1. An Assessment of Health in Pet Dogs
(Canis Lupis Familiaris)fed on Cooked
or Raw Diets
Hope Turner
Submitted in partial fulfilment of requirements for the
BSc (Hons) Applied Animal Studies
MoultonCollege in collaboration with
The University of Northampton
23/07/2012
i
2. Author declaration
I declare that the work in this dissertation was carried out in
accordance withthe Regulations of Moulton College, in collaboration
with The University of Northampton. The work is original, except
where indicatedby special reference in the text, and no part of the
dissertation has been submitted for any other academic award. Any
views expressed in the dissertation are those of the author.
Signed ................................................... Date ...........................
ii
3. Abstract
Nutrition is the cornerstone of health, affecting every animalat the
cellular level, leading to visual cues that can be an indicator of
health.
This research aims to establish if there is a differential with regards
to body condition, coat condition, oral health and faecal consistency
in domesticdogs(Canis Lupus Familiaris)fed cooked or raw diets.
Through individual condition scoringof 41pet dogs and questioning
owners as to diet and faecal consistency, results showed no
significant differences in body condition (P = 0.112)somesignificant
differences in coat condition with results for gloss (P = 0.004),
softness (P = 0.000) and feel (P = 0.001), however scale was not
significant (P = 0.114). Oral health showed no overall significance
with tooth colour (P = 0.116), or plaque coverage of the K9 (P =
0.087), but significant differences for plaque coverage of the first
carnassial (P = 0.006), none for gum colour (P = 0.232), but high
significance for halitosis (P = 0.000) and faecal consistency at (P =
0.000). All differences showed better results in raw fed dogs than in
cooked fed dogs.
This backs the theory of nutritional differences between cooked and
raw diets, regardless of initial ingredients and the negative effect
that cooking has on vitamin and mineral stability, protein and lipid
structure, digestibility and therefore health.
Leading to the conclusion that dogs fed on a nutritionally complete
raw diet, high in meat and low in starch, that includes raw bones,
have better coats, oral health and digestive systems, which is
indicative of being healthier.
iii
4. Contents
Author declaration......................................................................................ii
Abstract ..................................................................................................... iii
List of tables................................................................................................ v
Acknowledgements .................................................................................. vi
Chapter 1 - Introduction ............................................................................ 1
1.0 Introduction .................................................................................. 1
1.1 The Dog‟s Domestication ............................................................... 3
1.2 The Evolution of Canine Food ...................................................... 5
1.3 Revolution: Raw feeding ............................................................... 9
1.4 Canine Digestion ........................................................................... 10
1.4.1 Apprehension ......................................................................... 10
1.4.2 Mastication & Swallowing ..................................................... 10
1.4.3 Stomach .................................................................................. 11
1.4.4 Duodenum .............................................................................. 12
1.4.5 Jejunum ................................................................................... 12
1.4.6 Ileum ........................................................................................ 13
1.4.7 Large Intestine........................................................................ 13
1.4.8 Anus ......................................................................................... 14
1.5 Nutritional differences between raw & cooked diets................ 14
1.5.1 Nutritional recommendations ............................................... 15
1.5.2 Ingredients .............................................................................. 15
1.5.3 Ingredient effects on digestion ............................................. 18
1.5.4 Effects of cooking .................................................................. 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............................................................................ 27
Chapter 2 – Method................................................................................. 29
2.0 Method ................................................................................................ 30
2.1 The Study Subjects ....................................................................... 30
2.2 Method ............................................................................................ 30
2.2.1 Body Condition Score ........................................................... 31
2.2.2 Coat Condition Score ............................................................ 31
2.2.3 Oral Scoring ............................................................................ 31
2.2.4 Faecal consistency ................................................................ 32
2.3 Statistics ......................................................................................... 33
Chapter 3 – Results................................................................................. 34
3.0 Results ............................................................................................ 35
3.1 Body Condition .............................................................................. 35
3.2 Coat Condition ............................................................................... 35
3.3 Oral Health ..................................................................................... 38
3.3.1 Tooth Colour ........................................................................... 38
3.3.2 Plaque Coverage ................................................................... 40
3.3.3 Gum Colour ............................................................................ 41
3.3.4 Halitosis ................................................................................... 42
7. List of figures
Page
Figure 1 - Genome-wide SNP and haplotype analyses reveal a rich
history underlying dog domestication. 4
Figure 2 - Advert for Spratts from 1876 7
Figure 3 - Advertisement for Ken-L-Ration 8
Figure 4 - 80% of 3yr old dogs have periodontal disease. 25
Figure 5 – Body Condition Score Means 35
Figure 6–Coat Condition Gloss 36
Figure 7 – Coat Condition Softness 37
Figure 8 – Coat Condition Feel 37
Figure 9 – Coat Condition Scale 38
Figure 10 – Average tooth colour per diet 39
Figure 11 – K9 Plaque Coverage 40
Figure 12 – 1st Carnassial Plaque Coverage 41
Figure 13 – Statistics from Gum Colour 41
Figure 14 – Statistics from Halitosis tests 42
Figure 15 – Statistics from Faecal consistency results 43
Figure 16 – Minky the 15 yr old cooked fed terrier cross 48
Figure 17 – Talen the 3 yr old raw fed German Shepherd cross 49
Figure 18 – Annie the 13 yr old raw fed Labrador 49
8. List of tables
Page
Table 1 - Generationally produced health of raw verses cooked diet
in cats. 22
Table 2- Kruskal-Wallis results for Coat Condition Tests 36
Table 3 - Kruskal-Wallis results for individual tooth colour 38-39
9. Acknowledgements
I should like to thank Dr. Wanda McCormick and Krista McLennan
BSc (Hons), MSc for their valuable guidance and advice with
relation to this project. I should also like to thank Caroline
GriffithbsyN.Th, TTP2, TBP Trainer, for her assistance in locating a
number of dogs to test in the Cambridge area and Carolyn Wright
BSc (Hons), for her assistance in locating a number of dogs to test
in the Rugby and Leicestershire areas. I thank both Elizabeth
Roberts, HNC, BSc (Hons) and Ruth Daynes BSc (Hons) for their
incredibly valued sense checking ability, my Aunt, Patricia Aldaya
for her familial support and Stephen Smith MBE for his support and
humour through my three years of University.
10. Chapter 1 - Introduction
1.0 Introduction
The way in which pet owners feed their dogs has changed
drastically over the last 150 years, with a commercial shift to dried
food and the recent raw movement. Whilst “there is no or little
scientific evidence as to the benefits of raw feeding” (Case et al.,
2011), there are a great number of pro-raw feeders who have done
their own research and/or surveys leading 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 increasing
owners belief that their pets are healthier on raw rather than
commercial diets.
Veterinary surgeons and pet food manufacturers warn against raw
feeding due to the risks of bone splintering and bacterial diseases
such as salmonella and the risk of not getting the necessary
nutritional balance correct (PFMA, 2009: AVMA, 2012).
A lack or excess of one or many vitamins, minerals or essential fatty
acids can lead to “major chronic diseases” (Food and Nutrition
Board, 1989), if prolonged can be fatal (Roche, 1976) and
malnourished animals are “likely to have a compromised immune
11. system” (Ackerman, 2008; Agar, 2001; Gorrel, 1998), a combination
of these issues may have an effect genetics, and a combination of
genetics and nutrition are known to have an effect on aging (Brown-
Borg et al., 2012).
The age at which dogs are considered to be geriatric has lowered
from 8.85 in 1989 (Goldston) to 7 in 2009 (AVMA): in the later
decade of that time the average vet bill has increased 410% (Bruce,
2001: Petwise, 2009), and pet owners have changed the way they
feed, with a 71% shift to dried food (PFMA, 2011) and 3% of owners
feeding raw food (Case et al.,2011).
The raw food market is now increasing (Schlesinger &Joffe, 2011)
with a $100-million a year industry in the US, with an average
increase in sales of 30-40% in Canada (McAteer, 2012). This
increase in veterinary costs along with the reduced age at which an
animal is considered to be geriatric and the fact that pets are getting
sicker (Banfield Pet Hospital, 2012)could imply issues within the
genetics and/or the daily lives of our pets, or could be a reflection of
the advancein animal medicine now available.
Therefore an investigation into the health of pets on either cooked
or raw diets, that can be assessed visually by the average layman
(Vester& Fahey, 2006), would be of interest to concerned pet
12. owners and commercial pet food manufacturers, as these results
may sway the market further.
1.1 The Dog’s Domestication
The wolf is the ancestor of the domestic dog (Burns, 2009;
Hemmer, 1990; Wayne & O‟Brien, 1987; Wayne et al., 1987; Mech,
1970) and can be traced back to three female wolves (Townend,
2009), although it is likely that current breeds derive from different
types of wolf (Derr, 2012: Clutton-Brock, 1999; Riddle, 1987) as
shown geneticallyby Bridgett et al. (2010) (see figure 1).
13. Figure 1 - Genome-wide SNP and haplotype analyses reveal a rich
history underlying dog domestication.(Bridgett et al., 2010)
There is little question that wolves became domesticated due to
humans taking pups and taming them to assist with hunting
14. (Serpell, 1995), followed by use for herding after the
commencement of livestock breeding (Gibson, 1996).
The first evidence of dogs living with man is from 14,000 years ago
(Morey, 2006). Canine evolution has specialised through tandem
repeats of DNA (Savolainenet al., 2000) (an exaggeration of a
particular attribute) via selective breeding, this has shaped the dog
breeds we have today, however internal anatomy and physiology is
only differentiated in size when comparing wolves and dogs
(Schultze, 1998: Yarnall, 1998).
Dogs have only been separated into breeds for around 300-400
years, and have only had a central register for breeds in the UK
since 1873 (The Kennel Club, 2008).
1.2 The Evolution of Canine Food
“The wolf‟s diet consists almost entirely of highly concentrated and
easily digested fat and protein”, obtained by the majority from deer,
moose, caribou, elk, sheep, beaver, bison and hare, their
preference when it comes to domestic animals are: cattle, sheep,
deer, horse, pig and goat (Mech, 1970). Smaller prey are known to
be mice, mink, muskrats, squirrels, rabbits, birds, fish, lizards &
snakes in addition to grass-hoppers, earthworms, berries and
15. duck.Wolves tend to eat in a specific order, first rump, then
intestines, followed by heart, lungs, and liver, but never the stomach
(Mech, 1970).
Wolves assisting the hunt were undoubtedly fed scraps from the kill
and are known to have scavenged waste from human
encampments (Serpell, 1995). The delineation between working
dogs and pets cannot have occurred until there was inequality
within the realms of men, as basic hunter gatherers would not have
had a food surplus for non-productive pets.
The first dog specific food was a biscuit sold in 1856 (Purina, N.D.)
by James Spratt, made from wheat, vegetables, beetroot and beef
blood (see figure 2), very similar to the Bonio made today by Nestle.
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 horse
meat as in the 1930‟s vast numbers of horses and mules were
being 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 fresh
meat and vegetables lead to the use of waste products from the
human food industry and the initiation of dried foods. Changing from
the use of expensive ingredients to grains for energy, legumes for
calcium, seeds for fat soluble vitamins etc. (McNamara, 2006).
18. Dried food as it is known today started hitting the shelves in large
bags made by Purina in 1957. The popularity of dried food
increased dramatically in the 1980‟s and has seen an increase in
market share of 90% in the last decade (PFMA, 2011).
1.3 Revolution: Raw feeding
A raw diet is based on the premise that dogs are 99.8% wolf
(Wayne, 1993) and therefore should eat a diet more akin to their
ancestor. Books written on raw feeding with menu
recommendations are often used as guides by pro-raw feeders,
dominated mostly by those of Ian Billinghurst (2001), Thomas
Lonsdale (2001) (Australian Veterinary Surgeons) and Juliette de
Baïracli Levy (1992).
The above detailed books advocate raw feeding as being both more
natural and healthier for animals, however they do not back this with
science, a new self-published book however does (Griffith, 2012),
but does not reference its data.
Whilst pet food manufacturers show clearly the science of their
recipes and have shown that there are bacteria issues with raw food
(Weeseet al., 2005)with regards to what goes and in and what
comes out of the animal (Case et al., 2011).
19. 1.4 Canine Digestion
In order to assess which foods and diets are more species
appropriate, and therefore promote health, it is important to consider
the physiology of the gastro-intestinal tract and how certain foods
affect it (Hofmann, 2000).
Dogs have strong stomach acid and a relatively short intestinal
tract, with a fast transit time (Mash, 2011). An incorrect diet can
produce changes in absorptive function, which are associated with
damage to colonic microstructure (Rolfe et al., 2002).
1.4.1 Apprehension
Canine teeth and the scissor action of their jaw have evolved
to puncture and rip flesh from carcasses, with shearing
carnassials (Wayne & Vila, 2001) and crushing post-
carnassials (Bradshaw, 2006).
1.4.2 Mastication& Swallowing
Dogs have little to no lateral jaw movement due to the
grounding of the temperomandibular joint by the postglenoid
process, preventing the possibility of dislocation during the
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, as
starch is not a large part of their natural daily intake (Mech,
1970).
Dogs have a wide oesophagus to allow large pieces of torn-
off food to pass to the stomach (Goody, 1997), due to the
limited amount of mastication performed.
1.4.3 Stomach
The canine stomach is where the majority of food breakdown
occurs through a combination of mechanical and chemical
digestion.
Gastrin is released from the stomach wall, which activates
the release of hydrochloric acid at a pH of 1-2 (National
Research Council, 2006). This pH level is kept low by diets
high in protein, but is raised by grains, rendering lipase
irreversibly inactive below pH 1.5 and negatively effecting
pepsin activity over pH 2.0, (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 proteins
available (Brown & Taylor, 2005) therefore grains can have a
negative effect on digestion.
1.4.4 Duodenum
Chyme passes from the stomach to the duodenum after 4-8
hours (Brown & Taylor, 2005), where it is further broken
down by pancreatic enzymes, peristalsis and bile (Case,
2005). When working at peak efficiency pancreatic enzymes
and bile at a pH of 7.1-82 (Banta et al., 1979) are
bacteriocidal for Escherichia coli, Shigella, Salmonella and
Klebsiella and bacteriostatic for coagulase positive and
negative Staphylococci and Pseudomonas whilst inhibiting
Candida albicans (National Research Council, 2006).The
release of bile is in response to lipids, but only to the right
lipids (Erasmus, 1993), low fat diets will have reduced bile
release and there is therefore an increased risk of contraction
of said pathogens.
1.4.5 Jejunum
22. The jejunum is lined with villi, further capturing nutrients.
Proteins enable probiotics (good bacteria) to flourish in this
environment, however refined sugar and starch molecules
change the environment, making it unsuitable for the
probiotics to breed and feeding the pathogenic bacteria. This
can create an imbalance in this rather large part of the
immune system.
1.4.6 Ileum
Short chain fatty acids derived from unabsorbed starch and
fibre stimulate motility of the ileum (Scheppach, 1994:
Kamathet al., 1987) inhabited by anaerobic bacteria (National
Research Council, 2006).
1.4.7 Large Intestine
Movement is vital to the large intestine via peristalsis, certain
foods can affect the speed of movement and cause
constipation, this movement is slowed down if the diet is
grain rather than meat based (Brown & Taylor, 2005:
Clemens and Stevens, 1980), but can be sped up by high
fibre content, possibly leading to reduced absorption of
electrolytes and water (National Research Council, 2006).
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 diets
Commercial cooked diets have differing processes: dried food,
which contains raw and pre-cooked ingredients, is mixed, heat and
pressure extruded, formed, dried into shape and coated (Pet Food
Institute, 2010), having an effect on its‟ nutritional value (Lanhorstet
al., 2007). Canned or tinned foods also contain both raw and pre-
cooked ingredients, which are heat cooked and sterilised (Pedigree
Pet Foods, 1993). A raw diet is either served fresh or frozen to
maintain shelf life. Fatty Acids are not broken down by freezing,
even up to -80°, however most cells and whole organisms are
(Pond, 2000), in effect the freezing process can destroy most
pathogenic bacteria in the same way as cooking, but without the
deleterious effect of destroying the nutrients required for the health
and wellbeing of the consumer.
Regardless of nutritional differences between raw and cooked diet
ingredients, the digestibility of those nutrients in the form it is
provided is effected, the cooking process has an effect on vitamin
24. retention, the nature of proteins, digestibility and cellular use of the
resultant food stuffs.
1.5.1 Nutritional recommendations
The Waltham Centre for Pet Nutrition has produced a list of
minimum nutrient requirements for dogs per 400 Kilocalories
(kcal) of metabolisable energy (Kelly & Wills, 1996), however
this list only details, 5 of the 7 major minerals, (generally
required in large amounts by all animals), 6 of 10 essential
trace minerals, 12 vitamins, fat and protein content and 1
fatty acid. There are no recommendations for the myriad of
other vitamins, minerals and amino acids currently accepted
by the BSAVA (British Small Animal Veterinary Association)
as required, nor is there such a thing as a Recommended
Daily Allowance (RDA) as with human guidelines, or any
estimate of safe levels of nutritional bioavailability (Burger &
Rivers, 1989).
1.5.2 Ingredients
UK-made cooked pet foods may contain the following
ingredients according to DEFRA (2011):
• “material from animals that passed inspection for
human consumption prior to slaughter - hides, skins,
horns, feet, pig bristle, feather and blood (unless they
are from ruminants requiring TSE testing, in which
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 can
be included in these cooked and raw products.
1.5.3 Ingredient effects on digestion
28. The starch content and reduced protein content of dried and
tinned foods, whilst increasing energy availability, inactivates
lipase and pepsin by reducing the acidity of hydrochloric acid
in the stomach, having a negative effect on protein digestion
(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 reducing
retention time and digestibility of other ingredients (National
Research Council, 2006; Silvio et al., 2000; Harmon et al.,
1999; Muir et al., 1996; Colonna et al.,1992; Fahey et al.,
1990: Fernandez & Phillips, 1982; Burrows et al., 1982), lead
to dental disease (Baer & White, 1961; Auskapset al., 1957)
and consequently systemic diseases (Yudkin, 1969) and
impact the immune response (Field et al., 1999).
Manufactured pet foods are high in water soluble fibre, this is
kept in the stomach for longer, slowing down stomach
digestion (Fogle, 2002). It is also high in insoluble fibre,
retaining water, speeding up movement through the
intestines and bulking out faecal matter (Fogle, 2002);
without which it would be diarrhoea (Strombeck, 1999).
These adjustments of the speeds at which digestion occurs
in differing areas of the gastro-intestinal tract, affects the
29. amounts of individual nutrients are able to be absorbed, as
different areas of the gastro-intestinal tract concentrate on
the digestion and absorption of different nutrients.
This insoluble fibre may be fermenting or non-fermenting,
fermenting fibre is actively digested by bacteria in the large
intestine, slowing down transport and having a negative
effect on the digestion of proteins (National Research
Council, 2006) and a negative effect on the immune
response (Field et al., 1999).
Biologically appropriate food is high in fresh meat protein,
and low in carbohydrates (Diezet al., 2002), as dogs have no
requirement for carbohydrates in their diet (Baldwinet al.,
2010; National Research Council, 1985).Raw meat has 95%
digestibility, a positive effect on stomach acid pH and
absorption (National Research Council, 2006), however a
raw diet has not been fully investigated for its health benefits
or failures.
1.5.4 Effects of cooking
Cooking de-natures proteins (Fester Kratz, 2009: Pond,
2000) altering their physical and chemical structure by
30. literally unfolding it‟s genetic structure (Fester Kratz, 2009).
Only folded polypeptides are functional, these control
metabolism, transport, communication and basic cell function
(Fester Kratz, 2009), therefore as cooking proteins renders
them inert, all these basic functions will be adversely
effected.
Cooking also impairs the storage stability of vitamins and
minerals (Lugwigshafenet al., 1984).Phospholipids found in
the cell walls of plant and animal material and essential for
the health of each living cell are also broken down by heat
(Pond, 2000). Phospholipids are needed in great quantities
by the immune system, especially in the formation of purulent
material in infected wounds (Pond, 2000).
A long term experiment by Francis Pottenger (1983) showed
a generational difference between cats fed a raw or cooked
diet (see table 1). These animals were fed meat, cod-liver oil
and milk, with one set raw and one cooked, the experiment
lasted 10 years. Whilst this experiment was performed on
cats rather than dogs, the premise is the same.
Table 1- Generationally produced health of raw verses
cooked diet in cats.(Pottenger, 1983)
31. Cooked diet Raw diet
Reproduction Heterogeneous Reproductive
reproduction, with total ease
sterility by the fourth
generation
Physical physical degeneration, Optimal health
Aspects increasing with each
generation
Tooth Smaller palates with over Wide palates
overcrowding crowding and crossing of with plenty of
teeth space for teeth
Bone density Bones became soft & Good bone
pliable structure and
density
Endo &Ecto Vermin and parasites No parasites
parasites abounded
Behaviour Suffered from adverse Gentleness
personality changes
Disease 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 diets
Most cooked diets contain carbohydrates in the form of grains,
these are often protein and fibre rich sources of nutrition, however
the starch content has been known to increase weight gain
(National Research Council, 2006).
1.7 Coat effects of Nutrition
Nutrition has been shown to have an effect on coat condition, these
observable effects can also be indicative of other visceral issues.
1.7.1 Deficiencies
In order to grow a thick glossy coat, dogs need good quality protein
and oils, with the nature of these being affected by the cooking
process, there is a likelihood of reduced gloss and increased
dandruff.
Course, dry hair is due to a deficiency of particular fats (Codner&
Thatcher, 1990), most notably essential fatty acids (EFAs)
(Erasmus, 1993) these are often the first signs of a fatty acid
deficiency which can lead to visual impairment, polyneuropathy and
reduced learning ability (Tinoco, 1979; Holman et al., 1982;
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 blood
vessels with an increased tendency to bruise, decreased wound
healing, hypertrophy of sebaceous glands and an increase in water
loss from the epidermis, along with other degenerative changes in
organs and fragile cell membranes (Hansen et al, 1948 & 1954;
Hansen & Weise, 1951; Weise et al., 1965 & 1966;Holman, 1971).
EFAs are Linoleic acid and Alpha-linolenic acid, otherwise known as
Omega 6 and Omega 3 respectively. Deficiencies in Omega 6
produce eczema-like skin conditions and hair loss, which can be
signs of other visceral issues i.e. hepatic and renal degeneration
and cardiac dysfunction (Erasmus, 1993).
Another observable deficiency with regard to coat condition is a
greying coat, which has been recognised as a “clear sign of zinc
deficiency” (Burger & Rivers, 1989).
1.8 Oral effects of raw and cooked diets
According to the British Association of Veterinary Dentistry, 80% of
dogs over the age of 3 have periodontal disease (see figure 4)
34. (Milella, N.D.; Hamp et al., 1984) which can be up to 40% of the
workload of veterinary practices (Watkins, 2008) and susceptility
increases with age (Cox & Lepine, 2009).
Figure 4 - 80% of 3yr old dogs haveperiodontal disease. (Milella,
N.D.)
Bacteria found in tartar have been shown to produce an
immunological 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 of
tarter, the larger the immune response, which could have an effect
on the immune response of said animal to other pathogens.
Periodontal diseases have been associated with degeneration of
the hepatic, renal, circulatory and respiratory systems (DeBoweset
al., 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, (Doganet
al., 2007) and a bacterial overgrowth of intestinal microflora
(Barbaraet al., 2005) potentially leading to gum disease as bacterial
proliferate and begin to consume epithelial cells and blood.
In order to combat this problem pet food manufactures are
introducing polyphosphates into their diets in order to reduce tartar
(Cox &Lepine, 2002), and have developed specialist chews
designed in shape and consistency to effectively “brush the teeth” of
pets, as compared to manual and power brushing (Quigley & Hein,
1962) and therefore reduce the need for dental surgery (Logan,
2006; Kortegaardet al., 2008).
A raw diet includes raw bones, which whilst they do have the
potential to splinter and lodge in the gastro-intestinal tract, are much
less likely to do so than cooked bones (Mash, 2011) and do give the
animal the opportunity to clean their teeth via abrasion, a much
easier option with a quicker effect due to the chipping off of
calculus and tartar, than the other recommended routes of rope-toys
or tooth-brushing (Rawlings &Culham 1998; 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, in
order to increase the speed of peristalsis in the large intestine and
prevent constipation; this makes for rather soft faecal matter
(National Research Council, 2006). Raw diets are generally high in
bone content, not all of which is digested, making for harder faecal
matter. It could be argued that whilst there is a risk of constipation
on a raw diet, that conversely there is a risk of non-expressed anal
glands with a cooked diet.
Aims and Objectives
The Aim of this study was to investigate if there is an
observable differential in coat condition, body condition, oral
health and faecal consistency of pet dogs dependent on
whether they are fed a cooked or raw diet.
The objectives of the study were:
To ascertain if there is a difference in body condition
of dogs on raw or cooked diets.
To ascertain if there is a difference in coat condition of
dogs on raw or cooked diets.
To ascertain if there is a difference in oral health of
dogs on raw or cooked diets.
To ascertain if there is a difference in faecal
consistency of dogs on raw or cooked diets.
39. 2.0 Method
2.1 The Study Subjects
The animals used in this study are all pets kept in private homesin
the East Midlands area of Britain.
The forty-one animals in this study were tested in their owners‟
presence, after pre-arrangement by a third party, either at their
home or at a dog show. Each dog was delayed from their normal
routine for no more than five minutes. The dogs were pre-selected
by a third party, therefore the tester was not aware until after testing
of what diet the dogs were on, also the owners were told that it was
a simple “Health Check” and were given no details as to the nature
of diet comparison for this test, making it „blind‟, reducing the risk of
bias when taking data.
A risk assessment was performed (Appendix 1 & 2), and an ethics
assessment (Appendix 3) and authorised by Moulton College tutors.
2.2 Method
Details of the name, age, sex and whether spayed or neutered,
along with details of how many minutes exercise each dog had per
40. day, were taken prior to scoring (detailed below); after which details
of diet, including treats and any history of veterinary dentistry, or
use of chew toys were taken, along with details of any health
issues.
2.2.1 Body Condition Score
Body condition was allotted a score 1-9 as per appendix 4
and discussed by Alex German (2010).
2.2.2 Coat Condition Score
Coat condition was allotted a score 1-5 for gloss, softness,
feel and scale as per appendix 5 and discussed by Rees et
al., (2001).
2.2.3 Oral Scoring
2.2.3.1 Plaque Check
Percentage visible plaque on upper canine and
primary carnassial were estimated by the same
researcher for all test subjects in order to maintain
consistency.
2.2.3.2 Tooth Colour
Each tooth on the left side of the upper jaw was
compared with dental colour charts (Appendix 6) and
41. numbered accordingly on a dog specific tooth chart
(Appendix 7).
2.2.3.3 Gum Colour
Gum colour was allotted a number 1-5, 1 being
anaemic, 5 being deep pink as per appendix 8.
2.2.3.4 Halitosis
Each dogs‟ breath was smelt and allotted a figure from
0-5 indicating the condition of the breath, 0 being
none, 5 being very bad. This was performed by the
same researcher for all test subjects in order to
maintain consistency.
2.2.4 Faecal consistency
Owners were asked to compare average faecal consistency with a
chart of recognisable foods for consistency, each numbered 1-9, 1
being like water, 9 being like „rock cake‟.
This system differs from the “Fecal Scoring System” produced by
Purina as it does not account for faecal consistency observed from
raw fed animals. It was deemed that the food comparison was
easier for owners to comprehend, after a small pilot trial.
42. 2.3 Statistics
Software used for analysis was Minitab version 13.20. Data was
grouped by diet into those fed a raw diet and those fed a cooked
diet. All data was normality checked, none of the data sets were
normally distributed therefore the Kruskal-Wallis test was utilised to
assess differences according to diet.
44. 3.0 Results
3.1 Body Condition
There was no significant effect of diet on body condition score when
analysed by Kruskal-Wallis (P=0.112; df=5; H=8.94) (see figure 5).
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 Cooked
Figure 5 – Body Condition Score Means (Standard Error = 0.158114
– 0.213001)
3.2 Coat Condition
There was asignificant effect of diet on three of the four areas
assessed 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
47. Figure 9 – Coat Condition Scale (Standard Error = 0.305505 –
0.211202)
3.3 Oral Health
3.3.1 Tooth Colour
There was variedsignificant effect of diet on tooth score when
analysed by Kruskal-Wallis, showing significant differences in tooth
colour, with raw fed dogs having whiter teeth in all but the K9 (tooth
204) (see table 3).
Table 3 - Kruskal-Wallis results for individual tooth colour
Tooth No P Value df H
201 0.002 8 24.13
202 0.002 8 24.13
48. 203 0.004 9 24.48
204 0.544 8 6.93
205 0.022 10 20.87
206 0.022 10 20.87
207 0.021 10 20.94
208 0.021 10 20.94
209 0.021 10 20.94
210 0.021 10 20.94
Whilst there was no significant effect of diet on mean tooth colour
when analysed by Kruskal-Wallis (P=0.116; df=24; H=32.44) the
data does show a trend, that the raw fed dogs had whiter teeth (see
figure 10).
Mean Tooth Colour per Diet
8
7
6
Tooth Colour
5
4
3
2
1
0
Raw Cooked
Diet
Figure 10 – Mean tooth colour per diet (Standard Error = 0.26923 –
0.731765)
49. 3.3.2 Plaque Coverage
There was no significant effect of diet on plaque coverage of the
upper left canine when analysed by Kruskal-Wallis (P=0.087; df=10;
H=16.49).
There was a significant effect of diet on plaque coverage of the
upper left first carnassial, indicating reduced plaque coverage on
dogs fed a raw diet, when analysed by Kruskal-Wallis (P=0.006;
df=13; H=29.42) (see figures 11 and 12).
Percentage Plaque Coverage of K9
25
20
15
10 K9
5
0
raw cooked
Figure 11 – K9 Plaque Coverage (standard error = 0 - 0.032745)
50. Percentage Plaque Coverage of 1st
Carnassial
50
40
30
20 1st Carnassial
10
0
raw cooked
Figure 12 – 1st Carnassial Plaque Coverage (standard error =
0.015352 – 0.127409)
3.3.3 Gum Colour
There was no significant effect of diet on gum colour when analysed
by Kruskal-Wallis (P=0.232; df=3; H=4.29) (see figure 13).
Gum Colour
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2 Gum Colour
1.5
1
0.5
0
raw cooked
51. Figure 13 – Statistics from Gum Colour tests (Standard Error =
0.305505 – 0.127409)
3.3.4 Halitosis
There was a significant effect of diet on halitosis when analysed by
Kruskal-Wallis (P=0.000; df=3; H=23.07), with less halitosis in raw
fed animals (see figure 14).
Halitosis
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5 Halitosis
1
0.5
0
raw cooked
Figure 14 – Statistics from Halitosis tests (Standard Error = 0 –
0.286232)
3.4 Faecal Consistency
There was a significant effect of diet on faecal consistency when
analysed by Kruskal-Wallis (P=0.000; df=3; H=23.07), showing that
52. 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 cooked
Figure 15 – Statistics from faecal consistency results (Standard
Error = 0.133333 – 0.103695)
54. 4.0 Discussion
4.1 Body Condition
Whilst the average body condition score of dogs fed a cooked diet
was higher than those on a raw diet (see figure 5), implying that
cooked fed dogs carried more weight than raw fed dogs, statistical
analysis showed that the differential was not significant (P=0.112).
Body condition can imply health, particularly if a dog is significantly
overweight (13% of cooked fed dogs tested, no raw fed dogs),
which increases susceptibility to diabetes and heart conditions
(Banfield Pet Hospital, 2012), or underweight (23% of cooked fed
dogs tested, 10% of raw fed dogs) implying malnutrition and a
compromised immune system, however it has not proved significant
with the particular test subjects.
4.2 Coat Condition
Differences in coat condition of dogs can imply many things,
including nutrient deficiencies (Ackerman, 2008). Overall the
differences in coat condition were significant, showing that dogs on
a raw diet had healthier coats than those on a cooked diet.
.
4.2.1 Gloss
55. A glossy coat implies a good supply of oils and requires a balance
between Omega 3 and Omega 6, as demonstrated in Figure 6, this
was more evident in raw fed dogs with 80% of those tested having
optimum gloss, than cooked fed dogs with 32% of those tested
having optimum gloss, with a significance value ofP = 0.004.
4.2.2 Softness
Whilst rough coats are the breed standard in certain cases, this was
taken into account when scoring, Figure 7 shows that there was a
significant difference in the softness of the coats of dogs on cooked
or raw foods, with aP value of 0.000, showing that dogs on a raw
diet had soft coats (70%) as opposed to 42% of cooked fed dogs.
4.2.3 Feel
„Feel‟ refers to the absence of a greasy or dry feel to the coat,
therefore, if the scale was zero that meant that the coat neither felt
dry or greasy. There was a significant difference observed in the
feel of coats of dogs on different diets, observable in Figure 8 with a
P value of 0.001. Dryness or greasiness of a coat, is dependent on
a number of factors, a biotin or vitamin A deficiency (Ackerman,
2008), stress, a generic pre-disposition or other nutritional
imbalance.
56. Of the dogs tested the ones on a raw diet had better coat feel than
those on a cooked diet, with 90% having no dryness or greasiness
to their coats, as opposed to 55% of those on cooked food.
4.2.4 Scale
Scale refers to dandruff present in the dogs coats, whilst Figure 9
shows a clear difference between the amount of scale present on
the coats of raw feed dogs (20% with scale) compared to that of
cooked fed dogs (52% with scale), it was not statistically significant
P = 0.114.
4.3 Oral Health
All aspects of Oral Health analysed were better when the dogs in
question chewed bones. Dogs are “hypercarnivores (animals that
eat more than 70% meat)” (Gill, 2012) and have evolved to chew
bones,“providing periodontal stimulation” (Dierenfeld, 2005)
therefore it follows that this is advantageous to their health; whereas
dried pet foods crumble when chewed, providing little mechanical
removal of plaque (Millella, 2012).
The effect that diet had on teeth varied from one extreme (see
figure 16) to another (see figure 17), with the teeth of elderly cooked
57. fed dogs, closer to that of figure 16 and the teeth of elderly raw fed
dogs, closer to that of figure 18.
Figure 16 – Minky the 15 yr old cooked fed terrier cross (Turner, 1,
2012)
58. 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)
59. 4.3.1 Tooth Colour
Individual tooth colours were statistically significant (see Table 3),
the mean data in Figure 10 shows an observable differential
between the tooth colours of dogs fed on a cookeddiet with an
average tooth colour of C1(see Appendix 5) or raw diet with an
average tooth colour B1 – A1 (see Appendix 5), the statistical
analysis deemed otherwise with a P value of0.116.
4.3.2 Plaque Coverage
Whilst the data in Figure 11 for plaque coverage of the K9 is not
considered statistically significant with a Pvalue of0.087, the
percentage of dogs with plaque coverage for these teeth on a raw
diet was 0% and on a cooked diet was 77%; showing a marked
difference.
The data in Figure 12 for plaque coverage of the first carnassial was
statistically significant with a P value of 0.006. Of the dogs on a raw
diet 40% had plaque on their first carnassial, whereas over 90% of
cooked fed dogs had plaque coverage.
Findings of this research confirm findings by Clarke & Cameron
(1998) showing that animals eating a species appropriate diet, had
60. significantly less plaque and calculus, due to eating a diet
containing bones.
4.3.3 Gum Colour
As seen in Figure 13 there was a marginal difference in gum colour
between the subjects tested, but this was not statistically significant
with a Pvalue of0.232.
4.3.4 Halitosis
There was a vast differential in halitosis (P=0.000) in the animals
tested, as seen in Figure 14, withover 87% of cooked fed dogs and
0% of raw fed dogs having bad breath.
This relates significantly to oral health, as most of the odour is a
bacterial waste product, either from the bacteria in plaque, tartar
and calculus on the teeth of from those within the digestive tract
(Brown & Taylor, 2005).
4.4 Faecal Consistency
There was a significant statistical difference (P = 0.000) between
the owners opinion on the consistency of their pets faecal matter, as
demonstrated in Figure 15. This shows that the consistency of
faecal matter of dogs fed on a raw diet, was closer to that of a wild
dog or wolf (Mech, 1970), was much harder and therefore going to
61. have a more positive outcome on anal glands than that of dogs on a
cooked diet. Only one of the dogs tested had an anal gland
problem, this dog was on a cooked diet.
4.5 Overall
Whilst condition scoring methods are considered subjective, they
“perform the job adequately”according to Ackerman (2008).
Diagnosis of nutrient deficiencies are much more common than
those of overdose (McNamara, 2006), indication of deficiencies
have been noted here, with examples of:
Crusty lesions of nares – indicating Vitamin A deficiency
(Ackerman, 2008)
Dry, scaly skin, brittle hair – indicating Biotin deficiency
(Ackerman, 2008)
Poor skin and coat condition – indicating Zinc
deficiency(Ackerman, 2008)
These examples were not found in raw fed dogs.
A large differential in not only the way these animals have been fed,
but the constituent ingredients and nutrient degeneration, when
looked at in combination with details on how canine digestion
functions, shows that starchy foods such as grains and potato that
are utilised in cooked diets to increase energy consumption,
62. decrease the ability of the dog to digest protein, necessary for
effective digestion in many areas of the gastro-intestinal tract. This
negative effect on digestion, impacts nutritional absorption, and
therefore cellular function. If each individual cell is malnourished,
then so is the animal, which has a further negative impact on
immunity and therefore health.
The consistency differential between cooked and raw foods has an
effect on oral health (Watson, 2005: Morley et al., 2006:
Chengappaet al., 1993), with soft cooked foods and crumbly dried
foods having little to no effect on the removal of plaque, whilst
bones being highly abrasive provide effective removal. Starch
contained in cooked foods also have an effect, as starch feeds the
bacteria present in plaque, due to not being able to be broken down
in any way whilst in the oral cavity due to the lack of amylase in
canine saliva. Whilst national statistics show that 80% of dogs over
the age of 3 have periodontal disease (Millela, N.D.) and the
number one diagnosis for dogs over the age of 3 in America is
periodontal disease (Banfield Pet Hospital, 2012), it is evident that
there are issues with oral health that relate highly to diet.
Vegetation utilized in both types of diets, have differing effects on
health, with raw vegetables having been shown to have a lower risk
for cancer than cooked vegetables (Micozziet al., 1989). A raw diet
63. has better retention of nutrients and provides the ability to utilise
proteins and lipids whereas the cooking process can destroy
vitamins and minerals and denatures proteins and lipids rendering
them useless to the consumer. This has been reflected in the
results with significant differences in coat condition, oral health and
faecal consistency, where those dogs on a raw diet presented as
healthier in these areas, indicating improved visceral health and
therefore improved general health.
4.6 Limitations
This study was limited to 41 pet dogs, on a wide variety of diets,
including tinned, dried, and raw, made by a number of differing
manufacturers with differing formulations, or concocted by the
owners themselves, whose expertise in animal nutrition was varied.
The dogs were of differing breeds, ages and sexes, and came from
a number of different environments, with individual exercise routines
and medical statuses.
A more concise results could be obtained, by taking a number of
same breed, preferably closely related bitches, feeding them a
variety of diets from weaning, i.e. exact same diet raw, home
cooked, tinned and dried, (using pet food manufacturer procedures
on the later two types of diet), for 1 year, mating them to the same
64. male, keeping their environment, and all other factors constant and
following their and their pups nutritional and health progress until
their natural death.
In this type of laboratory situation, with conditions kept stable at all
times, liver and kidney function tests could be monitored, as well as
hair analysis, urea and faecal testing. Precise measurements could
be taken on nutrition both being provided and passed, in order to
access what was digested and utilised by the body, which in
combination with health statistics would provide a clear analysis of
canine health dependent on food preparation technique.
66. 5.0 Conclusions
Annual veterinary health checks are performed mainly by
observational methods (as well as listening to heart and lungs) and
include checking for skin and coat issues (Purina, 2012) some of
these methods can be employed by the average layman in order to
assess the health status of a pet dog.
These tests can imply potential health issues, i.e. the risk of
diabetes via body condition scoring, deficiencies in certain nutrients
via coat condition scoring, the potential for periodontitis via tooth
colour and plaque, issues with renal, hepatic, and cardiovascular
systems implied by plaque, tartar and calculus accumulation, and
issues with the digestive tract via halitosis & faecal matter
consistency.
Overall the conditions of subjects included in the study was good,
with subjects that were fed a raw diet, showing better results with
regards to coat condition, oral health and faecal consistency, which
are indicative of health at a cellular level. In order for this to be
achieved both the nutrition and digestion of these dogs, must be
better, as cells cannot be at optimum health without them.
67. The coat condition differential was noticeable, implying a greater
absorption of essential fatty acids, biotin and zinc. The oral health
differential was similarly noticeable implying improved teeth
cleaning qualities of raw diets, most notably from the inclusion of
bones in the diet, and showed a significant improvement on
halitosis, due to the lack of effluent produced by the metabolism of
pathogenic bacteria, also implying greater immunity to such
pathogens and reduced risk of associated diseases to the hepatic,
renal and cardiac systems.
This research implies improved health in raw fed dogs, compared to
that of cooked fed dogs, with raw feeding owners spending a great
deal of time researching and preparing what they believe to be a
nutritionally complete diet, having a greater effect on health than
owners who simply fed a pre-packaged, „balanced‟ cooked diet.
Word Count: 7602
69. 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
70. 6. Auskaps, A. Grupta, O. & Shaw, J. (1957) Periodontal
disease in the Rice Rat. III. Survey of Dietary Influences.
Journal of Nutrition. 63:325-343
7. AVMA (2009) Frequently Asked Questions about Caring for
an Older Pet. [Online] Available from:
http://www.avma.org/animal_health/care_older_pet_faq.asp
[accessed 07/07/2012]
8. AVMA (2012) Policy on Raw or Undercooked Animal-Source
Protein in Cat and Dog Diets. [Online] Available from:
http://atwork.avma.org/wp-
content/uploads/2012/07/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. 32:328-330
10. Baldwin, K. Bartges, J. Buffinton, T. Freeman, L. Grawbow,
M. Legred, J. & Ostwald, D. (2010) AAHA Nutritional
71. Assessment Guidelines for Dogs and Cats. Journal of the
American Animal Hospital Association. 46:286-296
11. Banfield Pet Hospital (2012) State of Pet Health 2012 Report.
[Online] Available from:
http://www.stateofpethealth.com/pdf/State_of_Pet_Health_20
12.pdf [accessed 07/07/2012]
12. Banta, C.A. Clemens, E.T. Krinsky, M.M. &Sheffy, B.E.
(1979) Sites of Organic Acid Production and Patterns of
Digestive Movement in the Gastrointestinal Tract of Dogs. J.
Nutr. 109:1592-1600
13. Barbara, G. Stanghellini, V. Brandi, G. Cremon, C. Di Nardo,
G. De Giorgio, R. &Corinaldesi, R. (2005) Interactions
Between Commensal Bacteria and Gut Sensorimotor
Function in Health and Disease. The American Journal of
Gastroenterology. 100:2560-2568
14. Benamghar, L. Penaud, J. Kaminsky, P. Abt, F. & Martin, J.
(1982) Comparison of Gingival Index and Sulcus Bleeding
72. Index as Indicators of Periodontal Status. Bulletin of World
Health Organisation. 60[1]:147-151
15. Billinghurst, I. (2001) The Barf Diet, Warrigal Publishing, New
South Wales, Australia p. 17, 29-46
16. Bradshaw, J. (2006) The Evolutionary Basis for the Feeding
Behavior of Domestic Dogs (Canisfamiliaris) and Cats
(Feliscatus) Journal of Nutrition. 136:1927-1937
17. Bridgett, M. vonHoldt, John P. Pollinger, Kirk E. Lohmueller,
Eunjung Han, Heidi G. Parker, Pascale Quignon, Jeremiah
D. Degenhardt, Adam R. Boyko, Dent A. Earl, Adam Auton,
Andy Reynolds, 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
73. 18. British Veterinary Journal (1876) Advert British Veterinary
Journal 4
19. Brosey, B.P. Hill, R.C. & Scott, K.C. (2000) Gastrointestinal
Volatile Fatty Acid Concentrations and pH in Cats. American
Journal of Veterinary Research. 61:359-361
20. Brown, S. & Taylor, B. (2005) See Spot Live Longer. Oregon.
Creekobear Press
21. Brown-Borg, H. Anderson, R. McCarter, R. Morley, J. Musi,
N. Olshansky, S.J. Shukitt-Hale, B. St. Jaques, P. Walson, J.
& Wilcox, B. (2012) Nutrition in Aging and Disease: Update
on Biological Sciences. Aging Health. 8[1]:13-16
22. Bruce, K. (2001) Dog Owners Voice Concern Over High Vet
Fees, [Online] K9 Online, K9 Media Solutions Ltd, Notts,
from:
http://www.pressbox.co.uk/detailed/International/Dog_Owner
s_Voice_Concern_Over_High_Vet_Fees_1064.html
(accessed 07/04/2010)
74. 23. Burger, I.H. & Rivers, J.P.W. (1989) Waltham Symposium 7
Nutrition of the Dog and Cat. Cambridge University Press.
Cambridge p. 14
24. Burns, J. (2009) Domestic Dog Origins Challenged, BBC
News, from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8182371.stm
(accessed 06/03/2010)
25. Burrows, C.F. Kronfeld, D.S. Banta, C.A. & Merritt, A.M.
(1982) Effects of Fibre on Digestibility and Transit Time in
Dogs. Journal of Nutrition. 112:1726-1732
26. Carpentier, Y. Woussen-Cokre, M.C. & de Graef, J. (1977)
Gastric Secretions from Denervated Pouches and Serum
Gastrin Levels After Meals of Different Sizes of Meat
Concentration in Dogs. Gasteroenterol Clinical Biology.1:29-
27
27. Carriere, F. Moreau, M. Raphel, V. Largier, R. Berricourt, C.
Junien, J. & Verger, R. (1991) Purification and Biochemical
Characterizaion of Dog Gastric Lipase. Eur. J.
Biochem.202:75-83
75. 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. 170
30. Chengappa, M. M. Staats, J. Oberst, R.D. Gabbert, N.H. &
McVey, S. (1993) Prevalence of Salmonella in Raw Meat
used in Diets of Racing Greyhounds. Journal of Veterinary
Diagnostic Investigation. 5[3]:372-377
31. Clarke, D.E. & Cameron, A. (1998) Relationship between
Diet, Dental Calculus and Periodontal Disease in Domestic
and Feral Cats in Australia. Australian Veterinary
Journal.76[10]:690-693
32. Clemens, E.T. & Stevens, C.E. (1980) A Comparison of
Gastrointestinal Transit Time in Ten Species of Mammals.
Journal of Agricultural Science.94:735
76. 33. Clutton-Brock, J. (1999) A National History of Domesticated
Mammals, Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, (Inside
Cover, p 25-128, 190-191)
34. Codner, E.C. & Thatcher, C.D. (1990) The Role of Nutrition in
the Management of Dermatoses. Semin. Vet. Med. Surg.
(Sm. Animal) 5:167-177
35. Conner, W.E. Nuringer, M. &Reisback. S. (1992) Essential
Fatty Acids: The Importance of n-3 Fatty Acids in the Retina
and Brain. Nutr. Rev. 50:2129
36. Cox, E.R. &Lepine, A.J. (2002) 2793 Use of Polyphosphates
in Canine Diets to Control Tartar. Seq #257 – Nutritional
Factors and Dental Health. IADR/AADR/CADR 80th General
Session (March 6-9, 2002) San Diego, California
37. Cox, E.R, &Lepine, A.J. (2009) Influences on Dental Health
in the Field Dog. P&G Pet Care Publications. 4[1]:51-58
38. De Baracli Levy, J. (1992) The Complete Herbal Handbook
for the Dog and Cat. Faber and Faber, London
77. 39. DeBowes, L. Mosier, D. & Logan, E. (1996) Association of
Periodontal Disease and Histologic Lesions in Multiple
Organs from 45 Dogs. Journal of Veterinary
Dentistry.13[2]:57-60
40. Defra (2011) Pet Food Manufacturers. [Online] Defra,
London. Available from:
http://animalhealth.defra.gov.uk/managing-
disease/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 Overlook
42. Dierenfeld, E. S. (2005) Nutrition of Captive Cheetahs: Food
Composition and Blood Parameters. Zoo Biology.12[1]:143-
150
43. Diez, M. Nguyen, P. Jeusette, I. Devois, C. Istasse, L.
&Biourge, V. (2002) Weight Loss in Obese Dogs: Evaluation
of a High-Protein, Low-Carbohydrate Diet. Journal of
Nutrition.132:1685-1687
78. 44. Dogan, E. Okumus, Z. &Yanmaz, L. (2007) Periodontal
Diseases in Pet Animals. Veterinary Research.1[1]:17-22
45. Erasmus, U. (1993) Fats that Heal – Fats that Kill. Canada.
Alive Books.
46. Fahey, G.C. Merchen, N.R. Corbin, J.E. Hamilton, A.K.
Serbe, K.A. Lewis, S.M. &Hirakawa, D.A. (1990) Dietary
Fibre for Dogs: I. Effects of Graded Levels of Dietary Beet
Pulp on Nutrient Intake, Digestibility, Metabolizable Energy
and Digesta Mean Retention Time. Journal of Animal
Science.68[12]:4221-4228
47. Fernandex, R. & Phillips, S.F. (1982) Components of Fibre
Impair upon Iron Absorption in the Dog. American Journal of
Clinical Nutrition.35:107-112
48. FesterKratz. R. (2009) Molecular and Cell Biology for
Dummies. New Jersey. Wiley Publishing Inc.
79. 49. Food and Nutrition Board (1989) Recommended Dietary
Allowances, National Academies Press, Washington D.C. p1-
9
50. Fogle, B. (2002) Caring for your Dog. Dorling Kindersley Ltd.
London
51. Field, C.J. McBurney, M.I. Massimino, S. Hayek, M.G.
&Sunvold, G.D. (1999) The Fermentable Fibre Content of the
Diet Alters the Function and Composition of Canine Gut
Associated Lymphoid Tissue. Veterinary Immunology and
Immunopathology. 72:325-341
52. German, A. (2010) Obesity in Companion Animals. In
Practice.32:42-50
53. Gibson, N. (1996) Wolves. Morayshire. Colin Baxter
Photography.
54. Gill, V. (2012) Dogs‟ Evolution Shows Why They „Love‟
Gnawing on Bones. Canada, BBC. [Online] Available from:
80. http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/18767817 [Accessed
10/07/2012]
55. Goldston, R.T. (1989) Geriatrics and Gerontology. The
Veterinary Clinics of North America, Small Animal
Practice.19[1]:202
56. Goody, P.C. (1997) Dog Anatomy. J.A. Allen, London
57. Gordon, P.H. (2001) Anorectal Anatomy and Physiology.
Gastroenterology Clinics of North America.30[1]:1-13
58. Gorrel, C. (1998) Periodontal Disease and Diet in Domestic
Pets. Journal of Nutrition.128[12]:2712-2714
59. Griffith, C. (2012) The Best Dog Diet Ever by Caroline
Griffith. Northampton. Love, Woof & Wonder Publishing.
60. Hamp, S.E. Olsson, S.E. Farso-Madsen, K. Vilands, P
&Fornell, J. (1984) A Macroscopic and Radiological
81. Investigation of Dental Diseases in the Dog. Veterinary
Radiology. 25:86-92
61. Hansen, A.E. Weise, H.F. & Beck. O. (1948) Susceptibility to
Infection Manifested by Dogs on a Low Fat Diet. Fed.
Proc.7:289
62. Hansen, A.E. & Weise, H.F. (1951) Fat in the Diet in Relation
to Nutrition of the Dog. I Characteristic Appearene and Gross
Changes of Animals fed Diets with and without Fat. Tex.
Rep. Biol. Med. 9:491-515
63. Hansen, A.E. Sinclair, J.G. & Weise, H.F. (1954) Sequence
of Histologic changes in Skin of Dogs in Relation to Dietary
Fat. J. Nutr. 52:541-554
64. Harmon, D.L. Walker, J.A. Silvio, J.M. Jamikorm, A.M. &
Gross, K.L. (1999) Nutrient Digestibility in Dogs Fed Fibre-
containing Diets. Veterinary Clinical Nutrition.6:6-8
82. 65. Hemmer, H., 1990, Domestication – the decline of
environmental appreciation, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge p. 35-80
66. Hoffmann, R.R. (2000) The Structure of Digestive Systems in
the Feeding of Mammals: A Comparative Approach. In:
Nijboer, J. Hatt, J.-M. Kaumanns, W. Beijnen, A. &Gansloβer,
U. (Eds) Zoo Animal Nutrition. Furth. Filander-Verl. 163-181
67. Holman, R.T. (1971) Essential Fatty Acid Deficiency. Prog.
Chem. Fats Lipids. 9:275-348
68. Holman, R.T. Johnson, S.B. & Hatch, T.F. (1982) A case of
Human Linolenic Acid Deficiency involving Neurological
Abnormalities. Am. J. Clin. Nutr.35:617-623
69. Jin, H.O. Lee, K.Y. Chang, T.M. Chey, W.Y. & Dubois, A.
(1994) Physiological role of Cholecystokinin on Gastric
Emptying and Acid Output in Dogs. Digestive Diseases and
Sciences. 39:2306-2314
70. Kamath, P.S. Hoepfner, M.T. & Phillips, S.F. (1987) Short-
chain Fatty Acids Stimulate Motility of the Canine Ileum.
American Journal of Physiology. 4:G427-G433
83. 71. Kelly, N. & Wills, J. (1996) Manual of Companion Animal
Nutrition and Feeding, BSAVA, Gloucester p. 254
72. Ken-L-Ration (1932) Advertisement
73. Kortegaard, H. Eriksen, T. &Baelum, V. (2008) Periodontal
Disease in Research Beagle Dogs – An Epidemiological
Study. Journal of Small Animal Practice.49:610-616
74. Lankhorst, C. Tran, Q. D. Havenaar, R. Hendriks, W. H. &
van der Poel, A. F. B. (2007) The Effect of Extrusion on the
Nutritional Value of Canine Diet as assessed by in vitro
indicators. Animal Feed Science and Technology.
138[3]:285-297
75. Logan, E. (2006) Dietary Influences on Periodontal Health in
Dogs and Cats. Veterinary Clinic of North American Small
Animal Practice.36[6]:1385-1401
76. Lonsdale, T. (2001) Raw Meaty Bones: Promote Health,
Rivetco, New South Wales
84. 77. Lugwigshafen, N. A. Bonn, G. B. Elmshorn, D. D.
Hess.Oldend, W. K. Cuxhaven, K. K. Grenzach, H. L. (1984)
Vitamins in Animal Nutrition, AWT, Bonn p.42
78. Mash, H. (2011) The Holistic Dog. The Crowood Press Ltd.
Marlborough
79. Maskell, I.E. & Johnson, V. (1993) Digestion and Absorption
p.25-44 In: The Waltham Book of Companion Animal
Nutrition. Burger, I. Ed Oxford, Pergamon Press
80. McAteer, A. (2012) Raw Meat for Dogs: Is the Theory Half
Baked? Canada. The Globe and Mail. [Online] Available
from: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/relationships/a-
raw-deal-why-more-owners-are-choosing-raw-food-for-their-
dogs/article4401112/ [Accessed 09/07/2012]
81. McNamara, J.P. (2006) Principles of Companion Animal
Nutrition. New Jersey. Pearson Prentice Hall.
85. 82. Mech, L.D. (1970) The Wolf – The Ecology and Behaviour of
an Endangered Species. University of Minnesota Press,
Minneapolis p. 168-192
83. Mech, L.D. &Boitani, L. (2003) Wolves: Behavior, Ecology
and Conservation. Chicago. University of Chicago Press.
84. Micozzi, M. S. Beecher, G.R. Taylor, P.R. &Knachik, F.
(1990) Carotenoid Analyses of Selected Raw and Cooked
Foods Associated With a Lower Risk for Cancer. Journal of
the National Cancer Institute. 82[4]:282-285
85. Milella, L. (N.D.) Understanding the Need for Dental
Treatment in Dogs. Educational Resources for Veterinarians.
British Veterinary Dental Association
86. Milella, L. (2012) Prophylactic Dental Care in Cats.
Veterinary Nursing Journal. 27:14-16
87. Morey, D. F. (2006) Burying Key Evidence: the Social Bond
Between Dogs and People, Journal of Archaeological
Science, 33[2]:158-175
86. 88. Morley, P. S. Strohmeyer, R. A. Tankson, J. D. Hyatt, D. R.
Dargatz, D. A. &Fedorka-Cray, P.J. (2006) Evaluation of the
Association between feeding of Raw Meat and Salmonella
enterica Infections at a Greyhound breeding facility. Journal
of the American Veterinary Medical
Association.228[10]:1524-1532
89. Muir, H.E. Murray, S.M. Fahey, G.C. Merchen, N.R. &
Reinhart, G.A. (1996) Nutrient Digestion by IlealCannulated
Dogs as Affected by Dietary Fibres with Various
Fermentation Characteristics. Journal of American Science.
74:1641-1648
90. National Research Council (1985) Nutrient Requirements of
Dogs. Washington D.C. National Academic Press
91. National Research Council (2006) Nutrient Requirements of
Dogs and Cats. Washington DC. The National Academic
Press
87. 92. Neuringer, M. Anderson, G.J. & Conner, W.E. (1988) The
Essentiality of the n-3 Fatty Acids for the Development and
Function of the Retina and Brain. Am. Rev. Nutr.8:517-541
93. Nonnenmacher, C. Flores-de-Jacoby, L. Dalpke, A.
Zimmerman, S. Mutters, R. &Hegg, K. (2002) 0767 DNA from
Periodontopathogenic Bacteria Induces Mouse and Human
Cells to Produce Cytokines. IADR/AADR/CADR 80th General
Session (March 6-9, 2002) San Diego, California
94. O‟Driscoll, C. (2005) Shock to the System.Abbeywood
Publishing (Vaccines) Ltd. London
95. Pavlica, Z. Petelin, M. Juntes, P. Erzen, S. Crossley, D.
&Skaleric, U. (2008) Periodontal Disease Burden and
Pathological Changes in Organs of Dogs. Journal of
Veterinary Dentistry. 25[3]:97-105
96. Pedigree Pet Foods, (1993) Product Information, Waltham,
Leicester
97. Pet Food Institute (2010) How Dry Pet Food Is Made.
[Online] Washington DC: Pet Food Institute. Available from:
88. 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
89. 102. Pottenger, F. (1983) Pottenger‟s Cats – A Study in
Nutrition, Price-Pottenger Foundation Inc, California
103. Purina (N.D.) Spillers Foods 1851-1900.[Online]
Available from:
http://www.purina.co.uk/apps/OurHistory/OurHistory.aspx?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
90. 106. Rawlings, J. &Culham, N. (1998) Halitosis in Dogs and
the Effect of Periodontal Therapy. Journal of
Nutrition.128:2715-2716
107. Rees, C.A. Bauer, J.E. Burkholder, W.J. Kennis, R.A.
Dunbar, B.L. &Bigley, C.E. (2001) Effects of Dietary Flax
Seed and Sunflower Seed Supplementation on Normal
Canine Serum Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids and Skin and
Hair Coat Condition Scores. Veterinary
Dermatology.12[2]111-117
108. Riddle, M. (1987) Dogs Through History, Denlinger,
Virginia p. 8-59
109. Roche (1976) Vitamin Compendium, F. Hoffmann-La
Roche & Co. Ltd, Basle, Switzerland p. 7
110. Rolfe, V.E. Adams, C.A. Butterwick, R.F. &Batt, R.M.
(2002) Relationships between Fecal Consistency and
Colonic Microstructure and Absorptive Function in Dogs with
and without Nonspecific Dietary Sensitivity. American Journal
of Veterinary Research. 63[4]:617-622
91. 111. Savolainen, P. Arvestad, L. & Lundeberg, J. (2000)
mtDNA Tandem Repeats in Domestic Dogs and Wolves:
Mutation Mechanism Studied by Analysis of the Sequence of
Imperfect Repeats. Molecular Biology.17[4]:474-488
112. Scheppach, W. (1994) Effects of Short Chain Fatty
Acids on Gut Morphology and Function. Gut.35:S35-S38
113. Schlesinger, D. P. &Joffe, D. J. (2011) Raw food Diets
in Companion Animals: A Critical Review. The Canadian
Veterinary Journal. 51[1]:50-54
114. Schultze, K.R. (1998) Natural Nutrition for Dogs and
Cats. California. Hay House Inc.
115. Serpell, J. (1995) The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution,
Behaviour and Interaction with People. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge P. 9-10
116. Strombeck, D.R. (1999) Home-prepared Dog and Cat
Diets. Iowa. Iowa State University Press.
92. 117. Tinoco, J. (1982) Dietary Requirments and Functions
of α-Linolenic Acid in Animals. Prog. Lipid. Res. 21:1-46
118. The Kennel Club (2008) About the Kennel Club.
[Online] Available from:
http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/aboutthekc [Accessed
16/07/2012]
119. Townend, L. (2009) Animals in the Womb: Dogs,
Channel 4, London
120. Turner, H.B. (2011) Annie the 13 yr old raw fed
Labrador. Photograph [online] Available from:
http://caninehealth101.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/annie-13-
year-old-raw-fed-labrador.html [accessed 13/07/2012]
121. Turner, H.B. (2012) Talen the 3 yr old raw fed German
Shepherd cross. Photograph [online] Available from:
http://caninehealth101.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/teeth-as-
indicator-of-health.html [accessed 13/07/2012]
122. Turner, H.B. (2012) Minky the 15 yr old cooked fed
terrier cross. Photograph. unpublished
93. 123. Uvay, R. Peirano, P. & Hoffman, D.R. (1989) Essential
Fatty Acid Metabolism and Requirements during
Development. Sem. Perinatol. 13:118-130
124. Vester, B.M. & Fahey, J.R. (2006) The Importance of
Nutrition in Coat Quality and Skin Health of Dogs and Cats.
Proceedings of Alltech‟s 22nd Annual Symposium. Lexington,
Kentucky, USA 23-26 April 2006 p. 261-267
125. Villareal, R. Ganong, W.F. &Gray, S.J. (1955) Effet of
Adrenocorticotrophic Hormone upon the Gastric Secretion of
Hydrochloric Acid, Pepsin and Electrolytes in Dogs.
American Journal of Physiology. 183:485-494
126. Warinner, C. (2012) Tracking Ancient Diseases using
… plaque. [Online] TED. Available from:
http://www.ted.com/talks/christina_warinner_tracking_ancient
_diseases_using_plaque.html (Accessed 24/04/2012)
127. Watkins, J.D. (2008) Letter Submitted to the
Veterinary Record. June 7 2008
94. 128. Watson, A.D.J. (2008) Diet and Periodontal Disease in
Dogs and Cats. Australian Veterinary Journal.71[10]:313-318
129. Wayne, R. K. (1993) Molecular Evolution of the Dog
Family. Trends in Genetics. 9[I6]:218-224 1/6/93, Elsevier
Ltd, Oxford
130. Wayne, R.K. & O‟Brien, S.J. (1987) Allozyme
Divergence within the Canidae. Systematic Biology.
36[4]:339-355 Oxford Journals, Oxford
131. Wayne, R.K. Nash, S.J. & O‟Brien, S.J. (1987)
Chromosomal Evolution of the Canidae. Cytogenetic and
Genome Research.44[2-3]:134-141 Karger, Basel,
Switzerland
132. Wayne, R. & Vila, C. (2001) The Genetics of the Dog;
Phylogeny and Origin of the Domestic Dog. Wallingford:
CAB. International. p. 1-13
133. Weese, J. S. Rousseau, J. & Arroyo, L. (2005)
Bacteriological Evaluation of Commercial Canine and Feline
Raw Diets. The Canadian Veterinary Journal.46[6]:513-516
95. 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
96. 135. Weise, H.F. Yamanaka, W. Coon. E. & Barber, S.
(1966) Skin Lipids of Puppies as Affected by Kind and
Amount of Fat and of Dietary Carbohydrate. J. Nutr.89:113-
122
136. Yarnall, C. (1998) Natural Dog Care. New Jersey.
Castle Books.
137. Yudkin, J. (1969) Dental Decay is Preventable: Why
not prevented? Br. Dent. J.127[9]:425-429
138. Zero, D. (2004) Sugars – The Arch Criminal? Journal
of Caries Research. 28:277-285
99. Appendix 1
Moulton College Risk Assessment
Risk RA No.
Assessment
Identified Hazard :
Risk of knocks or bites from subjects
Persons at Risk :
Author
Likelihood of Injury : 1Unlikely 2 Possible 3 Likely 1
4Very Likely
Severity of Injury : 1 Minor 2Major 3 Multiple 4 1
Fatality
90
100. Frequency of operation : 1Infrequent 2Weekly 3 Daily 2
4 Hourly
Controls in Place to Reduce Risk :
Never deal with the animals unless in the presence of the owner.
Author is a highly trained behavioural consultant and should be able to
mitigate any risks that present themselves.
Level of Risk : ( Low – Medium – High ) Low
Assessment By : Signed : Date
Date of Assessment Review :
Further Details of Assessment
91
101. Appendix 2
MoultonCollege Risk Assessment
Risk RA No.
Assessment
Identified Hazard :
Risk whilst driving to location
Persons at Risk : Author
Likelihood of Injury : 1Unlikely 2 Possible 3 Likely 2
4Very Likely
Severity of Injury : 1 Minor 2Major 3 Multiple 4 2
Fatality
Frequency of operation : 1Infrequent 2Weekly 3 Daily 2
4 Hourly
92
102. Controls in Place to Reduce Risk :
Care must be taken whilst making one mile trip to location. Author is a
confident driver with no points on license obtained over fifteen years ago.
Level of Risk : ( Low – Medium – High ) Low
Assessment By : Signed : Date
Date of Assessment Review :
Further Details of Assessment
93
103. Appendix 3
MoultonCollege
Approval for Undergraduate Research Projects
Name of student: Hope Turner
Name of supervisor: Dr. Wanda McCormick
Course: BSc (Hons) Applied Animal Studies
(Top-up)
Project title An assessment of whether cooked or
raw diets produce healthier pets (Canis
Lupus Familiaris)
Where will the project be Various locations in the East Midlands
carried out?
Brief outline of aims and Aim
objectives 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
104. condition scoring
Brief description of A number of dogs to be condition scored
methods (include species on body condition, coat condition, oral
and number of animals health and faecal consistency
used if appropriate)
Ethical Considerations Dogs only to be approached
whilst being handled by owners
and precautions Dogs not delayed from their
normal routine for more than 5
minutes each
Risks and precautions Risk whilst driving to location–
Pay attention whilst driving
Risk of knocks or bites from
subjects – author to only deal
with subjects in presence of
owner, owner to have backup of
author
Notes on discussion by panel/ additional precautions to be put in
place
95
105. Project approved by panel? Yes / No
Supervisor signature _________________________ date
_____________
Student signature __________________________ date
_____________
Supervisor at external __________________________date
_____________
Organization/ commercial unit (if appropriate)
96