Raw Food vs Dry Food Diets for Dogs

The importance of complete and balanced nutrition

Millions of households opt for kibbled diets not only for convenience but also because they have a good track record of providing complete and balanced nutrition to our pets. This gives owners a peace of mind knowing what they are feeding is providing their pet with what they require for their day to day needs.

Most kibble companies, especially premium brands, have a great track record for being able to reliably show their meals are nutritionally complete. Good pet food companies will meet or exceed the minimum standards set out by the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO). The AAFCO is one of the main bodies responsible for setting the nutritional standards for pet foods. They provide minimum and maximum amounts of nutrients required for pets in pet food. These standards are similar to people and the "recommended dietary intake" or RDI. These have been put in place to ensure safety and to minimise deficiencies or toxicities in our pets.

Good quality pet food companies will also frequently quality test their products during the multiple stages of production. This gives added security to the consumer that the product is safe and appropriate for their pet.

Raw and fresh foods come in a wide variety. Some raw or fresh food is home made by the owner, others by companies who produce these foods as a treat or supplemental feeding only while others strictly adhere to AAFCO guidelines, perform quality testing and are intended to be fed as a complete diet. Having such a variation in the market does bring some confusion to owners and sometimes places pets at risk of not receiving the right nutrition. A study by Dillitzer, Becker and Kienzle (2011) has shown that a large quantity of raw diets are nutritionally imbalanced. This is one of the reasons many veterinarians do not support raw feeding. However, it should be noted that although rare kibbled diets have also been found to be deficient or in excess in certain nutrients. Both of which can lead to potential health issues. For example, taurine deficiency has been associated in dogs fed certain commercial foods (Kaplan et al. 2018) and elements such as selenium, manganese, arsenic and mercury (the latter two being contaminants rather than nutrients) have been found to be in excess or at hazardous levels (Macías-Montes et al 2021 & Rosendahl et al 2022) .

The good news regarding raw and fresh foods is there is now widespread awareness of the nutritional balance issue so moves can be put in place to prevent it and there are certainly ways to ensure owners can feed raw or fresh food safely.

To ensure a complete and balanced raw or fresh food owners can opt for a commercially prepared, pre-packaged raw or fresh food that meets or exceeds AAFCO standards. This will usually be printed on the packaging or the product will be advertised as complete and balanced. There are now a variety of pet food companies out there offering food in this way. As mentioned earlier, good pet food companies will perform quality testing so feel free to enquire about a company's procedures regarding this so you can feel confident in the product you are buying.

The second option if one wishes to prepare the food at home is to ensure they enlist the help of a qualified veterinarian. Ideally a veterinary nutritionist or a vet who has extra qualifications in nutrition. These vets will work with you to tailor recipes that ensure nutritional adequacy. Alternatively, they can use a balancer such as the Vets All Natural complete mix which are designed to be added to meat to provide additional nutrients meat alone cannot provide.

Nutritional differences between food types

As mentioned previously the AAFCO is one of the main bodies responsible for setting the nutritional standards (minimums and maximums of nutrients) for pet foods. Although we have gained so much knowledge on pet nutrition over the past few decades still much remains unknown about certain nutrients and many minimum or maximum amounts have not yet been established in our pets. For example, there are no recommended amounts for ultra-trace minerals such as silica and chromium in cats and dogs. Similarly, there is no safe upper limit of phosphorus in cats set out by the National Research Council or AAFCO (FEDIAF 2021).

So with that in mind, it could be argued that unless we are feeding our dogs a varied diet of different proteins, vegetables, fruits, seeds etc then it's possible they may be missing out on some nutrients that aren't included as essential in commercial pet food. There may also be particular nutrients or co-factors we are yet to be aware of that have benefits for our pets and of course, the AAFCO can not make recommendations on nutrients we are yet to understand.

As outlined earlier the manufacturing process used for making dry dog food utilises high temperatures and high pressure. These both cause a considerable loss of nutrients including that of vitamin A, vitamin B2, vitamin B3, vitamin B9, biotin and amino acids such as lysine (Riaz et al. 2009 and Aldrich 2012). Due to this, pet food manufacturers are required to add in synthetic versions of these nutrients and over supplement them in order to account for their losses during processing and also any ongoing losses that may occur during storage.

Raw diets have been found to have higher levels of antioxidants and some plant compounds such as flavonoids (Galanakis 2017). This along with the availability of unaltered or minimally altered levels of natural nutrients in fresh and raw food is one of the reasons owners may opt to feed these diets.

Some may also question the quality and bioavailability of the synthetic nutrients used in dry foods in comparison to those naturally found in wholefoods. Nutrients found in wholefoods may also have the added benefit of nutritional synergy. This refers to differing or greater benefits on biological systems when consuming nutrients in their naturally found form rather than consuming the individual nutritional components in isolation (Jacobs and Tapsell 2013). Although likely less in quantity, it does need to be noted that many raw and fresh food companies may still add synthetic nutrients to their foods to ensure they meet nutritional adequacy. This is because it is quite costly to provide all required nutrients through wholefood alone.

Regardless of whether dry, raw or fresh, reliable pet food companies should include testing and analysis on their finished products to assess for satisfactory nutritional content.

Additives and by products in raw, fresh and dry food

For dry food to maintain its safety, palatability and long shelf life additional substances must be added to the food during the manufacturing process. These may include ingredients such as flavour enhancers, colours, preservatives, humectants and antioxidants. Some of these additives can come in natural forms for example, vitamin E is a natural antioxidant although many companies use synthetic versions as it is often more cost effective. While there have been concerns about synthetic antioxidants, most have been approved for use in both human and animal food and most long term studies have shown them to be safe at recommended amounts.

Of another concern are parabens. These are common preservatives used in not only pet food but also pharmaceutical products and cosmetics. Parabens are classified as being part of a group of chemicals known to interfere with the endocrine (hormonal) system of living organisms and as a result has been tied to various health conditions (Nowak et al. 2018). Parabens have been found in pet foods with the highest amounts being in dry food however, they can also be found in other products such as some dog shampoos (Karthikraj et al. 2018). The health effects of parabens remains in debate and their effects on pets has not been well studied. Thus it is an area that requires further research.

Besides additives to dry food, the high temperatures during cooking and processing lead to by-products such as Maillard reaction products (MRP) (Oba et al. 2022). Examples of MRP include acrylamide. Acrylamide has been suggested as a potential carcinogen (substances that can cause cancer) (Tareke et al. 2000) while other MRP's have been associated with health conditions such as diabetes, kidney and cardiovascular disease in many species (Knecht et al. 1991 and Meng et al.1998). At this stage it's not known whether MRP are associated with such conditions in pets. However, there is one study that hypothesizes a connection between pets consuming foods with heterocyclic amines (a type of MRP) and cancer (Knize et al. 2003).

Due to the above concerns or simply because the ingredients list on raw or fresh food contain ingredients that are easily understood, many owners are choosing to feed raw or fresh food rather than dry.

Digestibility of raw, fresh and dry food

Digestibility refers to the body's ability to absorb nutrients available in a particular food. Some pet parents swear that raw or fresh food is easier to digest than kibble while others will say the opposite. So what do we actually know? Typically anything over 82% digestibility is considered as highly digestible (Giovenelli 2021).

A study (Daumas et al. 2014) looking at the digestibility of various dry dog foods found digestibility varied and in the foods covered they found the average digestibility ranged from 73-88%.

So what we can say is kibble does vary in its digestibility. Kibble companies vary the animal protein sources they use and the type of manufacturing process used which affects the quality and digestibility (Oba et al. 2019). This is especially true for foods that use meat meal. Meat meal is any meat ingredient that has been dried and ground. For example, some companies will include varying quantities of bone in their meat meal. Bone contains collagen which acts as a source of protein however, collagen is poorly digested by companion animals (CanineCeuticals 2023) so food that contains a higher proportion of bone in the meat meal will have a lower digestibility than those that don't. Similarly, animal byproduct meal can contain various parts of animals besides muscle which can include parts such as feet and heads which can again vary the digestibility as well as the quality of protein.

Conversely, plant sources commonly used in dry food such as corn, wheat or oats become even more digestible during heat processing. This is because heating the food increases the size of the starch molecules which then positively influences the palatability and digestibility.

There is some evidence to suggest raw and fresh diets have a higher digestibility compared to dry foods. This study found raw food was roughly 90% digestible, fresh cooked was 90-93% and dry food came out at 87% digestibility (Algya et al. 2018). While Bermingham et al. (2017) found that apparent energy and protein digestibility were higher in raw fed dogs than those that ate a kibbled diet.

However, more comprehensive studies are required and it should also be noted that composition of the ingredients in a particular diet make a big difference to the digestibility so individual foods whether cooked, raw or dry will vary in digestibility if using different ingredients. It should also be noted that an animal's health or disease state can influence what foods it is better able to digest.

Microbial and parasitic contamination risk

Microbial and parasitic contamination of raw food as well as potential zoonosis (illnesses passed from animals to humans) is one of the main concerns owners and vets alike have in regards to feeding a raw diet. Illness can occur from zoonosis, incorrect storage of foods, contamination from pet bowls or food preparation areas.

Widely recognized and respected veterinary organisations such as the World Small Animal Veterinary Association (WSAVA) and the American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA) have public positions advising against the feeding of raw food (AAHA 2011 and WSAVA 2020) as numerous studies have found it can contain harmful bacteria (such as Salmonella and E.coli). It has also been found that raw fed dogs can carry and shed these bacteria which then can pose a risk to human and animal health (Davies et al. 2019, Groat et al. 2022 and Mounsey et al. 2022). High temperatures used in processing dry food kills harmful bacteria which is why many consider this the safer option. As mentioned earlier, commercial dry food is not completely free from risk. Although rare in comparison to how many tonnes of food is produced every year, there are numerous recalls on these foods for bacterial and other contamination. In the majority of cases the bacterial contamination occurs some time after the cooking process (FDA 2023).

Having noted the risk of bacterial contamination from raw feeding is real, it's hard to say what the true risk really is on a day to day basis as a recent world-wide study has shown that even with a large portion of households in the study feeding raw food (16,475), only 0.2% of them experienced a person being infected with a pathogen from the raw food. From this it was concluded that further studies are necessary to determine the true risks of contamination and zoonosis as the cases highlighted here appear to be rare and sporadic (Anturaniemi et al. 2019). It's possible that those feeding raw food are typically well versed on the strict hygiene practices that are required to safely feed raw food.

It should be noted that normal, healthy, kibble fed dogs can carry and shed pathogenic bacteria such as salmonella. They don't necessarily have to have been fed raw food however, this has been found to be a risk factor among other things such as close association with livestock and living in a multi-dog household (Leonard et al. 2011).

Besides bacteria, parasites such as tapeworm and toxoplasma are also a risk when feeding raw food (Ahmed et al. 2021 and Wright and Richmond 2020). These not only carry a risk to the pet but can also be zoonotic. Again, the cooking process in dry foods kills any harmful parasites that may be present. Having said that, many commercial raw food companies do adopt methods to minimise the risk of such parasites. For example, freezing raw food for a certain period of time at very low temperatures (minimum -20 degrees celsius) can inactivate the cystic forms of these parasites and thus reduce risk of transmission (Wright and Richmond 2020). Although a recent study (Gracia et al. 2022) has found that contrary to the widely accepted freezing recommendations these may actually not be enough to inactivate Toxoplasma.

If choosing to feed raw, judicious intestinal worming control (every 6 weeks) with a product containing praziquantel is recommended to eliminate the potential for tapeworm infection.

Whilst freezing raw food results in a reduction in bacterial counts, viable pathogenic bacteria can survive (Stogdale 2019) so this is not an appropriate method for eliminating bacterial risk. A new method of ensuring raw food safety is called high pressure pasteurization (HPP) which kills harmful bacteria and pathogens with minimal effects on food quality (Reus 2022). It is gaining in popularity overseas but at this stage the author is unaware of any commercial raw food products in Australia that are using HPP. As the raw food space is a growing market it's logical to assume the Australian market will soon follow suit. This will make opting for raw foods a much safer option for both people and pets.

Due to the risks of raw feeding it is often not recommended to raw feed in households where there is someone pregnant, elderly, living with children under 5 years of age or someone in the household is otherwise immunocompromised. Fresh foods on the other hand are typically cooked at lower temperatures than dry food but still enough to kill harmful bacteria or parasites so this is a great option if wanting to feed a more natural diet whilst minimising the risks of contamination and zoonosis.

Health benefits of dry, raw and fresh feeding

Dry dog foods, especially those in the premium range have large bodies of evidence to support their health claims as well as back the safety of their products. Besides having very strict quality control, dry foods often belong to large, well-funded multinational companies that can afford to invest in large scale feeding trials and studies. Some companies even have their own colonies of dogs they house, feed and use for their own in-house feeding trials and research. This enables these companies to conduct large and lengthy studies which are often not possible in the real world without significant funding. Because of this high quality evidence and research this is one of the main reasons dry food is so well accepted and recommended by the majority of the veterinary industry.

As the benefits of dry food in dogs, especially those that are prescription grade or have label claims are well known and widely available, This section will instead focus on some of the less well known evidence for raw and fresh feeding. This is not a complete or exhaustive list and does not include any studies involving other species such as cats for which there are also numerous studies.

As mentioned earlier it does take quite a significant amount of funding to put together large scale, high powered scientific studies so the down side of the raw and fresh feeding industry is that in comparison to dry food it is still fairly new and often doesn't have the same financial backing to perform as long or large studies. Having said that, there is certainly some positive evidence out there which is presented below.

Bermingham et al. (2017) found diet (raw vs kibble) significantly affected large numbers of bacterial families found in the faecal microbiota (the living organisms found in a particular environment) of dogs. Raw fed dogs had higher levels of bacteria such as Lactobacillus, Fusobacterium and Clostridiaceae. Clostridiaceae were seen to have a positive association with faecal health score (more well formed stools) and a negative association with faecal output (less stool formation). Similar findings were also noted by Schmidt et al. (2018) and Sungho et al. (2021) who looked at raw, fresh and kibbled diets.

Decreased faecal and gut diversity of the microbiome has been associated with a variety of health conditions in animals and in people. Some examples include diarrhoea, inflammatory bowel disease and atopic dermatitis (Pilla and Suchodolski 2020 and Rostaher et al. 2022). Therefore understanding and improving the microbiome has been of particular interest in both the veterinary and human medical fields. Kim et al. (2017) found that dogs fed a raw diet had an increased and more diverse gut microbiota than dogs fed a kibble diet.

Just as low diversity in the gut and faecal microbiome has been associated with disease, a low diversity in the skin microbiome has been found in dogs with allergic skin disease when compared to healthy dogs (Bradley et al. 2016). A study by Leverett et al.(2022) revealed feeding a fresh diet increased the diversity of the skin microbiome compared to dogs on dry food. Hemida et al. (2020) also found that feeding a raw diet in the prenatal and early postnatal period of dogs was a protective factor against developing canine atopic dermatitis when they were older. The opposite was also true in that they found feeding a dry food diet was a risk factor in the development of atopic dermatitis.

Of course the downside to increased diversity in the microbiome is the fact that the dogs could become colonised with potentially pathogenic (harmful) bacteria which has been the case in some of these studies. However, what is not entirely clear is why some dogs can harbour pathogenic bacteria without any ill effects whereas others may go on to develop illness. The answer is likely multifactorial.

In a very simplistic sense some see the feeding of raw or fresh foods as anti-inflammatory while feeding kibbled diets are pro-inflammatory. But is there any evidence for this? Moore et al. (2020) looked at Staffy's (both healthy and those diagnosed with atopic dermatitis) and looked at the effect of feeding a raw vs kibble diet. Dogs fed the kibbled diet had higher levels of methionine and cystathionine. These are both involved in homocysteine metabolism. Increased levels of methionine, cystathionine and homocysteine have been implicated in many disease processes in humans and it is well accepted that lower levels of these substances are associated with increased longevity, lower cancer rates, reduced inflammation and decreased oxidative stress . Anderson et al. (2018) looked at the effect of raw vs kibble fed dogs in gene expression and observed the raw diet appeared to be anti-inflammatory while the opposite was found with the kibbled diet.

Raw and fresh diets have also been noted to increase immunity. Anturaniemi et al. (2020) investigated the effect of a raw vs kibble diet on gene expression in healthy Staffy's vs those with atopic dermatitis. They found gene expression was altered by the diets especially in the dogs with atopic dermatitis. They also found that the gene transcription of the raw fed dogs was in line with decreased oxidative stress and improved innate immunity. Jaffey et al. (2022) also found a fresh diet has immunomodulatory effects and increased innate immunity in comparison to a kibble diet. Their study also supported the anti-inflammatory effects of a fresh food diet in comparison to kibble.

Although raw feeding has been tied with an increased risk of parasitic infections, a surprising benefit found in a study by Nijsse and colleagues (2016) was that feeding a raw diet was a protective factor against infection against the roundworm Toxacara canis and that feeding a kibbled (or canned) diet was a risk factor for infection. More studies are needed to determine if this is a true benefit of raw feeding or whether this was once off spurious finding.

Caloric density and carbohydrate content

It's no secret that pets in the developed world have issues with being overweight and obese. In fact, it's thought that 40% of dogs and 30% of cats are overweight. Being overweight or obese predisposes the pet to multiple health issues including but not limited to joint and mobility issues, diabetes, skin and urinary issues. A big win on the side of a well balanced raw or fresh food is that it has a much lower caloric density in comparison to dry food. This can be of great benefit in preventing pets from becoming overweight or even in treating obese pets that require a weight loss plan.

In addition to caloric density, raw and fresh foods typically have a lower glycaemic index (GI). It is well known that the GI of food influences post-pradinal (after eating) blood sugar and insulin levels. Foods with a high GI produce sharp blood sugar spikes which in turn can have an effect in insulin sensitivity and can impact the likelihood of developing metabolic conditions such as diabetes.

Raw or fresh feeding may also limit caloric intake and overfeeding due to the cost and nature of storage of the food. For example, raw and fresh food can not be left out for long periods unlike dry food so the pet doesn't have as much time to graze and possibly over eat. Also the cost per kg of raw and fresh food may make it less likely owners will want to feed to excess (Stogdale 2019).

Those who support the evolutionary model of feeding suggest that our domestic dogs should eat food similar to their wolf ancestors (a raw meat based diet) as this is what is most natural for them. However, it should be noted that our modern domestic dogs have over time evolved an increased ability to digest carbohydrates in comparison to wolves so feeding the exact diet their ancestors ate may not be entirely appropriate (Axelsson et al. 2013). Having noted our domestic dogs can indeed eat a higher carbohydrate diet compared to wolves, it has still been found in various studies that their natural preference for carbohydrates remains low (roughly 4-7% carbohydrates compared to ~1% in wolves) (Hewson-Hughes et al. 2017). One study found domestic dogs prefer a higher percentage at ~36% (Hall et al. 2018). The average dry food can vary between 35-60% carbohydrates so some would argue certain dry foods may not be biologically appropriate for our dogs while the generally low carbohydrate content of raw and fresh foods is more on par with their preferences. Having said that, as we have seen over the years many thousands of dogs over multiple generations have done exceptionally well eating a dry food diet so which diet is superior may come down to factors other than carbohydrate content alone.

Cost and convenience

A huge factor that comes into the food we choose for our pets is cost and convenience. Dry food wins out in this category as the cost per kg is much lower in comparison to raw or fresh food.

It also has a very long shelf life, doesn't require stringent storage other than in a cool, dark environment and to minimise air exposure. It can simply be offered to the pet to graze on as they please throughout the day. Raw and fresh food does not have this luxury as it requires either refrigeration or to be frozen prior to feeding and can not be left out for long periods of time due to the risk of bacterial overgrowth and spoilage.

Dental Health

It is well known that mechanical cleaning of teeth is necessary for good dental health. This can come in the form of chewing or brushing. Unless raw bones are included in the diet, raw and fresh food is often very soft so does not provide much mechanical cleaning of teeth putting dogs on these diets at risk of dental disease.

Dry food being firm provides more of a cleaning action when being ingested by the dog. This is especially true when the kibble size is on the larger side. Oral health diets use this characteristic as the main method to encourage dental health.

Moisture content

Increasing water intake is important for general wellbeing but also promoting kidney and urinary health. Ingestion of foods as well as drinking water contribute to the overall water intake and hydration of pets. Dry foods are typically ~10% moisture whereas raw and fresh are roughly 65-75%. Therefore raw and fresh foods contribute more towards hydration in comparison to dry food. However, many people choose to feed wet or canned foods along with dry and this will also be contributing to overall water intake for the pet.

Pet preference

All animals are individual so not one diet is going to suit them all. Some dogs thrive on raw food while others may have undesirable side effects such as vomiting or diarrhoea or they may completely turn their nose up at raw food. The same can be said for dry food, some dogs live long and healthy lives eating dry food alone while others may get issues with their skin or gut if fed dry food. It's important to choose a food that is appropriate for your pet and any health conditions they may have. Your vet can be a valuable resource in helping you decide which diet is best for your pooch.

Take Home Messages

Further Reading

Does grain free dog food cause heart disease?

What makes a 'quality' pet food?

Raw Diets for Pets: The Risks and Benefits

Causes of Diarrhoea in Dogs

Want to know more? Check out our Discover Page for more tips from our expert vets on keeping your pets happy and healthy.

References
1. AAHA (The American Animal Hospital Association) (2011) AAHA position statements and endorsements raw protein diet, AAHA, accessed 24 October 2023. https://www.aaha.org/about-aaha/aaha-position-statements/raw-protein-diet.
2. Ahmed F, Cappai MG, Morrone S, Cavallo L, Berlinguer F, Dessì G, Tamponi C, Scala A, Varcasia A (2021) 'Raw meat based diet (RMBD) for household pets as potential door opener to parasitic load of domestic and urban environment. Revival of understated zoonotic hazards? A review', One health, 13, 100327, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.onehlt.2021.100327.
3. Aldrich, G (2012) The formulator’s dilemma: how processing affects pet nutrition, Petfood Industry, accessed 26 October 2023. https://www.petfoodindustry.com/ingredient-issues/vitamins/article/15456209/the-formulators-dilemma-how-processing-affects-pet-nutrition.
4. Algya KM, Cross TL, Leuck K. N, Kastner ME, Baba T, Lye L, de Godoy MRC, Swanson KS (2018) 'Apparent total-tract macronutrient digestibility, serum chemistry, urinalysis, and fecal characteristics, metabolites and microbiota of adult dogs fed extruded, mildly cooked, and raw diets', Journal of animal science, 96(9), 3670–3683. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/sky235.
5. Anderson RC, Armstrong KM, Young W, Maclean P, Thomas DG, Bermingham EN (2018) 'Effect of kibble and raw meat diets on peripheral blood mononuclear cell gene expression profile in dogs', Veterinary Journal, 234:7–10. doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2018.01.00.
6. Anturaniemi J, Barrouin-Melo SM, Zaldivar-López S, Sinkko H, Hielm-Björkman A (2019) 'Owners' perception of acquiring infections through raw pet food: a comprehensive internet-based survey', The Veterinary record, 185(21), 658, https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.105122.
7. Anturaniemi J, Zaldívar-López S, Savelkoul HFJ, Elo K and Hielm-Björkman A (2020) 'The Effect of Atopic Dermatitis and Diet on the Skin Transcriptome in Staffordshire Bull Terriers', Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 7:552251. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.552251.
8. Axelsson E, Ratnakumar A, Arendt ML, Maqbool K, Webster MT, Perloski M, Liberg O, Arnemo JM, Hedhammar A, Lindblad-Toh K (2013) 'The genomic signature of dog domestication reveals adaptation to a starch-rich diet', Nature, 495(7441):360-4.
9. Bermingham EN, Maclean P, Thomas, DG, Cave NJ, Young W (2017) 'Key bacterial families (Clostridiaceae, Erysipelotrichaceae and Bacteroidaceae) are related to the digestion of protein and energy in dogs', PeerJ, 5, e3019, https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3019.
10. Bradley CW, Morris DO, Rankin SC, Cain CL, Misic AM, Houser T, Mauldin EA, Grice EA 'Longitudinal Evaluation of the Skin Microbiome and Association with Microenvironment and Treatment in Canine Atopic Dermatitis', The Journal of Investigative Dermatology, 2016;136:1182–1190.
11. CanineCeuticals (2023) Collagen Forte, CanineCeuticals, accessed 27 October 2023. https://canineceuticals.com.au/collections/joint-health/products/collagen-forte.
12. Daumas C, Paragon BM, Thorin C, Martin L, Dumon H, Ninet S, Nguyen P (2014) 'Evaluation of eight commercial dog diets', Journal of nutritional science, 3, e63, https://doi.org/10.1017/jns.2014.65
13. Davies RH, Lawes JR, Wales AD (2019) 'Raw diets for dogs and cats: a review, with particular reference to microbiological hazards', Journal of Small Animal Practice, 60: 329-339, https://doi.org/10.1111/jsap.13000.
14. Dillitzer N, Becker N and Kienzle E (2011) 'Intake of minerals, trace elements and vitamins in bone and raw food rations in adult dogs', The British Journal of Nutrition, 106(S1); S53-S56, doi: 10.1017/S0007114511002765.
15. Do S, Phungviwatnikul T, de Godoy MRC, Swanson KS (2021) 'Nutrient digestibility and fecal characteristics, microbiota, and metabolites in dogs fed human-grade foods', Journal of animal science, 99(2), skab028, https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skab028.
16. FDA (U.S Food and Drug Administration) (2023) Recalls & Withdrawals, FDA, accessed 24 October 2023. https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/safety-health/recalls-withdrawals
17. FEDIAF (European Pet Food Industry Federation) (2021) Nutritional Guidelines for Complete and Complementary Pet Food of Cats and Dogs, FEDIAF, accessed 24 October 2023. https://europeanpetfood.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Updated-Nutritional-Guidelines.pdf.
18. Galanakis CM (2017) Nutraceutical and Functional Food Components, 2nd edn, Elsevier; Missouri.
19. Giovenelli N (2021) Is raw dog food more digestible than kibble?, The Canine Health Nut, accessed 24 October 2023. https://thecaninehealthnut.com/raw-vs-kibble-digestibility/.
20. Gracia MJ, Lazaro R, Perez-Arquillue C, Bayarri S. (2022), 'Effect of Domestic Freezing on the Viability of Toxoplasma gondii in Raw and Dry-Cured Ham from Experimentally Infected Pigs', Journal of food protection, 85(4), 626–631. https://doi.org/10.4315/JFP-21-281
21. Groat EF, Williams NJ, Pinchbeck G, Warner B, Simpson A, Schmidt VM (2022) 'UK dogs eating raw meat diets have higher risk of Salmonella and antimicrobial-resistant Escherichia coli faecal carriage', Journal of small animal practice, 63(6), 435–441, https://doi.org/10.1111/jsap.13488.
22. Hall JA, Vondran JC, Vanchina MA., Jewell DE (2018) 'When fed foods with similar palatability, healthy adult dogs and cats choose different macronutrient compositions', The Journal of experimental biology, 221(Pt 14), jeb173450. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.173450.
23. Hemida M, Vuori KA, Salin S, Moore R, Anturaniemi J, Hielm-Björkman A (2020) 'Identification of modifiable pre-and postnatal dietary and environmental exposures associated with owner-reported canine atopic dermatitis in Finland using a web-based questionnaire', PloS one,15(5):e0225675.
24. Hewson-Hughes AK, Hewson-Hughes VL, Colyer A, Miller AT, McGrane SJ, Hall SR, Butterwick RF, Simpson SJ, Raubenheimer D (2013) 'Geometric analysis of macronutrient selection in breeds of the domestic dog, Canis lupus familiaris', Behavioral ecology : official journal of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology, 24(1), 293–304. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/ars168.
25. Jacobs DR, Tapsell LC (2013) 'Food synergy: the key to a healthy diet', The Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 72(2), 200–206. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665112003011.
26. Jaffey JA, Su D, Monasky R, Hanratty B, Flannery E and Horman M (2022) 'Effects of a whole food diet on immune function and inflammatory phenotype in healthy dogs: A randomized, open-labeled, cross-over clinical trial', Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 9:898056, doi: 10.3389/fvets.2022.898056.
27. Kaplan JL, Stern JA, Fascetti AJ, Larsen JA, Skolnik H, Peddle GD, Kienle RD, Waxman A, Cocchiaro M, Gunther-Harrington CT, Klose T, LaFauci K, Lefbom B, Machen Lamy M, Malakoff R, Nishimura S, Oldach M, Rosenthal S, Stauthammer C, O'Sullivan L, Visser LC, Williams R, Ontiveros E (2018). 'Taurine deficiency and dilated cardiomyopathy in golden retrievers fed commercial diets', PLoS One, Dec 13;13(12):e0209112. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0209112.
28. Karthikraj R, Borkar S, Lee S, Kannan K (2018) 'Parabens and Their Metabolites in Pet Food and Urine from New York State, United States', Environmental Science & Technology 52 (6), 3727-3737, doi: 10.1021/acs.est.7b05981.
29. Kim J, An JU, Kim W, Lee S, Cho S, (2017), 'Differences in the gut microbiota of dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) fed a natural diet or a commercial feed revealed by the Illumina MiSeq platform', Gut Pathogens, 9, 68, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13099-017-0218-5.
30. Knecht KJ, Dunn JA, McFarland KF, McCance DR, Lyons TJ, Thorpe SR, Baynes JW (1991) 'Effect of diabetes and aging on carboxymethyllysine levels in human urine', Diabetes, 40(2):190–196, doi: 10.2337/diab.40.2.190.
31. Knize MG, Salmon CP, Felton JS (2003) 'Mutagenic activity and heterocyclic amine carcinogens in commercial pet foods', Mutation research, 539(1-2), 195–201, https://doi.org/10.1016/s1383-5718(03)00164-5.
32. Lallensack R (2017). 'Ancient genomes heat up dog domestication debate', Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2017.22320.
33. Leonard EK, Pearl DL, Finley RL, Janecko N, Peregrine AS, Reid-Smith RJ, Weese JS (2011) 'Evaluation of pet-related management factors and the risk of Salmonella spp. carriage in pet dogs from volunteer households in Ontario (2005-2006)', Zoonoses and public health, 58(2), 140–14, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1863-2378.2009.01320.x.
34. Leverett K, Manjarín R, Laird E, Valtierra D, Santiago-Rodriguez TM, Donadelli R, Perez-Camargo G (2022) 'Fresh Food Consumption Increases Microbiome Diversity and Promotes Changes in Bacteria Composition on the Skin of Pet Dogs Compared to Dry Foods', Animals, 12(15), 1881, https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12151881.
35. Macías-Montes A, Zumbado M, Luzardo OP, et al. Nutritional Evaluation and Risk Assessment of the Exposure to Essential and Toxic Elements in Dogs and Cats through the Consumption of Pelleted Dry Food (2021) 'How Important Is the Quality of the Feed?', Toxic,;9(6):133, doi:10.3390/toxics9060133.
36. Meng J, Sakata N, Takebayashi S, Asano T, Futata T, Nagai R, Ikeda K, Horiushi S, Myint T, Tanigushi N (1998) 'Glycoxidation in aortic collagen from STZ-induced diabetic rats and its relevance to vascular damage', Atherosclerosis, 136(2):355–365, doi: 10.1016/S0021-9150(97)00238-4.
37. Moore R, Anturaniemi J, Velagapudi V, Nandania J, Barrouin-Melo SM, Hielm-Björkman A (2020) 'Targeted Metabolomics With Ultraperformance Liquid Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry (UPLC-MS) Highlights Metabolic Differences in Healthy and Atopic Staffordshire Bull Terriers Fed Two Different Diets, A Pilot Study', Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 7:554296. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.554296.
38. Mounsey O, Wareham K, Hammond A, Findlay J, Gould VC, Morley K, Cogan, T A, Turner KME, Avison MB, Reyher KK (2022) 'Evidence that faecal carriage of resistant Escherichia coli by 16-week-old dogs in the United Kingdom is associated with raw feeding', One Health, 14, 100370, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.onehlt.2022.100370.
39. Nijsse, R., Mughini-Gras, L., Wagenaar, J.A, Ploeger HW (2016) 'Recurrent patent infections with Toxocara canis in household dogs older than six months: a prospective study', Parasites and Vectors 9, 531. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-016-1816-7.
40. Nowak K, Ratajczak-Wrona W, Górska M, Jabłońska E (2018) 'Parabens and their effects on the endocrine system', Molecular and cellular endocrinology, 474, 238–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mce.2018.03.014.
41. Oba PM, Hwisa N, Huang X, Cadwallader KR, Swanson KS (2022) 'Nutrient and Maillard reaction product concentrations of commercially available pet foods and treats', Journal of animal science, 100(11), skac305. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skac305.
42. Oba PM, Utterback PL, Parsons CM, de Godoy MRC, Swanson KS (2019) 'Chemical composition, true nutrient digestibility, and true metabolizable energy of chicken-based ingredients differing by processing method using the precision-fed cecectomized rooster assay', Journal of animal science, 97(3), 998–1009. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/sky461.
43. Pet Food Institute (2023) History of pet food, Pet Food Institute, accessed 20 October 2023. https://www.petfoodinstitute.org/about-pet-food/nutrition/history-of-pet-food.
44. Pilla R and Suchodolski JS (2020) 'The Role of the Canine Gut Microbiome and Metabolome in Health and Gastrointestinal Disease', Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 6:498, doi: 10.3389/fvets.2019.00498.
45. Reus A (2022) Should you use high-pressure processing for your pet food?, Petfood Industry, accessed 26 October 2023. https://www.petfoodindustry.com/production/pet-food-processing/article/15468843/should-you-use-highpressure-processing-for-your-pet-food.
46. Riaz M, Asif M, Ali R (2009) 'Stability of vitamins during extrusion', Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 49(4):361-8. doi: 10.1080/10408390802067290.
47. Rosendahl S, Anturaniemi J, Vuori, KA, Moore R, Hemida M, Hielm-Bjorkman A (2022) 'Diet and dog characteristics affect major and trace elements in hair and blood of healthy dogs', Vet Res Commun 46, 261–275, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11259-021-09854-8.
48. Rostaher A, Morsy Y, Favrot C, Unterer S, Schnyder M, Scharl M, Fischer NM (2022) 'Comparison of the Gut Microbiome between Atopic and Healthy Dogs-Preliminary Data'. Animals, 12(18), 2377, https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12182377.
49. Schmidt M, Unterer S, Suchodolski JS, Honneffer JB, Guard BC, Lidbury JA, Steiner JM, Fritz J, Kölle, P (2018) 'The fecal microbiome and metabolome differs between dogs fed Bones and Raw Food (BARF) diets and dogs fed commercial diets', PloS one, 13(8), e0201279, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201279.
50. Stogdale L (2019) 'One veterinarian's experience with owners who are feeding raw meat to their pets', The Canadian veterinary journal, 60(6), 655–658.
51. Tareke E, Rydberg P, Karlsson P, Eriksson S, Törnqvist M (2000) 'Acrylamide: a cooking carcinogen?', Chemical Research in Toxicology, 13(6):517–522, doi: 10.1021/tx9901938.
52. Wright I and Richmond P (2020) Educating clients about raw diets and the associated parasitic risks, UK-Vet The Veterinary Nurse, accessed 24 October 2023. https://www.theveterinarynurse.com/review/article/educating-clients-about-raw-diets-and-the-associated-parasitic-risks.
53. WSAVA (World Small Animal Veterinary Association) (2020) WSAVA Global Nutrition Committee Statement on Risks of Raw Meat-Based Diets, WSAVA, accessed 24 October 2023. https://wsava.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/WSAVA-Global-Nutrition-Committee-Statement-on-Risks-of-Raw-Meat.pdf.