Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Canine Health on cooked vs raw diet

3,348

Published on

BSc dissertation on the health of dogs on either a cooked or raw diet

BSc dissertation on the health of dogs on either a cooked or raw diet

Published in: Lifestyle, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
3,348
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
6
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
9
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. An Assessment of Health in Pet Dogs(Canis Lupis Familiaris)fed on Cookedor Raw DietsHope TurnerSubmitted in partial fulfilment of requirements for theBSc (Hons) Applied Animal Studies MoultonCollege in collaboration with The University of Northampton 23/07/2012 i
  • 2. Author declarationI declare that the work in this dissertation was carried out inaccordance withthe Regulations of Moulton College, in collaborationwith The University of Northampton. The work is original, exceptwhere indicatedby special reference in the text, and no part of thedissertation has been submitted for any other academic award. Anyviews expressed in the dissertation are those of the author.Signed ................................................... Date ........................... ii
  • 3. AbstractNutrition is the cornerstone of health, affecting every animalat thecellular level, leading to visual cues that can be an indicator ofhealth.This research aims to establish if there is a differential with regardsto body condition, coat condition, oral health and faecal consistencyin domesticdogs(Canis Lupus Familiaris)fed cooked or raw diets.Through individual condition scoringof 41pet dogs and questioningowners as to diet and faecal consistency, results showed nosignificant differences in body condition (P = 0.112)somesignificantdifferences in coat condition with results for gloss (P = 0.004),softness (P = 0.000) and feel (P = 0.001), however scale was notsignificant (P = 0.114). Oral health showed no overall significancewith tooth colour (P = 0.116), or plaque coverage of the K9 (P =0.087), but significant differences for plaque coverage of the firstcarnassial (P = 0.006), none for gum colour (P = 0.232), but highsignificance for halitosis (P = 0.000) and faecal consistency at (P =0.000). All differences showed better results in raw fed dogs than incooked fed dogs.This backs the theory of nutritional differences between cooked andraw diets, regardless of initial ingredients and the negative effectthat cooking has on vitamin and mineral stability, protein and lipidstructure, digestibility and therefore health.Leading to the conclusion that dogs fed on a nutritionally completeraw diet, high in meat and low in starch, that includes raw bones,have better coats, oral health and digestive systems, which isindicative of being healthier. iii
  • 4. ContentsAuthor declaration......................................................................................iiAbstract ..................................................................................................... iiiList of tables................................................................................................ vAcknowledgements .................................................................................. viChapter 1 - Introduction ............................................................................ 1 1.0 Introduction .................................................................................. 1 1.1 The Dog‟s Domestication ............................................................... 3 1.2 The Evolution of Canine Food ...................................................... 5 1.3 Revolution: Raw feeding ............................................................... 9 1.4 Canine Digestion ........................................................................... 10 1.4.1 Apprehension ......................................................................... 10 1.4.2 Mastication & Swallowing ..................................................... 10 1.4.3 Stomach .................................................................................. 11 1.4.4 Duodenum .............................................................................. 12 1.4.5 Jejunum ................................................................................... 12 1.4.6 Ileum ........................................................................................ 13 1.4.7 Large Intestine........................................................................ 13 1.4.8 Anus ......................................................................................... 14 1.5 Nutritional differences between raw & cooked diets................ 14 1.5.1 Nutritional recommendations ............................................... 15 1.5.2 Ingredients .............................................................................. 15 1.5.3 Ingredient effects on digestion ............................................. 18 1.5.4 Effects of cooking .................................................................. 20
  • 5. 1.6 Body condition effects of raw and cooked diets ....................... 23 1.7 Coat effects of Nutrition................................................................ 23 1.7.1 Deficiencies ............................................................................ 23 1.8 Oral effects of raw and cooked diets.......................................... 24 1.9 Faecal effects of raw and cooked diets ..................................... 26 Aims and Objectives............................................................................ 27Chapter 2 – Method................................................................................. 292.0 Method ................................................................................................ 30 2.1 The Study Subjects ....................................................................... 30 2.2 Method ............................................................................................ 30 2.2.1 Body Condition Score ........................................................... 31 2.2.2 Coat Condition Score ............................................................ 31 2.2.3 Oral Scoring ............................................................................ 31 2.2.4 Faecal consistency ................................................................ 32 2.3 Statistics ......................................................................................... 33Chapter 3 – Results................................................................................. 34 3.0 Results ............................................................................................ 35 3.1 Body Condition .............................................................................. 35 3.2 Coat Condition ............................................................................... 35 3.3 Oral Health ..................................................................................... 38 3.3.1 Tooth Colour ........................................................................... 38 3.3.2 Plaque Coverage ................................................................... 40 3.3.3 Gum Colour ............................................................................ 41 3.3.4 Halitosis ................................................................................... 42
  • 6. 3.4 Faecal Consistency ...................................................................... 42Chapter 4 – Discussion ........................................................................... 44 4.0 Discussion ...................................................................................... 45 4.1 Body Condition .......................................................................... 45 4.2 Coat Condition ........................................................................... 45 4.3 Oral Health ................................................................................. 47 4.4 Faecal Consistency .................................................................. 51 4.5 Overall ......................................................................................... 52 4.6 Limitations .................................................................................. 54Chapter 5 – Conclusions ........................................................................ 56 5.0 Conclusions.................................................................................... 57Chapter 7 – References.......................................................................... 59 7.0 References ..................................................................................... 60Chapter 8 – Appendices ......................................................................... 88 8.0 Appendices .................................................................................... 89 Appendix 1 ............................................................................................ 90 Appendix 2 ............................................................................................ 92 Appendix 3 ............................................................................................ 94 Appendix 4 ............................................................................................ 97 Appendix 5 ............................................................................................ 98 Appendix 6 ............................................................................................ 99 Appendix 7 .......................................................................................... 100 Appendix 8 .......................................................................................... 101
  • 7. List of figures PageFigure 1 - Genome-wide SNP and haplotype analyses reveal a richhistory underlying dog domestication. 4Figure 2 - Advert for Spratts from 1876 7Figure 3 - Advertisement for Ken-L-Ration 8Figure 4 - 80% of 3yr old dogs have periodontal disease. 25Figure 5 – Body Condition Score Means 35Figure 6–Coat Condition Gloss 36Figure 7 – Coat Condition Softness 37Figure 8 – Coat Condition Feel 37Figure 9 – Coat Condition Scale 38Figure 10 – Average tooth colour per diet 39Figure 11 – K9 Plaque Coverage 40Figure 12 – 1st Carnassial Plaque Coverage 41Figure 13 – Statistics from Gum Colour 41Figure 14 – Statistics from Halitosis tests 42Figure 15 – Statistics from Faecal consistency results 43Figure 16 – Minky the 15 yr old cooked fed terrier cross 48Figure 17 – Talen the 3 yr old raw fed German Shepherd cross 49Figure 18 – Annie the 13 yr old raw fed Labrador 49
  • 8. List of tables PageTable 1 - Generationally produced health of raw verses cooked dietin cats. 22Table 2- Kruskal-Wallis results for Coat Condition Tests 36Table 3 - Kruskal-Wallis results for individual tooth colour 38-39
  • 9. AcknowledgementsI should like to thank Dr. Wanda McCormick and Krista McLennanBSc (Hons), MSc for their valuable guidance and advice withrelation to this project. I should also like to thank CarolineGriffithbsyN.Th, TTP2, TBP Trainer, for her assistance in locating anumber of dogs to test in the Cambridge area and Carolyn WrightBSc (Hons), for her assistance in locating a number of dogs to testin the Rugby and Leicestershire areas. I thank both ElizabethRoberts, HNC, BSc (Hons) and Ruth Daynes BSc (Hons) for theirincredibly valued sense checking ability, my Aunt, Patricia Aldayafor her familial support and Stephen Smith MBE for his support andhumour through my three years of University.
  • 10. Chapter 1 - Introduction1.0 IntroductionThe way in which pet owners feed their dogs has changeddrastically over the last 150 years, with a commercial shift to driedfood and the recent raw movement. Whilst “there is no or littlescientific evidence as to the benefits of raw feeding” (Case et al.,2011), there are a great number of pro-raw feeders who have donetheir own research and/or surveys leading topositive statements i.e.“Raw feeding reduces veterinary visits by 85%” (O‟Driscoll, 2005),and cooking produces heterogeneous reproduction and disease(Pottenger, 1983), making this shift significant and increasingowners belief that their pets are healthier on raw rather thancommercial diets.Veterinary surgeons and pet food manufacturers warn against rawfeeding due to the risks of bone splintering and bacterial diseasessuch as salmonella and the risk of not getting the necessarynutritional balance correct (PFMA, 2009: AVMA, 2012).A lack or excess of one or many vitamins, minerals or essential fattyacids can lead to “major chronic diseases” (Food and NutritionBoard, 1989), if prolonged can be fatal (Roche, 1976) andmalnourished animals are “likely to have a compromised immune
  • 11. system” (Ackerman, 2008; Agar, 2001; Gorrel, 1998), a combinationof these issues may have an effect genetics, and a combination ofgenetics and nutrition are known to have an effect on aging (Brown-Borg et al., 2012).The age at which dogs are considered to be geriatric has loweredfrom 8.85 in 1989 (Goldston) to 7 in 2009 (AVMA): in the laterdecade of that time the average vet bill has increased 410% (Bruce,2001: Petwise, 2009), and pet owners have changed the way theyfeed, with a 71% shift to dried food (PFMA, 2011) and 3% of ownersfeeding raw food (Case et al.,2011).The raw food market is now increasing (Schlesinger &Joffe, 2011)with a $100-million a year industry in the US, with an averageincrease in sales of 30-40% in Canada (McAteer, 2012). Thisincrease in veterinary costs along with the reduced age at which ananimal is considered to be geriatric and the fact that pets are gettingsicker (Banfield Pet Hospital, 2012)could imply issues within thegenetics and/or the daily lives of our pets, or could be a reflection ofthe advancein animal medicine now available.Therefore an investigation into the health of pets on either cookedor raw diets, that can be assessed visually by the average layman(Vester& Fahey, 2006), would be of interest to concerned pet
  • 12. owners and commercial pet food manufacturers, as these resultsmay sway the market further.1.1 The Dog’s DomesticationThe wolf is the ancestor of the domestic dog (Burns, 2009;Hemmer, 1990; Wayne & O‟Brien, 1987; Wayne et al., 1987; Mech,1970) and can be traced back to three female wolves (Townend,2009), although it is likely that current breeds derive from differenttypes of wolf (Derr, 2012: Clutton-Brock, 1999; Riddle, 1987) asshown geneticallyby Bridgett et al. (2010) (see figure 1).
  • 13. Figure 1 - Genome-wide SNP and haplotype analyses reveal a richhistory underlying dog domestication.(Bridgett et al., 2010)There is little question that wolves became domesticated due tohumans taking pups and taming them to assist with hunting
  • 14. (Serpell, 1995), followed by use for herding after thecommencement of livestock breeding (Gibson, 1996).The first evidence of dogs living with man is from 14,000 years ago(Morey, 2006). Canine evolution has specialised through tandemrepeats of DNA (Savolainenet al., 2000) (an exaggeration of aparticular attribute) via selective breeding, this has shaped the dogbreeds we have today, however internal anatomy and physiology isonly differentiated in size when comparing wolves and dogs(Schultze, 1998: Yarnall, 1998).Dogs have only been separated into breeds for around 300-400years, and have only had a central register for breeds in the UKsince 1873 (The Kennel Club, 2008).1.2 The Evolution of Canine Food“The wolf‟s diet consists almost entirely of highly concentrated andeasily digested fat and protein”, obtained by the majority from deer,moose, caribou, elk, sheep, beaver, bison and hare, theirpreference when it comes to domestic animals are: cattle, sheep,deer, horse, pig and goat (Mech, 1970). Smaller prey are known tobe mice, mink, muskrats, squirrels, rabbits, birds, fish, lizards &snakes in addition to grass-hoppers, earthworms, berries and
  • 15. duck.Wolves tend to eat in a specific order, first rump, thenintestines, followed by heart, lungs, and liver, but never the stomach(Mech, 1970).Wolves assisting the hunt were undoubtedly fed scraps from the killand are known to have scavenged waste from humanencampments (Serpell, 1995). The delineation between workingdogs and pets cannot have occurred until there was inequalitywithin the realms of men, as basic hunter gatherers would not havehad a food surplus for non-productive pets.The first dog specific food was a biscuit sold in 1856 (Purina, N.D.)by James Spratt, made from wheat, vegetables, beetroot and beefblood (see figure 2), very similar to the Bonio made today by Nestle.
  • 16. Figure 2 - Advert for Spratts from 1876(British Veterinary Journal,1876)In the 1920‟s canned dog food was introduced by Chappel Bros Inc.under the name Ken-L-Ration (see figure 3), this was mostly horsemeat as in the 1930‟s vast numbers of horses and mules werebeing replaced by cars and tractors after World War I.
  • 17. Figure 3 - Advertisement for Ken-L-Ration(Ken-L-Ration, 1932)A lack of horse meat and concerns over the costs of feeding freshmeat and vegetables lead to the use of waste products from thehuman food industry and the initiation of dried foods. Changing fromthe use of expensive ingredients to grains for energy, legumes forcalcium, seeds for fat soluble vitamins etc. (McNamara, 2006).
  • 18. Dried food as it is known today started hitting the shelves in largebags made by Purina in 1957. The popularity of dried foodincreased dramatically in the 1980‟s and has seen an increase inmarket share of 90% in the last decade (PFMA, 2011).1.3 Revolution: Raw feedingA raw diet is based on the premise that dogs are 99.8% wolf(Wayne, 1993) and therefore should eat a diet more akin to theirancestor. Books written on raw feeding with menurecommendations are often used as guides by pro-raw feeders,dominated mostly by those of Ian Billinghurst (2001), ThomasLonsdale (2001) (Australian Veterinary Surgeons) and Juliette deBaïracli Levy (1992).The above detailed books advocate raw feeding as being both morenatural and healthier for animals, however they do not back this withscience, a new self-published book however does (Griffith, 2012),but does not reference its data.Whilst pet food manufacturers show clearly the science of theirrecipes and have shown that there are bacteria issues with raw food(Weeseet al., 2005)with regards to what goes and in and whatcomes out of the animal (Case et al., 2011).
  • 19. 1.4 Canine DigestionIn order to assess which foods and diets are more speciesappropriate, and therefore promote health, it is important to considerthe physiology of the gastro-intestinal tract and how certain foodsaffect it (Hofmann, 2000).Dogs have strong stomach acid and a relatively short intestinaltract, with a fast transit time (Mash, 2011). An incorrect diet canproduce changes in absorptive function, which are associated withdamage to colonic microstructure (Rolfe et al., 2002). 1.4.1 Apprehension Canine teeth and the scissor action of their jaw have evolved to puncture and rip flesh from carcasses, with shearing carnassials (Wayne & Vila, 2001) and crushing post- carnassials (Bradshaw, 2006). 1.4.2 Mastication& Swallowing Dogs have little to no lateral jaw movement due to the grounding of the temperomandibular joint by the postglenoid process, preventing the possibility of dislocation during the
  • 20. hunt (Mech&Boitani, 2003), no flattened teeth (Goody, 1997)and therefore are not designed to chew fibrous plant matter.The salivary glands of a dog (Parotid, Mandibular,Sublingual, Buccal and Zygomatic) do not produce amylase(Altman & Dittmer, 1968), necessary for digesting starch, asstarch is not a large part of their natural daily intake (Mech,1970).Dogs have a wide oesophagus to allow large pieces of torn-off food to pass to the stomach (Goody, 1997), due to thelimited amount of mastication performed.1.4.3 StomachThe canine stomach is where the majority of food breakdownoccurs through a combination of mechanical and chemicaldigestion.Gastrin is released from the stomach wall, which activatesthe release of hydrochloric acid at a pH of 1-2 (NationalResearch Council, 2006). This pH level is kept low by dietshigh in protein, but is raised by grains, rendering lipaseirreversibly inactive below pH 1.5 and negatively effectingpepsin activity over pH 2.0, (Carriereet al., 1991:Maskell&Johnson, 1993). Proteins stay in the stomach for
  • 21. longer than grains, which speed up the release of chime,reducing the ability for the stomach to digest the proteinsavailable (Brown & Taylor, 2005) therefore grains can have anegative effect on digestion.1.4.4 DuodenumChyme passes from the stomach to the duodenum after 4-8hours (Brown & Taylor, 2005), where it is further brokendown by pancreatic enzymes, peristalsis and bile (Case,2005). When working at peak efficiency pancreatic enzymesand bile at a pH of 7.1-82 (Banta et al., 1979) arebacteriocidal for Escherichia coli, Shigella, Salmonella andKlebsiella and bacteriostatic for coagulase positive andnegative Staphylococci and Pseudomonas whilst inhibitingCandida albicans (National Research Council, 2006).Therelease of bile is in response to lipids, but only to the rightlipids (Erasmus, 1993), low fat diets will have reduced bilerelease and there is therefore an increased risk of contractionof said pathogens.1.4.5 Jejunum
  • 22. The jejunum is lined with villi, further capturing nutrients.Proteins enable probiotics (good bacteria) to flourish in thisenvironment, however refined sugar and starch moleculeschange the environment, making it unsuitable for theprobiotics to breed and feeding the pathogenic bacteria. Thiscan create an imbalance in this rather large part of theimmune system.1.4.6 IleumShort chain fatty acids derived from unabsorbed starch andfibre stimulate motility of the ileum (Scheppach, 1994:Kamathet al., 1987) inhabited by anaerobic bacteria (NationalResearch Council, 2006).1.4.7 Large IntestineMovement is vital to the large intestine via peristalsis, certainfoods can affect the speed of movement and causeconstipation, this movement is slowed down if the diet isgrain rather than meat based (Brown & Taylor, 2005:Clemens and Stevens, 1980), but can be sped up by highfibre content, possibly leading to reduced absorption ofelectrolytes and water (National Research Council, 2006).
  • 23. 1.4.8 Anus Anal glands are naturally expressed if the faecal matter passed is firm (Ashdown, 2008:Gordon, 2001).1.5 Nutritional differences between raw &cooked dietsCommercial cooked diets have differing processes: dried food,which contains raw and pre-cooked ingredients, is mixed, heat andpressure extruded, formed, dried into shape and coated (Pet FoodInstitute, 2010), having an effect on its‟ nutritional value (Lanhorstetal., 2007). Canned or tinned foods also contain both raw and pre-cooked ingredients, which are heat cooked and sterilised (PedigreePet Foods, 1993). A raw diet is either served fresh or frozen tomaintain shelf life. Fatty Acids are not broken down by freezing,even up to -80°, however most cells and whole organisms are(Pond, 2000), in effect the freezing process can destroy mostpathogenic bacteria in the same way as cooking, but without thedeleterious effect of destroying the nutrients required for the healthand wellbeing of the consumer.Regardless of nutritional differences between raw and cooked dietingredients, the digestibility of those nutrients in the form it isprovided is effected, the cooking process has an effect on vitamin
  • 24. retention, the nature of proteins, digestibility and cellular use of theresultant food stuffs. 1.5.1 Nutritional recommendations The Waltham Centre for Pet Nutrition has produced a list of minimum nutrient requirements for dogs per 400 Kilocalories (kcal) of metabolisable energy (Kelly & Wills, 1996), however this list only details, 5 of the 7 major minerals, (generally required in large amounts by all animals), 6 of 10 essential trace minerals, 12 vitamins, fat and protein content and 1 fatty acid. There are no recommendations for the myriad of other vitamins, minerals and amino acids currently accepted by the BSAVA (British Small Animal Veterinary Association) as required, nor is there such a thing as a Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) as with human guidelines, or any estimate of safe levels of nutritional bioavailability (Burger & Rivers, 1989). 1.5.2 Ingredients UK-made cooked pet foods may contain the following ingredients according to DEFRA (2011): • “material from animals that passed inspection for human consumption prior to slaughter - hides, skins, horns, feet, pig bristle, feather and blood (unless they are from ruminants requiring TSE testing, in which
  • 25. case they can only be used if they are tested and give a negative result)• material from on farm slaughter of rabbits and poultry• hatchery waste, eggs, egg by-products and day old chicks killed for commercial reasons• fish and by-products from fish processing plants• material from the production of food including degreased bones• products of animal origin (POA) or foodstuffs containing products of animal origin no longer intended for human consumption for commercial reasons or because of packaging problems, etc.• PAP derived from the above materials • imported pet food• petfood and feedingstuffs of animal origin, or feedingstuffs containing animal by-products or derived products, which are no longer intended for feeding for commercial reasons or due to problems of
  • 26. manufacturing or packaging defects or other defects from which no risk to public or animal health arises, blood, placenta, wool, feathers, hair, horns, hoof cuts and raw milk originating from live animals that did not show any signs of disease communicable through that product to humans or animals aquatic animals, and parts of such animals, except sea mammals, which did not show any signs of disease communicable to humans or animals• animal by-products from aquatic animals originating from establishments or plants manufacturing products for human consumption.• shells from shellfish with soft tissue or flesh• hatchery by-products• eggs and egg by-products• day old chicks killed for commercial reasons• some species of aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates
  • 27. • some rodents and lagomorphs (rabbits).”UK-made raw pet food may contain: • “Only material from slaughterhouses, or game killed for human consumption, can be used in raw pet food manufacture. (EU Control Regulation Article 10 (a) and (b)(i) and (ii)). Material that: • has been passed as fit for human consumption but is not going to be used in this way for commercial reasons. e.g. clean tripe • came from animals that passed ante-mortem inspection but was rejected as unfit for human consumption, e.g. livers with fluke. For such material to be used there must not have been any signs of communicable disease. “ (Defra, 2011)Therefore there is legally a significant difference in what canbe included in these cooked and raw products.1.5.3 Ingredient effects on digestion
  • 28. The starch content and reduced protein content of dried andtinned foods, whilst increasing energy availability, inactivateslipase and pepsin by reducing the acidity of hydrochloric acidin the stomach, having a negative effect on protein digestion(Broseyet al., 2000: Jin et al., 1994; Maskell& Johnson, 1993;Allen et al., 1981; Carpentieret al., 1977; Villarealet al., 1955)and motility (Clemens & Stevens, 1980). Dietary fibres, soy,corn and beet pulp further hinder digestion, by reducingretention time and digestibility of other ingredients (NationalResearch Council, 2006; Silvio et al., 2000; Harmon et al.,1999; Muir et al., 1996; Colonna et al.,1992; Fahey et al.,1990: Fernandez & Phillips, 1982; Burrows et al., 1982), leadto dental disease (Baer & White, 1961; Auskapset al., 1957)and consequently systemic diseases (Yudkin, 1969) andimpact the immune response (Field et al., 1999).Manufactured pet foods are high in water soluble fibre, this iskept in the stomach for longer, slowing down stomachdigestion (Fogle, 2002). It is also high in insoluble fibre,retaining water, speeding up movement through theintestines and bulking out faecal matter (Fogle, 2002);without which it would be diarrhoea (Strombeck, 1999).These adjustments of the speeds at which digestion occursin differing areas of the gastro-intestinal tract, affects the
  • 29. amounts of individual nutrients are able to be absorbed, asdifferent areas of the gastro-intestinal tract concentrate onthe digestion and absorption of different nutrients.This insoluble fibre may be fermenting or non-fermenting,fermenting fibre is actively digested by bacteria in the largeintestine, slowing down transport and having a negativeeffect on the digestion of proteins (National ResearchCouncil, 2006) and a negative effect on the immuneresponse (Field et al., 1999).Biologically appropriate food is high in fresh meat protein,and low in carbohydrates (Diezet al., 2002), as dogs have norequirement for carbohydrates in their diet (Baldwinet al.,2010; National Research Council, 1985).Raw meat has 95%digestibility, a positive effect on stomach acid pH andabsorption (National Research Council, 2006), however araw diet has not been fully investigated for its health benefitsor failures.1.5.4 Effects of cookingCooking de-natures proteins (Fester Kratz, 2009: Pond,2000) altering their physical and chemical structure by
  • 30. literally unfolding it‟s genetic structure (Fester Kratz, 2009).Only folded polypeptides are functional, these controlmetabolism, transport, communication and basic cell function(Fester Kratz, 2009), therefore as cooking proteins rendersthem inert, all these basic functions will be adverselyeffected.Cooking also impairs the storage stability of vitamins andminerals (Lugwigshafenet al., 1984).Phospholipids found inthe cell walls of plant and animal material and essential forthe health of each living cell are also broken down by heat(Pond, 2000). Phospholipids are needed in great quantitiesby the immune system, especially in the formation of purulentmaterial in infected wounds (Pond, 2000).A long term experiment by Francis Pottenger (1983) showeda generational difference between cats fed a raw or cookeddiet (see table 1). These animals were fed meat, cod-liver oiland milk, with one set raw and one cooked, the experimentlasted 10 years. Whilst this experiment was performed oncats rather than dogs, the premise is the same.Table 1- Generationally produced health of raw versescooked diet in cats.(Pottenger, 1983)
  • 31. Cooked diet Raw dietReproduction Heterogeneous Reproductive reproduction, with total ease sterility by the fourth generationPhysical physical degeneration, Optimal healthAspects increasing with each generationTooth Smaller palates with over Wide palatesovercrowding crowding and crossing of with plenty of teeth space for teethBone density Bones became soft & Good bone pliable structure and densityEndo &Ecto Vermin and parasites No parasitesparasites aboundedBehaviour Suffered from adverse Gentleness personality changesDisease Suffered from No disease hypothyroidism and most of the degenerative diseases encountered in human medicine
  • 32. 1.6 Body condition effects of raw and cooked dietsMost cooked diets contain carbohydrates in the form of grains,these are often protein and fibre rich sources of nutrition, howeverthe starch content has been known to increase weight gain(National Research Council, 2006).1.7 Coat effects of NutritionNutrition has been shown to have an effect on coat condition, theseobservable effects can also be indicative of other visceral issues.1.7.1 DeficienciesIn order to grow a thick glossy coat, dogs need good quality proteinand oils, with the nature of these being affected by the cookingprocess, there is a likelihood of reduced gloss and increaseddandruff.Course, dry hair is due to a deficiency of particular fats (Codner&Thatcher, 1990), most notably essential fatty acids (EFAs)(Erasmus, 1993) these are often the first signs of a fatty aciddeficiency which can lead to visual impairment, polyneuropathy andreduced learning ability (Tinoco, 1979; Holman et al., 1982;Neuringeret al., 1988; Conner et al., 1992; Uvayet al., 1989) along
  • 33. with renal and reproductive abnormalities, a decreased growth rate,a negative effect on the immune system weakened cutaneous bloodvessels with an increased tendency to bruise, decreased woundhealing, hypertrophy of sebaceous glands and an increase in waterloss from the epidermis, along with other degenerative changes inorgans and fragile cell membranes (Hansen et al, 1948 & 1954;Hansen & Weise, 1951; Weise et al., 1965 & 1966;Holman, 1971).EFAs are Linoleic acid and Alpha-linolenic acid, otherwise known asOmega 6 and Omega 3 respectively. Deficiencies in Omega 6produce eczema-like skin conditions and hair loss, which can besigns of other visceral issues i.e. hepatic and renal degenerationand cardiac dysfunction (Erasmus, 1993).Another observable deficiency with regard to coat condition is agreying coat, which has been recognised as a “clear sign of zincdeficiency” (Burger & Rivers, 1989).1.8 Oral effects of raw and cooked dietsAccording to the British Association of Veterinary Dentistry, 80% ofdogs over the age of 3 have periodontal disease (see figure 4)
  • 34. (Milella, N.D.; Hamp et al., 1984) which can be up to 40% of theworkload of veterinary practices (Watkins, 2008) and susceptilityincreases with age (Cox & Lepine, 2009).Figure 4 - 80% of 3yr old dogs haveperiodontal disease. (Milella,N.D.)Bacteria found in tartar have been shown to produce animmunological response, (Warinner, 2012; Nonnemacheret al.,2002) therefore tartar in dogs impacts the immune system(Lonsdale, 1995): it is logical then that the larger the quantities oftarter, the larger the immune response, which could have an effecton the immune response of said animal to other pathogens.Periodontal diseases have been associated with degeneration ofthe hepatic, renal, circulatory and respiratory systems (DeBowesetal., 1996; Pavlicaet al., 2008; Milella, 2012).One of the first signs of periodontal disease is halitosis(Kortegaardet al., 2008; Zero, 2004;Rawlings&Culham, 1998;Benamgharet al., 1982) arising from the waste material of bacteria
  • 35. feeding on food debris attached to plaque, tartar, calculus, (Doganetal., 2007) and a bacterial overgrowth of intestinal microflora(Barbaraet al., 2005) potentially leading to gum disease as bacterialproliferate and begin to consume epithelial cells and blood.In order to combat this problem pet food manufactures areintroducing polyphosphates into their diets in order to reduce tartar(Cox &Lepine, 2002), and have developed specialist chewsdesigned in shape and consistency to effectively “brush the teeth” ofpets, as compared to manual and power brushing (Quigley & Hein,1962) and therefore reduce the need for dental surgery (Logan,2006; Kortegaardet al., 2008).A raw diet includes raw bones, which whilst they do have thepotential to splinter and lodge in the gastro-intestinal tract, are muchless likely to do so than cooked bones (Mash, 2011) and do give theanimal the opportunity to clean their teeth via abrasion, a mucheasier option with a quicker effect due to the chipping off ofcalculus and tartar, than the other recommended routes of rope-toysor tooth-brushing (Rawlings &Culham 1998; Benamgharet al., 1982)and less costly than dental surgery (Cox &Lepine, 2009).1.9 Faecal effects of raw and cooked diets
  • 36. Commercial diets contain large quantities of non-digestible fibre, inorder to increase the speed of peristalsis in the large intestine andprevent constipation; this makes for rather soft faecal matter(National Research Council, 2006). Raw diets are generally high inbone content, not all of which is digested, making for harder faecalmatter. It could be argued that whilst there is a risk of constipationon a raw diet, that conversely there is a risk of non-expressed analglands with a cooked diet.Aims and ObjectivesThe Aim of this study was to investigate if there is anobservable differential in coat condition, body condition, oralhealth and faecal consistency of pet dogs dependent onwhether they are fed a cooked or raw diet.The objectives of the study were: To ascertain if there is a difference in body condition of dogs on raw or cooked diets. To ascertain if there is a difference in coat condition of dogs on raw or cooked diets. To ascertain if there is a difference in oral health of dogs on raw or cooked diets. To ascertain if there is a difference in faecal consistency of dogs on raw or cooked diets.
  • 37. Chapter 2 – Method
  • 38. 2.0 Method2.1 The Study SubjectsThe animals used in this study are all pets kept in private homesinthe East Midlands area of Britain.The forty-one animals in this study were tested in their owners‟presence, after pre-arrangement by a third party, either at theirhome or at a dog show. Each dog was delayed from their normalroutine for no more than five minutes. The dogs were pre-selectedby a third party, therefore the tester was not aware until after testingof what diet the dogs were on, also the owners were told that it wasa simple “Health Check” and were given no details as to the natureof diet comparison for this test, making it „blind‟, reducing the risk ofbias when taking data.A risk assessment was performed (Appendix 1 & 2), and an ethicsassessment (Appendix 3) and authorised by Moulton College tutors.2.2 MethodDetails of the name, age, sex and whether spayed or neutered,along with details of how many minutes exercise each dog had per
  • 39. day, were taken prior to scoring (detailed below); after which detailsof diet, including treats and any history of veterinary dentistry, oruse of chew toys were taken, along with details of any healthissues.2.2.1 Body Condition Score Body condition was allotted a score 1-9 as per appendix 4 and discussed by Alex German (2010).2.2.2 Coat Condition Score Coat condition was allotted a score 1-5 for gloss, softness, feel and scale as per appendix 5 and discussed by Rees et al., (2001).2.2.3 Oral Scoring 2.2.3.1 Plaque Check Percentage visible plaque on upper canine and primary carnassial were estimated by the same researcher for all test subjects in order to maintain consistency. 2.2.3.2 Tooth Colour Each tooth on the left side of the upper jaw was compared with dental colour charts (Appendix 6) and
  • 40. numbered accordingly on a dog specific tooth chart (Appendix 7). 2.2.3.3 Gum Colour Gum colour was allotted a number 1-5, 1 being anaemic, 5 being deep pink as per appendix 8. 2.2.3.4 Halitosis Each dogs‟ breath was smelt and allotted a figure from 0-5 indicating the condition of the breath, 0 being none, 5 being very bad. This was performed by the same researcher for all test subjects in order to maintain consistency.2.2.4 Faecal consistencyOwners were asked to compare average faecal consistency with achart of recognisable foods for consistency, each numbered 1-9, 1being like water, 9 being like „rock cake‟.This system differs from the “Fecal Scoring System” produced byPurina as it does not account for faecal consistency observed fromraw fed animals. It was deemed that the food comparison waseasier for owners to comprehend, after a small pilot trial.
  • 41. 2.3 StatisticsSoftware used for analysis was Minitab version 13.20. Data wasgrouped by diet into those fed a raw diet and those fed a cookeddiet. All data was normality checked, none of the data sets werenormally distributed therefore the Kruskal-Wallis test was utilised toassess differences according to diet.
  • 42. Chapter 3 – Results
  • 43. 3.0 Results3.1 Body ConditionThere was no significant effect of diet on body condition score whenanalysed by Kruskal-Wallis (P=0.112; df=5; H=8.94) (see figure 5). Body Condition Score 5.5 5.4 5.3 5.2 5.1 5 4.9 Body Condition 4.8 4.7 4.6 4.5 Raw CookedFigure 5 – Body Condition Score Means (Standard Error = 0.158114– 0.213001)3.2 Coat ConditionThere was asignificant effect of diet on three of the four areasassessed for coat condition scoringwhen analysed by Kruskal-Wallis(gloss, softness and feel) (see table 2& figures6,7,8 and 9).Table 2- Kruskal-Wallis results for Coat Condition Tests
  • 44. Coat Condition P value df HGloss 0.004 5 17.04Softness 0.000 4 23.60Feel 0.001 4 18.28Scale 0.114 4 7.45 Coat Condition - Gloss 6 5 4 3 gloss 2 1 0 raw cookedFigure 6–Coat Condition Gloss (Standard Error = 0.266667 –0.28732)
  • 45. Coat Condition Softness 6 5 4 3 soft 2 1 0 raw cookedFigure 7 – Coat Condition Softness (Standard Error = 0.152753 –0.214946) Coat Condition Feel 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 feel 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 raw cookedFigure 8 – Coat Condition Feel (Standard Error = 0.3 – 0.273338)
  • 46. Figure 9 – Coat Condition Scale (Standard Error = 0.305505 –0.211202)3.3 Oral Health3.3.1 Tooth ColourThere was variedsignificant effect of diet on tooth score whenanalysed by Kruskal-Wallis, showing significant differences in toothcolour, with raw fed dogs having whiter teeth in all but the K9 (tooth204) (see table 3).Table 3 - Kruskal-Wallis results for individual tooth colourTooth No P Value df H201 0.002 8 24.13202 0.002 8 24.13
  • 47. 203 0.004 9 24.48204 0.544 8 6.93205 0.022 10 20.87206 0.022 10 20.87207 0.021 10 20.94208 0.021 10 20.94209 0.021 10 20.94210 0.021 10 20.94Whilst there was no significant effect of diet on mean tooth colourwhen analysed by Kruskal-Wallis (P=0.116; df=24; H=32.44) thedata does show a trend, that the raw fed dogs had whiter teeth (seefigure 10). Mean Tooth Colour per Diet 8 7 6 Tooth Colour 5 4 3 2 1 0 Raw Cooked DietFigure 10 – Mean tooth colour per diet (Standard Error = 0.26923 –0.731765)
  • 48. 3.3.2 Plaque CoverageThere was no significant effect of diet on plaque coverage of theupper left canine when analysed by Kruskal-Wallis (P=0.087; df=10;H=16.49).There was a significant effect of diet on plaque coverage of theupper left first carnassial, indicating reduced plaque coverage ondogs fed a raw diet, when analysed by Kruskal-Wallis (P=0.006;df=13; H=29.42) (see figures 11 and 12). Percentage Plaque Coverage of K9 25 20 15 10 K9 5 0 raw cookedFigure 11 – K9 Plaque Coverage (standard error = 0 - 0.032745)
  • 49. Percentage Plaque Coverage of 1st Carnassial 50 40 30 20 1st Carnassial 10 0 raw cookedFigure 12 – 1st Carnassial Plaque Coverage (standard error =0.015352 – 0.127409)3.3.3 Gum ColourThere was no significant effect of diet on gum colour when analysedby Kruskal-Wallis (P=0.232; df=3; H=4.29) (see figure 13). Gum Colour 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 Gum Colour 1.5 1 0.5 0 raw cooked
  • 50. Figure 13 – Statistics from Gum Colour tests (Standard Error =0.305505 – 0.127409)3.3.4 HalitosisThere was a significant effect of diet on halitosis when analysed byKruskal-Wallis (P=0.000; df=3; H=23.07), with less halitosis in rawfed animals (see figure 14). Halitosis 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 Halitosis 1 0.5 0 raw cookedFigure 14 – Statistics from Halitosis tests (Standard Error = 0 –0.286232)3.4 Faecal ConsistencyThere was a significant effect of diet on faecal consistency whenanalysed by Kruskal-Wallis (P=0.000; df=3; H=23.07), showing that
  • 51. raw fed dogs had harder faecal consistency than cooked fed dogs(see figure 15). Faecal Consistency 9 8 7 6 5 4 Faecal Consistency 3 2 1 0 raw cookedFigure 15 – Statistics from faecal consistency results (StandardError = 0.133333 – 0.103695)
  • 52. Chapter 4 – Discussion
  • 53. 4.0 Discussion4.1 Body ConditionWhilst the average body condition score of dogs fed a cooked dietwas higher than those on a raw diet (see figure 5), implying thatcooked fed dogs carried more weight than raw fed dogs, statisticalanalysis showed that the differential was not significant (P=0.112).Body condition can imply health, particularly if a dog is significantlyoverweight (13% of cooked fed dogs tested, no raw fed dogs),which increases susceptibility to diabetes and heart conditions(Banfield Pet Hospital, 2012), or underweight (23% of cooked feddogs tested, 10% of raw fed dogs) implying malnutrition and acompromised immune system, however it has not proved significantwith the particular test subjects.4.2 Coat ConditionDifferences in coat condition of dogs can imply many things,including nutrient deficiencies (Ackerman, 2008). Overall thedifferences in coat condition were significant, showing that dogs ona raw diet had healthier coats than those on a cooked diet..4.2.1 Gloss
  • 54. A glossy coat implies a good supply of oils and requires a balancebetween Omega 3 and Omega 6, as demonstrated in Figure 6, thiswas more evident in raw fed dogs with 80% of those tested havingoptimum gloss, than cooked fed dogs with 32% of those testedhaving optimum gloss, with a significance value ofP = 0.004.4.2.2 SoftnessWhilst rough coats are the breed standard in certain cases, this wastaken into account when scoring, Figure 7 shows that there was asignificant difference in the softness of the coats of dogs on cookedor raw foods, with aP value of 0.000, showing that dogs on a rawdiet had soft coats (70%) as opposed to 42% of cooked fed dogs.4.2.3 Feel„Feel‟ refers to the absence of a greasy or dry feel to the coat,therefore, if the scale was zero that meant that the coat neither feltdry or greasy. There was a significant difference observed in thefeel of coats of dogs on different diets, observable in Figure 8 with aP value of 0.001. Dryness or greasiness of a coat, is dependent ona number of factors, a biotin or vitamin A deficiency (Ackerman,2008), stress, a generic pre-disposition or other nutritionalimbalance.
  • 55. Of the dogs tested the ones on a raw diet had better coat feel thanthose on a cooked diet, with 90% having no dryness or greasinessto their coats, as opposed to 55% of those on cooked food.4.2.4 ScaleScale refers to dandruff present in the dogs coats, whilst Figure 9shows a clear difference between the amount of scale present onthe coats of raw feed dogs (20% with scale) compared to that ofcooked fed dogs (52% with scale), it was not statistically significantP = 0.114.4.3 Oral HealthAll aspects of Oral Health analysed were better when the dogs inquestion chewed bones. Dogs are “hypercarnivores (animals thateat more than 70% meat)” (Gill, 2012) and have evolved to chewbones,“providing periodontal stimulation” (Dierenfeld, 2005)therefore it follows that this is advantageous to their health; whereasdried pet foods crumble when chewed, providing little mechanicalremoval of plaque (Millella, 2012).The effect that diet had on teeth varied from one extreme (seefigure 16) to another (see figure 17), with the teeth of elderly cooked
  • 56. fed dogs, closer to that of figure 16 and the teeth of elderly raw feddogs, closer to that of figure 18.Figure 16 – Minky the 15 yr old cooked fed terrier cross (Turner, 1,2012)
  • 57. Figure 17 – Talen the 3 yr old raw fed German Shepherd cross(Turner, 2, 2012)Figure 18 – Annie the 13 yr old raw fed Labrador (Turner, 2011)
  • 58. 4.3.1 Tooth ColourIndividual tooth colours were statistically significant (see Table 3),the mean data in Figure 10 shows an observable differentialbetween the tooth colours of dogs fed on a cookeddiet with anaverage tooth colour of C1(see Appendix 5) or raw diet with anaverage tooth colour B1 – A1 (see Appendix 5), the statisticalanalysis deemed otherwise with a P value of0.116.4.3.2 Plaque CoverageWhilst the data in Figure 11 for plaque coverage of the K9 is notconsidered statistically significant with a Pvalue of0.087, thepercentage of dogs with plaque coverage for these teeth on a rawdiet was 0% and on a cooked diet was 77%; showing a markeddifference.The data in Figure 12 for plaque coverage of the first carnassial wasstatistically significant with a P value of 0.006. Of the dogs on a rawdiet 40% had plaque on their first carnassial, whereas over 90% ofcooked fed dogs had plaque coverage.Findings of this research confirm findings by Clarke & Cameron(1998) showing that animals eating a species appropriate diet, had
  • 59. significantly less plaque and calculus, due to eating a dietcontaining bones.4.3.3 Gum ColourAs seen in Figure 13 there was a marginal difference in gum colourbetween the subjects tested, but this was not statistically significantwith a Pvalue of0.232.4.3.4 HalitosisThere was a vast differential in halitosis (P=0.000) in the animalstested, as seen in Figure 14, withover 87% of cooked fed dogs and0% of raw fed dogs having bad breath.This relates significantly to oral health, as most of the odour is abacterial waste product, either from the bacteria in plaque, tartarand calculus on the teeth of from those within the digestive tract(Brown & Taylor, 2005).4.4 Faecal ConsistencyThere was a significant statistical difference (P = 0.000) betweenthe owners opinion on the consistency of their pets faecal matter, asdemonstrated in Figure 15. This shows that the consistency offaecal matter of dogs fed on a raw diet, was closer to that of a wilddog or wolf (Mech, 1970), was much harder and therefore going to
  • 60. have a more positive outcome on anal glands than that of dogs on acooked diet. Only one of the dogs tested had an anal glandproblem, this dog was on a cooked diet.4.5 OverallWhilst condition scoring methods are considered subjective, they“perform the job adequately”according to Ackerman (2008).Diagnosis of nutrient deficiencies are much more common thanthose of overdose (McNamara, 2006), indication of deficiencieshave been noted here, with examples of: Crusty lesions of nares – indicating Vitamin A deficiency (Ackerman, 2008) Dry, scaly skin, brittle hair – indicating Biotin deficiency (Ackerman, 2008) Poor skin and coat condition – indicating Zinc deficiency(Ackerman, 2008)These examples were not found in raw fed dogs.A large differential in not only the way these animals have been fed,but the constituent ingredients and nutrient degeneration, whenlooked at in combination with details on how canine digestionfunctions, shows that starchy foods such as grains and potato thatare utilised in cooked diets to increase energy consumption,
  • 61. decrease the ability of the dog to digest protein, necessary foreffective digestion in many areas of the gastro-intestinal tract. Thisnegative effect on digestion, impacts nutritional absorption, andtherefore cellular function. If each individual cell is malnourished,then so is the animal, which has a further negative impact onimmunity and therefore health.The consistency differential between cooked and raw foods has aneffect on oral health (Watson, 2005: Morley et al., 2006:Chengappaet al., 1993), with soft cooked foods and crumbly driedfoods having little to no effect on the removal of plaque, whilstbones being highly abrasive provide effective removal. Starchcontained in cooked foods also have an effect, as starch feeds thebacteria present in plaque, due to not being able to be broken downin any way whilst in the oral cavity due to the lack of amylase incanine saliva. Whilst national statistics show that 80% of dogs overthe age of 3 have periodontal disease (Millela, N.D.) and thenumber one diagnosis for dogs over the age of 3 in America isperiodontal disease (Banfield Pet Hospital, 2012), it is evident thatthere are issues with oral health that relate highly to diet.Vegetation utilized in both types of diets, have differing effects onhealth, with raw vegetables having been shown to have a lower riskfor cancer than cooked vegetables (Micozziet al., 1989). A raw diet
  • 62. has better retention of nutrients and provides the ability to utiliseproteins and lipids whereas the cooking process can destroyvitamins and minerals and denatures proteins and lipids renderingthem useless to the consumer. This has been reflected in theresults with significant differences in coat condition, oral health andfaecal consistency, where those dogs on a raw diet presented ashealthier in these areas, indicating improved visceral health andtherefore improved general health.4.6 LimitationsThis study was limited to 41 pet dogs, on a wide variety of diets,including tinned, dried, and raw, made by a number of differingmanufacturers with differing formulations, or concocted by theowners themselves, whose expertise in animal nutrition was varied.The dogs were of differing breeds, ages and sexes, and came froma number of different environments, with individual exercise routinesand medical statuses.A more concise results could be obtained, by taking a number ofsame breed, preferably closely related bitches, feeding them avariety of diets from weaning, i.e. exact same diet raw, homecooked, tinned and dried, (using pet food manufacturer procedureson the later two types of diet), for 1 year, mating them to the same
  • 63. male, keeping their environment, and all other factors constant andfollowing their and their pups nutritional and health progress untiltheir natural death.In this type of laboratory situation, with conditions kept stable at alltimes, liver and kidney function tests could be monitored, as well ashair analysis, urea and faecal testing. Precise measurements couldbe taken on nutrition both being provided and passed, in order toaccess what was digested and utilised by the body, which incombination with health statistics would provide a clear analysis ofcanine health dependent on food preparation technique.
  • 64. Chapter 5 – Conclusions
  • 65. 5.0 ConclusionsAnnual veterinary health checks are performed mainly byobservational methods (as well as listening to heart and lungs) andinclude checking for skin and coat issues (Purina, 2012) some ofthese methods can be employed by the average layman in order toassess the health status of a pet dog.These tests can imply potential health issues, i.e. the risk ofdiabetes via body condition scoring, deficiencies in certain nutrientsvia coat condition scoring, the potential for periodontitis via toothcolour and plaque, issues with renal, hepatic, and cardiovascularsystems implied by plaque, tartar and calculus accumulation, andissues with the digestive tract via halitosis & faecal matterconsistency.Overall the conditions of subjects included in the study was good,with subjects that were fed a raw diet, showing better results withregards to coat condition, oral health and faecal consistency, whichare indicative of health at a cellular level. In order for this to beachieved both the nutrition and digestion of these dogs, must bebetter, as cells cannot be at optimum health without them.
  • 66. The coat condition differential was noticeable, implying a greaterabsorption of essential fatty acids, biotin and zinc. The oral healthdifferential was similarly noticeable implying improved teethcleaning qualities of raw diets, most notably from the inclusion ofbones in the diet, and showed a significant improvement onhalitosis, due to the lack of effluent produced by the metabolism ofpathogenic bacteria, also implying greater immunity to suchpathogens and reduced risk of associated diseases to the hepatic,renal and cardiac systems.This research implies improved health in raw fed dogs, compared tothat of cooked fed dogs, with raw feeding owners spending a greatdeal of time researching and preparing what they believe to be anutritionally complete diet, having a greater effect on health thanowners who simply fed a pre-packaged, „balanced‟ cooked diet. Word Count: 7602
  • 67. Chapter 7 – References
  • 68. 7.0 References 1. Ackerman, N. (2008) Companion Animal Nutrition. Edinburgh. Elsevier. 2. Agar, S. 2001 Small Animal Nutrition, Butterworth Heinemann, London p. 77 3. Allen, S.E. Fahey, G.C. Corbin, J.E. Puch, J.L. &Frankin, R.A. (1981) Evaluation of By-product Feedstuffs as Dietary Ingredients for Dogs. Journal of Animal Science.53:1538- 1544 4. Altman, P.L. & Dittmer, D.S. (1968) Digestion and Absorption. In: Metabolism. Bethesda, Md. Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology. 5. Ashdown, R.R. (2008) Symposium on Canine Recto-Anal Disorders – 1: Clinical Anatomy. Journal of Small Animal Practice. 9[7]:315-322
  • 69. 6. Auskaps, A. Grupta, O. & Shaw, J. (1957) Periodontal disease in the Rice Rat. III. Survey of Dietary Influences. Journal of Nutrition. 63:325-3437. AVMA (2009) Frequently Asked Questions about Caring for an Older Pet. [Online] Available from: http://www.avma.org/animal_health/care_older_pet_faq.asp [accessed 07/07/2012]8. AVMA (2012) Policy on Raw or Undercooked Animal-Source Protein in Cat and Dog Diets. [Online] Available from: http://atwork.avma.org/wp- content/uploads/2012/07/Resolution_5_raw-food.pdf [Accessed 20/07/2012]9. Baer, P. & White, C. (1961) Studies on Periodontal Disease in the Mouse IV. The Effects of a High Protein, Low Carbohydrate Diet. Journal of Periodontology. 32:328-33010. Baldwin, K. Bartges, J. Buffinton, T. Freeman, L. Grawbow, M. Legred, J. & Ostwald, D. (2010) AAHA Nutritional
  • 70. Assessment Guidelines for Dogs and Cats. Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association. 46:286-29611. Banfield Pet Hospital (2012) State of Pet Health 2012 Report. [Online] Available from: http://www.stateofpethealth.com/pdf/State_of_Pet_Health_20 12.pdf [accessed 07/07/2012]12. Banta, C.A. Clemens, E.T. Krinsky, M.M. &Sheffy, B.E. (1979) Sites of Organic Acid Production and Patterns of Digestive Movement in the Gastrointestinal Tract of Dogs. J. Nutr. 109:1592-160013. Barbara, G. Stanghellini, V. Brandi, G. Cremon, C. Di Nardo, G. De Giorgio, R. &Corinaldesi, R. (2005) Interactions Between Commensal Bacteria and Gut Sensorimotor Function in Health and Disease. The American Journal of Gastroenterology. 100:2560-256814. Benamghar, L. Penaud, J. Kaminsky, P. Abt, F. & Martin, J. (1982) Comparison of Gingival Index and Sulcus Bleeding
  • 71. Index as Indicators of Periodontal Status. Bulletin of World Health Organisation. 60[1]:147-15115. Billinghurst, I. (2001) The Barf Diet, Warrigal Publishing, New South Wales, Australia p. 17, 29-4616. Bradshaw, J. (2006) The Evolutionary Basis for the Feeding Behavior of Domestic Dogs (Canisfamiliaris) and Cats (Feliscatus) Journal of Nutrition. 136:1927-193717. Bridgett, M. vonHoldt, John P. Pollinger, Kirk E. Lohmueller, Eunjung Han, Heidi G. Parker, Pascale Quignon, Jeremiah D. Degenhardt, Adam R. Boyko, Dent A. Earl, Adam Auton, Andy Reynolds, KasiaBryc, AbraBrisbin, James C. Knowles, Dana S. Mosher, Tyrone C. Spady, Abdel Elkahloun, Eli Geffen, Malgorzata Pilot, WlodzimierzJedrzejewski, Claudia Greco, Ettore Randi, DanikaBannasch, Alan Wilton, Jeremy Shearman, Marco Musiani, Michelle Cargill, Paul G. Jones, ZuweiQian, Wei Huang, Zhao-Li Ding, Ya-ping Zhang, Carlos D. Bustamante, Elaine A. Ostrander, John Novembre& Robert K. Wayne (2010) Genome-wide SNP and haplotype analyses reveal a rich history underlying dog domestication. Nature 464:898-902
  • 72. 18. British Veterinary Journal (1876) Advert British Veterinary Journal 419. Brosey, B.P. Hill, R.C. & Scott, K.C. (2000) Gastrointestinal Volatile Fatty Acid Concentrations and pH in Cats. American Journal of Veterinary Research. 61:359-36120. Brown, S. & Taylor, B. (2005) See Spot Live Longer. Oregon. Creekobear Press21. Brown-Borg, H. Anderson, R. McCarter, R. Morley, J. Musi, N. Olshansky, S.J. Shukitt-Hale, B. St. Jaques, P. Walson, J. & Wilcox, B. (2012) Nutrition in Aging and Disease: Update on Biological Sciences. Aging Health. 8[1]:13-1622. Bruce, K. (2001) Dog Owners Voice Concern Over High Vet Fees, [Online] K9 Online, K9 Media Solutions Ltd, Notts, from: http://www.pressbox.co.uk/detailed/International/Dog_Owner s_Voice_Concern_Over_High_Vet_Fees_1064.html (accessed 07/04/2010)
  • 73. 23. Burger, I.H. & Rivers, J.P.W. (1989) Waltham Symposium 7 Nutrition of the Dog and Cat. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge p. 1424. Burns, J. (2009) Domestic Dog Origins Challenged, BBC News, from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8182371.stm (accessed 06/03/2010)25. Burrows, C.F. Kronfeld, D.S. Banta, C.A. & Merritt, A.M. (1982) Effects of Fibre on Digestibility and Transit Time in Dogs. Journal of Nutrition. 112:1726-173226. Carpentier, Y. Woussen-Cokre, M.C. & de Graef, J. (1977) Gastric Secretions from Denervated Pouches and Serum Gastrin Levels After Meals of Different Sizes of Meat Concentration in Dogs. Gasteroenterol Clinical Biology.1:29- 2727. Carriere, F. Moreau, M. Raphel, V. Largier, R. Berricourt, C. Junien, J. & Verger, R. (1991) Purification and Biochemical Characterizaion of Dog Gastric Lipase. Eur. J. Biochem.202:75-83
  • 74. 28. Case, L.P. (2005) The Dog: Its Behavior, Nutrition and Health. 2nd Ed. Iowa. Blackwell Publishing.29. Case, L. P., Hayek, M.G., Daristotle, L. &Raasch, M.F. (2011) Canine & Feline Nutrition, MosebyInc, Missouri p. 17030. Chengappa, M. M. Staats, J. Oberst, R.D. Gabbert, N.H. & McVey, S. (1993) Prevalence of Salmonella in Raw Meat used in Diets of Racing Greyhounds. Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation. 5[3]:372-37731. Clarke, D.E. & Cameron, A. (1998) Relationship between Diet, Dental Calculus and Periodontal Disease in Domestic and Feral Cats in Australia. Australian Veterinary Journal.76[10]:690-69332. Clemens, E.T. & Stevens, C.E. (1980) A Comparison of Gastrointestinal Transit Time in Ten Species of Mammals. Journal of Agricultural Science.94:735
  • 75. 33. Clutton-Brock, J. (1999) A National History of Domesticated Mammals, Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, (Inside Cover, p 25-128, 190-191)34. Codner, E.C. & Thatcher, C.D. (1990) The Role of Nutrition in the Management of Dermatoses. Semin. Vet. Med. Surg. (Sm. Animal) 5:167-17735. Conner, W.E. Nuringer, M. &Reisback. S. (1992) Essential Fatty Acids: The Importance of n-3 Fatty Acids in the Retina and Brain. Nutr. Rev. 50:212936. Cox, E.R. &Lepine, A.J. (2002) 2793 Use of Polyphosphates in Canine Diets to Control Tartar. Seq #257 – Nutritional Factors and Dental Health. IADR/AADR/CADR 80th General Session (March 6-9, 2002) San Diego, California37. Cox, E.R, &Lepine, A.J. (2009) Influences on Dental Health in the Field Dog. P&G Pet Care Publications. 4[1]:51-5838. De Baracli Levy, J. (1992) The Complete Herbal Handbook for the Dog and Cat. Faber and Faber, London
  • 76. 39. DeBowes, L. Mosier, D. & Logan, E. (1996) Association of Periodontal Disease and Histologic Lesions in Multiple Organs from 45 Dogs. Journal of Veterinary Dentistry.13[2]:57-6040. Defra (2011) Pet Food Manufacturers. [Online] Defra, London. Available from: http://animalhealth.defra.gov.uk/managing- disease/animalbyproducts/food-and-feed-businesses/pet- food-manufacture.htm#5 (Accessed 25/04/2012)41. Derr, M. (2012) How the Dog Became the Dog. London. Duckworth Overlook42. Dierenfeld, E. S. (2005) Nutrition of Captive Cheetahs: Food Composition and Blood Parameters. Zoo Biology.12[1]:143- 15043. Diez, M. Nguyen, P. Jeusette, I. Devois, C. Istasse, L. &Biourge, V. (2002) Weight Loss in Obese Dogs: Evaluation of a High-Protein, Low-Carbohydrate Diet. Journal of Nutrition.132:1685-1687
  • 77. 44. Dogan, E. Okumus, Z. &Yanmaz, L. (2007) Periodontal Diseases in Pet Animals. Veterinary Research.1[1]:17-2245. Erasmus, U. (1993) Fats that Heal – Fats that Kill. Canada. Alive Books.46. Fahey, G.C. Merchen, N.R. Corbin, J.E. Hamilton, A.K. Serbe, K.A. Lewis, S.M. &Hirakawa, D.A. (1990) Dietary Fibre for Dogs: I. Effects of Graded Levels of Dietary Beet Pulp on Nutrient Intake, Digestibility, Metabolizable Energy and Digesta Mean Retention Time. Journal of Animal Science.68[12]:4221-422847. Fernandex, R. & Phillips, S.F. (1982) Components of Fibre Impair upon Iron Absorption in the Dog. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.35:107-11248. FesterKratz. R. (2009) Molecular and Cell Biology for Dummies. New Jersey. Wiley Publishing Inc.
  • 78. 49. Food and Nutrition Board (1989) Recommended Dietary Allowances, National Academies Press, Washington D.C. p1- 950. Fogle, B. (2002) Caring for your Dog. Dorling Kindersley Ltd. London51. Field, C.J. McBurney, M.I. Massimino, S. Hayek, M.G. &Sunvold, G.D. (1999) The Fermentable Fibre Content of the Diet Alters the Function and Composition of Canine Gut Associated Lymphoid Tissue. Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology. 72:325-34152. German, A. (2010) Obesity in Companion Animals. In Practice.32:42-5053. Gibson, N. (1996) Wolves. Morayshire. Colin Baxter Photography.54. Gill, V. (2012) Dogs‟ Evolution Shows Why They „Love‟ Gnawing on Bones. Canada, BBC. [Online] Available from:
  • 79. http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/18767817 [Accessed 10/07/2012]55. Goldston, R.T. (1989) Geriatrics and Gerontology. The Veterinary Clinics of North America, Small Animal Practice.19[1]:20256. Goody, P.C. (1997) Dog Anatomy. J.A. Allen, London57. Gordon, P.H. (2001) Anorectal Anatomy and Physiology. Gastroenterology Clinics of North America.30[1]:1-1358. Gorrel, C. (1998) Periodontal Disease and Diet in Domestic Pets. Journal of Nutrition.128[12]:2712-271459. Griffith, C. (2012) The Best Dog Diet Ever by Caroline Griffith. Northampton. Love, Woof & Wonder Publishing.60. Hamp, S.E. Olsson, S.E. Farso-Madsen, K. Vilands, P &Fornell, J. (1984) A Macroscopic and Radiological
  • 80. Investigation of Dental Diseases in the Dog. Veterinary Radiology. 25:86-9261. Hansen, A.E. Weise, H.F. & Beck. O. (1948) Susceptibility to Infection Manifested by Dogs on a Low Fat Diet. Fed. Proc.7:28962. Hansen, A.E. & Weise, H.F. (1951) Fat in the Diet in Relation to Nutrition of the Dog. I Characteristic Appearene and Gross Changes of Animals fed Diets with and without Fat. Tex. Rep. Biol. Med. 9:491-51563. Hansen, A.E. Sinclair, J.G. & Weise, H.F. (1954) Sequence of Histologic changes in Skin of Dogs in Relation to Dietary Fat. J. Nutr. 52:541-55464. Harmon, D.L. Walker, J.A. Silvio, J.M. Jamikorm, A.M. & Gross, K.L. (1999) Nutrient Digestibility in Dogs Fed Fibre- containing Diets. Veterinary Clinical Nutrition.6:6-8
  • 81. 65. Hemmer, H., 1990, Domestication – the decline of environmental appreciation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge p. 35-8066. Hoffmann, R.R. (2000) The Structure of Digestive Systems in the Feeding of Mammals: A Comparative Approach. In: Nijboer, J. Hatt, J.-M. Kaumanns, W. Beijnen, A. &Gansloβer, U. (Eds) Zoo Animal Nutrition. Furth. Filander-Verl. 163-18167. Holman, R.T. (1971) Essential Fatty Acid Deficiency. Prog. Chem. Fats Lipids. 9:275-34868. Holman, R.T. Johnson, S.B. & Hatch, T.F. (1982) A case of Human Linolenic Acid Deficiency involving Neurological Abnormalities. Am. J. Clin. Nutr.35:617-62369. Jin, H.O. Lee, K.Y. Chang, T.M. Chey, W.Y. & Dubois, A. (1994) Physiological role of Cholecystokinin on Gastric Emptying and Acid Output in Dogs. Digestive Diseases and Sciences. 39:2306-231470. Kamath, P.S. Hoepfner, M.T. & Phillips, S.F. (1987) Short- chain Fatty Acids Stimulate Motility of the Canine Ileum. American Journal of Physiology. 4:G427-G433
  • 82. 71. Kelly, N. & Wills, J. (1996) Manual of Companion Animal Nutrition and Feeding, BSAVA, Gloucester p. 25472. Ken-L-Ration (1932) Advertisement73. Kortegaard, H. Eriksen, T. &Baelum, V. (2008) Periodontal Disease in Research Beagle Dogs – An Epidemiological Study. Journal of Small Animal Practice.49:610-61674. Lankhorst, C. Tran, Q. D. Havenaar, R. Hendriks, W. H. & van der Poel, A. F. B. (2007) The Effect of Extrusion on the Nutritional Value of Canine Diet as assessed by in vitro indicators. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 138[3]:285-29775. Logan, E. (2006) Dietary Influences on Periodontal Health in Dogs and Cats. Veterinary Clinic of North American Small Animal Practice.36[6]:1385-140176. Lonsdale, T. (2001) Raw Meaty Bones: Promote Health, Rivetco, New South Wales
  • 83. 77. Lugwigshafen, N. A. Bonn, G. B. Elmshorn, D. D. Hess.Oldend, W. K. Cuxhaven, K. K. Grenzach, H. L. (1984) Vitamins in Animal Nutrition, AWT, Bonn p.4278. Mash, H. (2011) The Holistic Dog. The Crowood Press Ltd. Marlborough79. Maskell, I.E. & Johnson, V. (1993) Digestion and Absorption p.25-44 In: The Waltham Book of Companion Animal Nutrition. Burger, I. Ed Oxford, Pergamon Press80. McAteer, A. (2012) Raw Meat for Dogs: Is the Theory Half Baked? Canada. The Globe and Mail. [Online] Available from: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/relationships/a- raw-deal-why-more-owners-are-choosing-raw-food-for-their- dogs/article4401112/ [Accessed 09/07/2012]81. McNamara, J.P. (2006) Principles of Companion Animal Nutrition. New Jersey. Pearson Prentice Hall.
  • 84. 82. Mech, L.D. (1970) The Wolf – The Ecology and Behaviour of an Endangered Species. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis p. 168-19283. Mech, L.D. &Boitani, L. (2003) Wolves: Behavior, Ecology and Conservation. Chicago. University of Chicago Press.84. Micozzi, M. S. Beecher, G.R. Taylor, P.R. &Knachik, F. (1990) Carotenoid Analyses of Selected Raw and Cooked Foods Associated With a Lower Risk for Cancer. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 82[4]:282-28585. Milella, L. (N.D.) Understanding the Need for Dental Treatment in Dogs. Educational Resources for Veterinarians. British Veterinary Dental Association86. Milella, L. (2012) Prophylactic Dental Care in Cats. Veterinary Nursing Journal. 27:14-1687. Morey, D. F. (2006) Burying Key Evidence: the Social Bond Between Dogs and People, Journal of Archaeological Science, 33[2]:158-175
  • 85. 88. Morley, P. S. Strohmeyer, R. A. Tankson, J. D. Hyatt, D. R. Dargatz, D. A. &Fedorka-Cray, P.J. (2006) Evaluation of the Association between feeding of Raw Meat and Salmonella enterica Infections at a Greyhound breeding facility. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association.228[10]:1524-153289. Muir, H.E. Murray, S.M. Fahey, G.C. Merchen, N.R. & Reinhart, G.A. (1996) Nutrient Digestion by IlealCannulated Dogs as Affected by Dietary Fibres with Various Fermentation Characteristics. Journal of American Science. 74:1641-164890. National Research Council (1985) Nutrient Requirements of Dogs. Washington D.C. National Academic Press91. National Research Council (2006) Nutrient Requirements of Dogs and Cats. Washington DC. The National Academic Press
  • 86. 92. Neuringer, M. Anderson, G.J. & Conner, W.E. (1988) The Essentiality of the n-3 Fatty Acids for the Development and Function of the Retina and Brain. Am. Rev. Nutr.8:517-54193. Nonnenmacher, C. Flores-de-Jacoby, L. Dalpke, A. Zimmerman, S. Mutters, R. &Hegg, K. (2002) 0767 DNA from Periodontopathogenic Bacteria Induces Mouse and Human Cells to Produce Cytokines. IADR/AADR/CADR 80th General Session (March 6-9, 2002) San Diego, California94. O‟Driscoll, C. (2005) Shock to the System.Abbeywood Publishing (Vaccines) Ltd. London95. Pavlica, Z. Petelin, M. Juntes, P. Erzen, S. Crossley, D. &Skaleric, U. (2008) Periodontal Disease Burden and Pathological Changes in Organs of Dogs. Journal of Veterinary Dentistry. 25[3]:97-10596. Pedigree Pet Foods, (1993) Product Information, Waltham, Leicester97. Pet Food Institute (2010) How Dry Pet Food Is Made. [Online] Washington DC: Pet Food Institute. Available from:
  • 87. http://www.petfoodinstitute.org/Index.cfm?Page=DryPetFood (Accessed 25/04/2012)98. Petwise, (2009) Why Insure your Pet?,Petwise Health Insurance, from: http://www.petwise- insurance.co.uk/pages/whyinsure.asp (accessed 07/04/2010)99. PFMA (2009) Feeding a Raw Meat and Bones Diet to Pets. [Internet] Available from: http://www.pfma.org.uk/_assets/images/general/file/Raw%20 Meaty%20Bones%20Diets%20190509.pdf (accessed 21/06/2012)100. PFMA (2011) Has the Market Changed Over the Years? (Internet) Available from: http://www.pfma.org.uk/statistics/index.cfm?id=133&cat_id=5 8 Pet Food Manufacturers Association, London (accessed 06/10/2011)101. Pond, C. M. (2000) The Fats of Life, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge p.5-26
  • 88. 102. Pottenger, F. (1983) Pottenger‟s Cats – A Study in Nutrition, Price-Pottenger Foundation Inc, California103. Purina (N.D.) Spillers Foods 1851-1900.[Online] Available from: http://www.purina.co.uk/apps/OurHistory/OurHistory.aspx?N RMODE=Published&NRNODEGUID=%7BC25C061A-D25F- 4A26-820A- 616900CC6EE7%7D&NRORIGINALURL=%2FHome%2FAb out%2BPurina%2FOur%2BCompany%2FOur%2BHistory.ht m&NRCACHEHINT=Guest [accessed 06/10/2011]104. Purina (2012) Annual Vet Check-up [Online] Available from: http://www.purina.co.uk/Home/All+About+Dogs/Health+and+ Wellbeing+Dog/Healthy+Living+Dog/Annual+Vet+Checkup.ht m [accessed 13/07/2012]105. Quigley, G.A. & Hein, J.W. (1962) Comparative Cleaning Efficacy of Manual & Power Brushing. Journal of American Dental Association. 65: 26-29
  • 89. 106. Rawlings, J. &Culham, N. (1998) Halitosis in Dogs and the Effect of Periodontal Therapy. Journal of Nutrition.128:2715-2716107. Rees, C.A. Bauer, J.E. Burkholder, W.J. Kennis, R.A. Dunbar, B.L. &Bigley, C.E. (2001) Effects of Dietary Flax Seed and Sunflower Seed Supplementation on Normal Canine Serum Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids and Skin and Hair Coat Condition Scores. Veterinary Dermatology.12[2]111-117108. Riddle, M. (1987) Dogs Through History, Denlinger, Virginia p. 8-59109. Roche (1976) Vitamin Compendium, F. Hoffmann-La Roche & Co. Ltd, Basle, Switzerland p. 7110. Rolfe, V.E. Adams, C.A. Butterwick, R.F. &Batt, R.M. (2002) Relationships between Fecal Consistency and Colonic Microstructure and Absorptive Function in Dogs with and without Nonspecific Dietary Sensitivity. American Journal of Veterinary Research. 63[4]:617-622
  • 90. 111. Savolainen, P. Arvestad, L. & Lundeberg, J. (2000) mtDNA Tandem Repeats in Domestic Dogs and Wolves: Mutation Mechanism Studied by Analysis of the Sequence of Imperfect Repeats. Molecular Biology.17[4]:474-488112. Scheppach, W. (1994) Effects of Short Chain Fatty Acids on Gut Morphology and Function. Gut.35:S35-S38113. Schlesinger, D. P. &Joffe, D. J. (2011) Raw food Diets in Companion Animals: A Critical Review. The Canadian Veterinary Journal. 51[1]:50-54114. Schultze, K.R. (1998) Natural Nutrition for Dogs and Cats. California. Hay House Inc.115. Serpell, J. (1995) The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behaviour and Interaction with People. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge P. 9-10116. Strombeck, D.R. (1999) Home-prepared Dog and Cat Diets. Iowa. Iowa State University Press.
  • 91. 117. Tinoco, J. (1982) Dietary Requirments and Functions of α-Linolenic Acid in Animals. Prog. Lipid. Res. 21:1-46118. The Kennel Club (2008) About the Kennel Club. [Online] Available from: http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/aboutthekc [Accessed 16/07/2012]119. Townend, L. (2009) Animals in the Womb: Dogs, Channel 4, London120. Turner, H.B. (2011) Annie the 13 yr old raw fed Labrador. Photograph [online] Available from: http://caninehealth101.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/annie-13- year-old-raw-fed-labrador.html [accessed 13/07/2012]121. Turner, H.B. (2012) Talen the 3 yr old raw fed German Shepherd cross. Photograph [online] Available from: http://caninehealth101.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/teeth-as- indicator-of-health.html [accessed 13/07/2012]122. Turner, H.B. (2012) Minky the 15 yr old cooked fed terrier cross. Photograph. unpublished
  • 92. 123. Uvay, R. Peirano, P. & Hoffman, D.R. (1989) Essential Fatty Acid Metabolism and Requirements during Development. Sem. Perinatol. 13:118-130124. Vester, B.M. & Fahey, J.R. (2006) The Importance of Nutrition in Coat Quality and Skin Health of Dogs and Cats. Proceedings of Alltech‟s 22nd Annual Symposium. Lexington, Kentucky, USA 23-26 April 2006 p. 261-267125. Villareal, R. Ganong, W.F. &Gray, S.J. (1955) Effet of Adrenocorticotrophic Hormone upon the Gastric Secretion of Hydrochloric Acid, Pepsin and Electrolytes in Dogs. American Journal of Physiology. 183:485-494126. Warinner, C. (2012) Tracking Ancient Diseases using … plaque. [Online] TED. Available from: http://www.ted.com/talks/christina_warinner_tracking_ancient _diseases_using_plaque.html (Accessed 24/04/2012)127. Watkins, J.D. (2008) Letter Submitted to the Veterinary Record. June 7 2008
  • 93. 128. Watson, A.D.J. (2008) Diet and Periodontal Disease in Dogs and Cats. Australian Veterinary Journal.71[10]:313-318129. Wayne, R. K. (1993) Molecular Evolution of the Dog Family. Trends in Genetics. 9[I6]:218-224 1/6/93, Elsevier Ltd, Oxford130. Wayne, R.K. & O‟Brien, S.J. (1987) Allozyme Divergence within the Canidae. Systematic Biology. 36[4]:339-355 Oxford Journals, Oxford131. Wayne, R.K. Nash, S.J. & O‟Brien, S.J. (1987) Chromosomal Evolution of the Canidae. Cytogenetic and Genome Research.44[2-3]:134-141 Karger, Basel, Switzerland132. Wayne, R. & Vila, C. (2001) The Genetics of the Dog; Phylogeny and Origin of the Domestic Dog. Wallingford: CAB. International. p. 1-13133. Weese, J. S. Rousseau, J. & Arroyo, L. (2005) Bacteriological Evaluation of Commercial Canine and Feline Raw Diets. The Canadian Veterinary Journal.46[6]:513-516
  • 94. 134. Weise, H.F. Bennet, M.J. Coon, E. & Yamanaka, W. (1965) Lipid Metabolism of Puppies as Affected by Kind and Amount of Fat and of Dietary Carbohydrate. J. Nutr.86:271- 280
  • 95. 135. Weise, H.F. Yamanaka, W. Coon. E. & Barber, S. (1966) Skin Lipids of Puppies as Affected by Kind and Amount of Fat and of Dietary Carbohydrate. J. Nutr.89:113- 122136. Yarnall, C. (1998) Natural Dog Care. New Jersey. Castle Books.137. Yudkin, J. (1969) Dental Decay is Preventable: Why not prevented? Br. Dent. J.127[9]:425-429138. Zero, D. (2004) Sugars – The Arch Criminal? Journal of Caries Research. 28:277-285
  • 96. Chapter 8 – Appendices
  • 97. 8.0 Appendices
  • 98. Appendix 1 Moulton College Risk AssessmentRisk RA No.AssessmentIdentified Hazard :Risk of knocks or bites from subjectsPersons at Risk :AuthorLikelihood of Injury : 1Unlikely 2 Possible 3 Likely 14Very LikelySeverity of Injury : 1 Minor 2Major 3 Multiple 4 1Fatality 90
  • 99. Frequency of operation : 1Infrequent 2Weekly 3 Daily 24 HourlyControls in Place to Reduce Risk :Never deal with the animals unless in the presence of the owner.Author is a highly trained behavioural consultant and should be able tomitigate any risks that present themselves.Level of Risk : ( Low – Medium – High ) LowAssessment By : Signed : DateDate of Assessment Review :Further Details of Assessment 91
  • 100. Appendix 2MoultonCollege Risk AssessmentRisk RA No.AssessmentIdentified Hazard :Risk whilst driving to locationPersons at Risk : AuthorLikelihood of Injury : 1Unlikely 2 Possible 3 Likely 24Very LikelySeverity of Injury : 1 Minor 2Major 3 Multiple 4 2FatalityFrequency of operation : 1Infrequent 2Weekly 3 Daily 24 Hourly 92
  • 101. Controls in Place to Reduce Risk :Care must be taken whilst making one mile trip to location. Author is aconfident driver with no points on license obtained over fifteen years ago.Level of Risk : ( Low – Medium – High ) LowAssessment By : Signed : DateDate of Assessment Review :Further Details of Assessment 93
  • 102. Appendix 3 MoultonCollege Approval for Undergraduate Research ProjectsName of student: Hope TurnerName of supervisor: Dr. Wanda McCormickCourse: BSc (Hons) Applied Animal Studies (Top-up)Project title An assessment of whether cooked or raw diets produce healthier pets (Canis Lupus Familiaris)Where will the project be Various locations in the East Midlandscarried out?Brief outline of aims and Aimobjectives of research To investigate if there is an observable health differential between dogs a cooked or a raw diet. Objectives To make detailed observations on dogs fed a raw and cooked diet To mark the differential with regards to 94
  • 103. condition scoringBrief description of A number of dogs to be condition scoredmethods (include species on body condition, coat condition, oraland number of animals health and faecal consistencyused if appropriate)Ethical Considerations Dogs only to be approached whilst being handled by ownersand precautions Dogs not delayed from their normal routine for more than 5 minutes eachRisks and precautions Risk whilst driving to location– Pay attention whilst driving Risk of knocks or bites from subjects – author to only deal with subjects in presence of owner, owner to have backup of authorNotes on discussion by panel/ additional precautions to be put inplace 95
  • 104. Project approved by panel? Yes / NoSupervisor signature _________________________ date_____________Student signature __________________________ date_____________Supervisor at external __________________________date_____________Organization/ commercial unit (if appropriate) 96
  • 105. Appendix 4(German, 2010) 97
  • 106. Appendix 5(Rees et al., 2001) 98
  • 107. Appendix 6 99
  • 108. Appendix 7 100
  • 109. Appendix 8 101

×