
means.
Many dogs are fed homemade diets and show no ill-effects. In some cases, a
homemade diet formulated specifically for that pet is the only or best
nutritional option. I formulate several hundred homemade diets annually for
clients for a wide variety of reasons but medical is the most common. A
patient-client-doctor relationship is established and each client is made
aware of the risks and understands their responsibility in making the pet's
diet. They are given feeding guidelines specific for their particular pet
and each recipe is accompanied with 5 to 8 pages of instructions including
how to monitor the pet and recommended diet rechecks. Owners are not charged
for follow-up questions which encourages them to communicate often and on
every detail if needed. However, even under these circumstances, it is not
unusual to discover in follow-up visits instances where owners have elected
to make substitutions or omissions that seriously imbalances the diet.
There are other examples of nutrient imbalances in the homemade diets made
by well intentioned owners.10,,4546 Regardless of how the authors intended
their recipes to be made or fed, in future studies assessing the nutritional
integrity of homemade diets, the nutrient analysis should be performed on
the actual food made by the owner and fed to the pet because that is our
actual point of concern.11, 47 The food fed to the pet is the accumulation
of all the errors of deficiencies and excesses. Hence, feeding a cooked
homemade diet decreases the public health risk, but nutritional integrity
remains uncertain. And feeding a raw homemade diet does not ensure
nutritional balance or decrease the public health risk.
Fact: Commercial raw diets may or may not be complete and balanced.
Manufacturers of raw food products make a wide variety of nutritional
claims. Some products are sold complete and balanced with no need for other
foods or supplements, while other raw food products must be mixed with other
foods and supplements to be complete. And there are some sold as complete
and balanced but recommend the mixing in of other foods. But why would that
be necessary if the product is complete?
These raw meat diets (frozen or freeze-dried) are promoted as "fresh" or
"natural" or said to contain "functional" foods or "unknown and yet to be
discovered nutrients". These concepts are ill-defined and vague, have no
scientific or demonstrable nutritional significance, and therefore
Angell Animal Medical Center - Boston Page 13 of 15
are difficult to address in any meaningful discussion. It would appear they
are promoting a feeding plan that has an "advantage" that they themselves
cannot describe. "The mystery of good health and nutrition is locked within
the fresh, raw foods provided by nature" claims one raw meat processor.
Nutrition is not a locked mystery but a science and therefore amenable to
exploration and verification using time tested methods of scientific
investigation. Raw meat advocates might be correct in some form or another,
but at this time, they have neither identified nor measured any nutritional
advantage to feeding a raw meat product over any fully cooked pet food
product. In the meantime, if their product is positioned as a "complete and
balanced" diet, they must substantiate that claim by conventional means
(laboratory analysis or feeding trial) according to AAFCO guidelines. Those
not making a complete and balance claim must carry an AAFCO statement
indicating the product is for supplemental or intermittent use only.
These raw products (complete or incomplete) are sold frozen or freeze-dried
and carry no claim to be pathogen free, in fact, recent work would strongly
suggest handling them as if they were contaminated.12 Freezing does not
render the meat safe and maintaining the product frozen during transport is
essential as partial thawing may allow organisms to proliferate thereby
delivering a large dose of organisms or toxin at the first meal.
In summary:
.. Feeding a raw homemade diet does not ensure nutritional balance or
decrease the public health risk.
.. Feeding a cooked homemade diet decreases the public health risk, but the
nutritional balance remains debatable.
.. Feeding a raw commercial diet may or may not be a complete and balanced
diet, but if so, then it provides nutritional balance however the public
health risk remains.
.. Feeding a cooked commercial diet (in the U.S. ) is likely to be a complete
and balanced diet, and if so, then provides nutritional balance and
decreases the public health risk.
In conclusion, given there has yet been a benefit demonstrated to feeding a
raw diet over any dry or canned pet food, as measured by universally
accepted scientific methods, the public health risk appears to be a
significant downside with no nutritional upside. I would be most willing to
review the data and reconsider my position when such becomes available.
Angell Animal Medical Center - Boston Page 14 of 15
References:
1 Atanassova V, Meindl A, Ring C. Prevalence of Staphylococcus aureus and
staphylococcal enterotoxins in raw pork and uncooked smoked ham - a
comparison of classical culturing detection and RFLP-PCR. Int. J. Food
Microbiol. 68:105-113, 2001.
2 White DG, Zhao S, Sudler R, et al. The isolation of antibiotic-resistant
Salmonella from retail ground meats. N. Engl. J. Med. 345:1147-1154, 2001.
3 Zhao C, Ge B, de Villena J, et al. Prevalence of Campylobacter spp.,
Escherichia coli, and Salmonella serovars in retail chicken, turkey, pork,
and beef from the greater Washington, D.C., area. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
2001;67: 5431-5436.
4 Federal Register: September 22, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 183).
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/fr04922b.html
5 Bailey JS. Detection of Salmonella cells within 24 to 26 hours in poultry
samples with the polymerase chain reaction BAX system. J Food Protect
1998;61:792-795.
6 Federal Meat Inspection Act. Title 21; Food and Drugs. Chapter 12; Meat
Inspection.
http://www.fda.gov/opacom/laws/meat.htm.
7 Chengappa MM, Staats J, Oberst RD, et al. Prevalence of Salmonella in raw
meat used in diets of racing greyhounds. J. Vet. Diagn. Invest.
1993;5:372-377.
8 Machlik S. Raw risk. Petfood Industry 1999;41(4):56-57.
9 Fredriksson-Ahomaa M, Korte T, Korkeala H. Transmission of Yersinia
enterocolitica 4/O:3 to pets via contaminated pork. Lett Appl Microbiol
2001;32[6]:375-378.
10 Joffe DJ, Schlesinger DP. Preliminary assessment of the risk of
Salmonella infection in dogs fed raw chicken diets. Can Vet J
2002;43[6]:441-442.
11 Freeman LM, Michel KE. Evaluation of raw food diets for dogs. J Am Vet
Med Assoc 1991;218[5]:705-709.
12 O'Rourke K. Raw meat diets spark concern. J Am Vet Med Assoc
2005;226[2]:187.
13 FDA. Guidance for Industry. Manufacturer and Labeling of Raw Meat Foods
for Companion and Captive Noncompanion Carnivores and Omnivores.
http://www.fda.gov/cvm/guidance/Guide122.doc.
14 Joffe DJ, Schlesinger DP. Preliminary assessment of the risk of
Salmonella infection in dogs fed raw chicken diets. Can Vet J
2002;43[6]:441-442.
15 Stone GG, Chengappa MM, Oberst RD , et al. Application of polymerase
chain reaction for the correlation of Salmonella serovars recovered from
Greyhound feces with their diet. J Vet Diagn Invest 1993;5:378-385.
16 Cantor GH, Nelson S, Vanek JA, et al. Salmonella shedding in racing sled
dogs. J Diagnostic Invest 1997;9:447-448.
17 Hald B, Madsen M. Healthy puppies and kittens as carriers of
Campylobacter spp. with special reference to Campylobacter upsaliensis. J
Clin Microbiol 1997;35:3351-3352.
18 Varga J, Mese B, Fodor L. Serogroups of Campylobacter jejuni from man and
animals. Zentralbl Veterinarmed [B] 1990;37:407-411.
19 Grimsrud K. Public Health Advisory. Edmonton , Canada : Alberta health
and Wellness. 1999.
20 Gutman L, Ottesen E, Quan T, et al. An inter-familial out break of
Yersinia entercolitica enteritis. NE J Med 1973;288:1372-1377.
21 Sato Y, Mori T, Koyama T, Nagase H. Salmonella virchow infection in an
infant transmitted by household dogs. J Vet Med Sci. 2000;62(7):767-769.
22 Guilford WG, Center SA, Strombeck DR, et al. Strombeck's Small Animal
Gastroenterology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia :WB Saunders, 1996.
23 Morse EV, Duncan MA. Canine Salmonellosis: Prevalence, epizootiology,
signs, and public healthy significant, J Am Vet Med Assoc
1975;167[ ]:917-820.
24 FDA. Bad Bug Book at
http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov.
25 Lejeune JT, Hancock DD. Public health concerns associated with feeding
raw meat diets to dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2001;219[9]:1222-1225.
26 Jack DC. The legal implications of the veterinarian's role as a private
practitioner and health professional, with particular reference to the
human-animal bond: part 2, the veterinarian's role in society. Can Vet J
1997;38:653-659.
27 Stiver SL, Frazier KS, Mauel MJ, Styer EL. Septicemic Salmonellosis in
two cats fed a raw-meat diet. JAAHA 2003;39[6]:538-542.
28 Gorham JR, Foreyt WJ. Salmon poisoning disease. In: Clinical Microbiology
and Infectious Diseases of the dog and Cat. Green CE (ed). Philadelphia , WB
Saunders. 1084 538-544.
Angell Animal Medical Center - Boston Page 15 of 15
29 Fenwick BW, Cowan LA. Canine model of hemolytic uremic syndrome. In:
Kaper JB, O'Brien AS, eds. Escherichia coli O157:H7 and other
shigatoxin-producing E. coli strains. Washington , DC :Amercian Society for
Microbiology Press. 1998. pp268-277.
30 Veterinary Information Network (www.vin.com).
31 Stern A, Walder, EJ, Zontine WJ et al. Canine mesocestoides infections.
Compend Cont. Ed 1987;9:223-228.
32 von Woedtke T, Schluter B, Pflegel P, et al. Aspects of the antimicrobial
efficacy of grapefruit seed extract and its relation to preservative
substances contained. Pharmazie. 1999;54(6):452-6.
33 Frye T. Vitamin stability in canned and extruded pet food. Hoffmann
LaRoche, Nutley NJ . 1995.
34 USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference.
http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search.
35 Cowell CS, Stout NP, Brinkmann MF, et al. Making Commercial pet foods. In
Small Animal Clinical Nutrition. Mark Morris Institute. ML Hand, CD
Thatcher, RL Remillard, P Roudebush (eds). 4th ed, Marceline , Missouri :
Wadsworth Publishing Company. 2000. pp 127-146.
36 Johnson W, Sinning C. Differing opinions of raw food diet research. J Am
Vet Med Assoc 2001;218[10]:1553-1554.
37 Bataller N, Thatcher CD, Pelzer KD, Remillard RL. Nutritional education
at Veterinary Colleges of North America . J Vet Med Ed. 1991;18 (1):11-16.
38 Roudebush P, Cowell CS. Results of a hypoallergenic diet survey of
veterinarians in North America with a nutritional evaluation of homemade
diet prescriptions. Vet Derm 1992;3:23-28.
39 Pitcarin RH, Pitcairn SH. Dr. Pitcairn's Complete Guide to Natural Health
for Dogs and Cats. Emmaus , Pennsylvania : Rodale Press, inc. 1995.
40 Strombeck DR. Home-prepared Dog and Cat Diets. Ames : Iowa State
University Press.1999.
41 Zink MC. Dog Health and Nutrition for Dummies. New York : Hungry Minds.
2001.
42 Volhardt W, Brown K. The Natural Diet. The holistic guide for a healthy
dog. New York ; Howell Book House. 1995.
43 Billinghurst I. Give your Dog a Bone. Alexandra , Australia : Bridge
Printery. 1993.
44 Veterinary Nutritional Consultations.
http://www.petdiets.com
45 Streiff EL, Zwischenberger B, Butterwick RF, et al. A Comparison of the
Nutritional Adequacy of Home-Prepared and Commercial Diets for Dogs. J.
Nutr. 2002;132:1698S-1700S.
46 Donoghue S, Kronfeld DS. Home-made diets. The Waltham Book of Clinical
Nutrition of Dogs and Cats. London : Pergamon. 1994 pg 445.
47 Letters to the Editor. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2001;218[9]:1415-1416 and
218[10]1554.
>> Stay informed about: Maltese losing hair 
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
