Bacterial contamination in dog feed

[sandymere 8,263]

Lordy we have stirred up a good response lol. When I looked into the subject of canine nutrition I found a number of researches published that all suggested a risk of bacterial contamination with a variety of pathogens including E Coli and salmonella in pet meat, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC339295/ my reaction was one of interest and considered thought as to the risks that these studies suggested. I had planned to write a piece on this as it seemed an area that people would be interested in and in doing so would allow people to make informed choices especially those with young children. I expected the born again Barfists to take their usual evangelical stand with their heads in the sand but I’ve never been averse to a little barf baiting. The post about chicken mince prompted an earlier than planned response and has been answered with the usual twisting of what I said and as prescribed the expected denialism of the born again brigade.

I’d best clarify a couple of points raised.

First the research is reasonable valid and shows that a high percentage of these dogs would be carrying some dangerous bacteria, to deny this is at best naive and at worse frankly dangerous. One reply links these very dangerous bacteria with the idea of allowing children’s immune systems to be challenged by bacterial contamination. I agree with children being reared in a real rather than sterile environment but to suggest that these types of bacteria would be safe in this context is frankly ludicrous and positively dangerous. I agree the risks are small but they are real and the cost in terms of life threatening infection to a child need sto be taken seriously. We all have a responsibility when posting and when someone makes this type of post I can only hope they did so with out considering what they were inferring or without real knowledge of the subject. In either case it may well be time for them to stand back and take a good look at their knowledge base and where they get this information from.

Secondly these concerns have been raised by every major veterinary body in the western world and as such the idea that its all just made up and its because they’re all out to get us in the guise of pet food sellers is frankly silly. These sorts of announcements aren’t made lightly but after considered study of the available science and knowledge. We don’t have to change what we do, I still feed raw, but we should bare the information in mind rather than bury our heads in the sand. I now feed less butchers waste meat and more rabbit as the fresh frozen rabbit has a very low bacterial load. The idea that dogs are naturally supposed to eat high bacterial load food is also a little silly as their ancestors ate what they caught which again would have little in the way of salmonella or E coli.

Rather than hijack another’s post I thought that this warranted one of its own. I will make further posts in reply to individual statements made in reply to the chicken mince post when time is available but wished to give some answer sooner.

In replying please don’t put word in my mouth but rather quote me when querying anything I say.

Regards sandymere.

[Guest jt750]

Interesting read and makes a lot of sense, But i was led to believe that the acid in a dogs stomach was more powerful than ours and could deal with these bacteria incurring no harm to the dog. Also i understood that a dogs saliva also contained a natural anti bacterialogical agent which also rendered a lot of harmful agents harmless.

I never read the said thread about feeding raw ...lazy yes but it seemed another thread that had been done to death.

Saying this the bulk of my dogs diet is dry with starved days and raw fed days ...and the dry is for convenience and practical as opposed to what i feel is right

[Born Hunter 17,775]

Well from that all ive taken away is that dogs shite contains harmfull bacteria! Did we really need science to confirm that? I think we all know that when dealing with raw meat human hygene is a serious issue. EVERYONE knows the risks of salmonella and e-colli with raw chicken and pork. I really dont understand what the big issue is? If its really that much of a concern of yours just improve hygene when feeding your mutts, wash bowls immediately after use, wash all work surfaces, pick dog crap up with bags and dispose of correctly etc etc...

 

Or have i read all this too fast and missed the point?

[waidmann 105]

that a degree of care needs to be taken with kida and dogs(from the hygiene perspective)is clear i hope to all of us(i tell the kids who want to kiss the dogs"of course you can,but he's just been licking his bottom" this normally helps

kids have no place around dogs food bowls or faeces.

 

that a "wild dog" would only eat what is "caught" i very much doubt.they will eat the easiest food available including kills made by other animals/roads etc,some of which have been layed in the sun for hours/days which will undoubtedly have a VERY high level of bacteria,probably much higher than buthcers waste(kept refridgerated).pork can contain other problems of its own and i won't feed it.

our dogs are not wild/wolves and have been the charges of humans for thousands of years,feeding on waste,refuse and lord only knows what some dream up(the hound packs in germany around 1800 were fed on bread and water only).

 

i don't wish to sound calous in any way,i spend a great deal of time and effort on th diet of my dogs.

feeding raw and cooked meat,veg and dry food.

i think those who feed raw chicken(as i do) should be aware of the possible consequences,

good thread (i have also read the other threads on diet issues).

 

waidmann

[sandymere 8,263]

A quick response to the replies above.

 

Waidmann, thank you for your reply, I'd agree we need to take care re children and dogs but I know from experience that it's hard to keep kids and house dogs apart. In the main I was thinking along the lines of a dog with a lump of bone and meat will get it liberally spread across their forelegs, jaws etc and it was this type of thing that I considered worth highlighting. The dog will be covered in the bacterial spores for a long time and any young child petting that dog will be at potential risk as well as there being an ongoing risk from the garden etc. As you say hopefully people will consider general hygiene but we need to go a little beyond cleaning bowls etc if we have young children and house dogs.

 

jt750, as above thank you for your reply, a few years ago I would have said the same but I think we overestimate a dog’s stomach. The research, there have been a few along the same lines, would show us that the pathogens are not destroyed by the digestive process so are passed in an active form. From this it would be a sensible conclusion that they will have remained active in the gastrointestinal tract and so would be producing poisons that will be harmful to the dog. The extent of this is arguable but it’s perhaps not a good idea to keep this low grade poisoning going on a daily basis long term. The complete feed may not be perfect but the raw is also imperfect and perhaps a balance would achieve the best result. The saliva thing is again oversold, if it was as good as some would have us believe then dogs would never get any dental problems.

 

Born hunter, again thanks for your reply and yes you may have missed the point a little. It’s not just general gastrointestinal bacteria, that’s bad enough, but some pretty nasty ones including E Coli that have been found and of cause they are not just going to be in the poo but likely all over the dog. Now there will undeniable be risks with any dog food but it would seem to be increased with this feeding, pet quality raw meat, by increased bacterial incidence and spread, ie more with a lump that needs to be manipulated with leg/paws etc in comparison to a bowl of feed. The cooking and preservatives of completes reduce the incidence of bacterial contamination if they are stored properly etc though there is still risk though reduced. The science was in answer to the few born again barfists that are in denial as to the existence of this bacteria surviving digestion and its possibility of doing harm so yes I was helpful to be able to back up my assertions with a little real science. Sometimes we need to state the obvious to silence the few silly ones. As you say we need good hygiene but had you considered the residual bacteria on the dog itself, they don’t wash their hands etc, and in the garden, in spite of prompt picking up, and the risk when young children are sharing the environment? Perhaps keeping dogs out side rather than in the house would reduce the risk for those with young children who wish to feed pet quality raw, or using other food sources ie fresh frozed rabbit etc. We have people staying this weekend and i have hosed down the yard thoughly and not fed butchers waste for a few days, nothing is certain and the risks are small but I personally feel it's worth taking a little care as I know they will come straight in and want to fuss the dogs.

 

Regards sandymere.

[skellyb 8]

So explain, food with salmonella % dogs with salmonella 30% and of those 3 who tested positive

Of the 3 positive stool samples, 1 was from a dog whose food contained the same Salmonella serovar, 1 was from a dog whose food contained a different serovar, and the 3rd was from a dog whose food tested negative. So only one had the same strain of salmonella present as in its food.

Not exactly conclusive is it?

 

Perhaps you ought to also look at this

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5744a2.htm

Edited April 1, 2010 by skellyb

[sandymere 8,263]

Skelly perhaps because the samples were from differnt dogs eating different bacteria lol. the link is meant to prove what, I say there are risks with all food and sometimes the millions of dogs eating comercial foods will have problems but it's all a matter of percentages. Now you placed a long reply to the chicken mince topic so I'll reply it seems in the main to be copied from two web sites so I’ll start by looking at those.

 

The first, last up dated 05, by someone called Carissa, who it seems to be a vet school drop out or similar. She states four years of research into this topic but only references one book and no veterinary or dietetic journals, in fact nothing other than mention of a BARF book. She doesn’t own a dog but she does have a cat so must base all of this on a cat and Google research rather than experience of feeding dogs or real science. Basically it’s just personal opinion with no real experience of feeding dogs so well leave this one. With just a little giggle at one line where she states

 

“So do not be fooled into thinking kibbled, commercial pet food is a sterile, bacteria-free source of food! The starches, rancid fats, and sugars in kibbled foods provide much better food sources for bacteria than the proteins in raw meat.†(Carissa 05)

LOL now I may be wrong but aren’t sugar and fat used as preservative, in fact sugar in the form honey is used to stop bacterial proliferation of wounds and isn’t raw meat well known for bacterial contamination? She must live in a different world to the rest of us.

 

So the other web site, the UKRMB !!!! they even have a mission statement! Hold on tight here we go!

 

“The processed pet-food industry/veterinary/faux animal welfare alliance undermines and impoverishes the global community by:

* Inflicting cruelty, ill health and suffering on pets

* Misusing and abusing science and the media

* Harming human health, the human economy and natural environment

* Abusing democratic, administrative, educational and legal systems

UKRMB works to counter the harmful alliance and promote improved educational, administrative and scientific systems.†(UKRMD) (Sorry didn’t check the date sandy)

 

Lordy does anyone remember the Tooting popular front? (Have to be over 40) Cor I bet, they’re be the ones with the tin foil taped to their windows to stop the alien mind rays lol. I’m sorry if feeding complete feeds doing all that? In truth I’m really sorry that this load of old tosh is believed by people, its real tabloid science special on the lines of facebook causes syphilis or a particle accelerator will destroy the world lol. They keep repeating the same paranoid mantras over and over, the vets are all out to get us, all the research is against us etc etc so lets look at what truth there are to these claims. The three main claims seem to be;

 

1, Vets don’t know about nutrition. Well there is defiantly some truth to this in much the same way a GP won’t know a great deal about nutrition but bear in mind they will still know a lot more than the average layperson, ie the basic science and have experience of seeing a lot of ill dogs. Vets, like medical doctors, have choices in their career and some become practice vets and stay general whereas others will specialise either within a practice or in research. When a vet specialises they will carry out and publish research to progress in their chosen field, so if a vet does a paper on nutrition then it’s likely that they have a special interest in that area and so will know a lot more than your average vet, bit like going to a brain surgeon rather than a GP when you have a brain tumour. So in conclusion the average vet will know more than the average layman about nutrition and nutritional papers are written by people who specialise in this area so they do know what they’re talking about.

 

2, All the research is biased. Why would every vet looking to become a leader in the chosen specialist field be lying and altering the results of their studies? It’s just paranoia. The study I used was just a simple experiment, take 10 dogs on a raw food diet and 10 on commercial and compare the bacterial load. It’s not rocket science or pet food manufactures out to get us, just a simple experiment that could be carried out by any vet with a decent sized practice. Say Bilinghurst, he could have done similar if he wanted to change animal feeding, I’m sure he could have encouraged 10 owners to feed barf and compared the longer term health against 10 commercial fed dogs but he didn’t why because it would likely prove nothing and would mean he wouldn’t get lots of money from book sales etc. So a lot of research is carried out by pet food manufacturers but that doesn’t mean it has no value and a lot is carried out by vets specialising in the field which is likely to be independent. There are special places for those that think there all out to get them please see your GP.

 

3, It’s natural so must be better. Why? If a dogs working then lets use the best knowledge available to get the best performance, after all how many Olympians are eating a “natural diet†they will all be eating/drinking a diet based on proven science to maximise performance and recovery. I would ask how many BARF feeders have their children on a raw diet. If they really believed natural was best then they would be for exactly the same reasons they put their dog on it. ( if anyone has then they need locking up.)

 

Basically I read such sites with wonder at the self contradictory pseudo science and the knowledge that some people actually believe it. Laugh, I haven’t laughed so much since grandma died or Aunt Mable caught her left tit in the mangle.

All for now will return as time allows

Regards Sandymere.

[Hollie 21]

.

 

3, It's natural so must be better. Why? If a dogs working then lets use the best knowledge available to get the best performance, after all how many Olympians are eating a "natural diet" they will all be eating/drinking a diet based on proven science to maximise performance and recovery. I would ask how many BARF feeders have their children on a raw diet. If they really believed natural was best then they would be for exactly the same reasons they put their dog on it. ( if anyone has then they need locking up.)

 

 

 

They are still all alive and well!!!

 

http://www.poetv.com/video.php?vid=47119

[skellyb 8]

Skelly perhaps because the samples were from differnt dogs eating different bacteria lol. the link is meant to prove what, I say there are risks with all food and sometimes the millions of dogs eating comercial foods will have problems but it's all a matter of percentages. Now you placed a long reply to the chicken mince topic so I'll reply it seems in the main to be copied from two web sites so I’ll start by looking at those.

 

The first, last up dated 05, by someone called Carissa, who it seems to be a vet school drop out or similar. She states four years of research into this topic but only references one book and no veterinary or dietetic journals, in fact nothing other than mention of a BARF book. She doesn’t own a dog but she does have a cat so must base all of this on a cat and Google research rather than experience of feeding dogs or real science. Basically it’s just personal opinion with no real experience of feeding dogs so well leave this one. With just a little giggle at one line where she states

 

“So do not be fooled into thinking kibbled, commercial pet food is a sterile, bacteria-free source of food! The starches, rancid fats, and sugars in kibbled foods provide much better food sources for bacteria than the proteins in raw meat.†(Carissa 05)

LOL now I may be wrong but aren’t sugar and fat used as preservative, in fact sugar in the form honey is used to stop bacterial proliferation of wounds and isn’t raw meat well known for bacterial contamination? She must live in a different world to the rest of us.

 

So the other web site, the UKRMB !!!! they even have a mission statement! Hold on tight here we go!

 

“The processed pet-food industry/veterinary/faux animal welfare alliance undermines and impoverishes the global community by:

* Inflicting cruelty, ill health and suffering on pets

* Misusing and abusing science and the media

* Harming human health, the human economy and natural environment

* Abusing democratic, administrative, educational and legal systems

UKRMB works to counter the harmful alliance and promote improved educational, administrative and scientific systems.†(UKRMD) (Sorry didn’t check the date sandy)

 

Lordy does anyone remember the Tooting popular front? (Have to be over 40) Cor I bet, they’re be the ones with the tin foil taped to their windows to stop the alien mind rays lol. I’m sorry if feeding complete feeds doing all that? In truth I’m really sorry that this load of old tosh is believed by people, its real tabloid science special on the lines of facebook causes syphilis or a particle accelerator will destroy the world lol. They keep repeating the same paranoid mantras over and over, the vets are all out to get us, all the research is against us etc etc so lets look at what truth there are to these claims. The three main claims seem to be;

 

1, Vets don’t know about nutrition. Well there is defiantly some truth to this in much the same way a GP won’t know a great deal about nutrition but bear in mind they will still know a lot more than the average layperson, ie the basic science and have experience of seeing a lot of ill dogs. Vets, like medical doctors, have choices in their career and some become practice vets and stay general whereas others will specialise either within a practice or in research. When a vet specialises they will carry out and publish research to progress in their chosen field, so if a vet does a paper on nutrition then it’s likely that they have a special interest in that area and so will know a lot more than your average vet, bit like going to a brain surgeon rather than a GP when you have a brain tumour. So in conclusion the average vet will know more than the average layman about nutrition and nutritional papers are written by people who specialise in this area so they do know what they’re talking about.

 

2, All the research is biased. Why would every vet looking to become a leader in the chosen specialist field be lying and altering the results of their studies? It’s just paranoia. The study I used was just a simple experiment, take 10 dogs on a raw food diet and 10 on commercial and compare the bacterial load. It’s not rocket science or pet food manufactures out to get us, just a simple experiment that could be carried out by any vet with a decent sized practice. Say Bilinghurst, he could have done similar if he wanted to change animal feeding, I’m sure he could have encouraged 10 owners to feed barf and compared the longer term health against 10 commercial fed dogs but he didn’t why because it would likely prove nothing and would mean he wouldn’t get lots of money from book sales etc. So a lot of research is carried out by pet food manufacturers but that doesn’t mean it has no value and a lot is carried out by vets specialising in the field which is likely to be independent. There are special places for those that think there all out to get them please see your GP.

 

3, It’s natural so must be better. Why? If a dogs working then lets use the best knowledge available to get the best performance, after all how many Olympians are eating a “natural diet†they will all be eating/drinking a diet based on proven science to maximise performance and recovery. I would ask how many BARF feeders have their children on a raw diet. If they really believed natural was best then they would be for exactly the same reasons they put their dog on it. ( if anyone has then they need locking up.)

 

Basically I read such sites with wonder at the self contradictory pseudo science and the knowledge that some people actually believe it. Laugh, I haven’t laughed so much since grandma died or Aunt Mable caught her left tit in the mangle.

All for now will return as time allows

Regards Sandymere.

Sandymere,

Once again you go off the topic that you actually started.

The "study" that YOU quote in this post is basically a load of tosh.

No tests were done of the dogs beforehand, tests were done on only 10 dogs in each "sample", it is based on ONE meal and ONE stool sample, 3 dogs carried salmonella in their stool samples but only one was of the same strain as in the food it ate. It assumes

stool cultures may have reflected previous dietary contamination

but salmonella COULD have been picked other than as part of normal diet.

Once again it is pointed out to you and once again you do a massive post from different threads and harp on once again about pseudo science.

What the feck do you think the above so called "study" is?

[waidmann 105]

i think the dogs we keep will generally be at a higher risk of coming into contact with"contaminents" whether bacterial,parisitar(ecto/endo) or pesticidal/herbicidal All of which play a role when in contact with humans(i myself had a dog poisoned with fungicide/growth stopper,it nearly killed my lab x,my terrier bitch had blisters all over her belly and i a blister on my lips from chewing a peice of grass!! if a kid had gotten in contact with it? a supposedly harmless substance by the way!)

 

hopefully we take all possible precautions without wrapping them in cotton wool too much,all of my dogs have been pets and workers and both kids have grown up with the dogs,sometimes with more "contact" than i would have liked(kids can be so disgusting can't they ) and untill now never had any trouble at all,touch wood.

 

once again some food for thought,very informative

 

waidmann

[sandymere 8,263]

Lol at skelly, strange only the raw fed picked up contaminents. don't worry I expect the the UKRMD :wacko: and the cat lady l will still love you. You worry about real science when you quote from the sites I saw lololololololol, I'd get your tinfoil out there coming to get you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[sandymere 8,263]

i think the dogs we keep will generally be at a higher risk of coming into contact with"contaminents" whether bacterial,parisitar(ecto/endo) or pesticidal/herbicidal All of which play a role when in contact with humans(i myself had a dog poisoned with fungicide/growth stopper,it nearly killed my lab x,my terrier bitch had blisters all over her belly and i a blister on my lips from chewing a peice of grass!! if a kid had gotten in contact with it? a supposedly harmless substance by the way!)

 

hopefully we take all possible precautions without wrapping them in cotton wool too much,all of my dogs have been pets and workers and both kids have grown up with the dogs,sometimes with more "contact" than i would have liked(kids can be so disgusting can't they ) and untill now never had any trouble at all,touch wood.

 

once again some food for thought,very informative

 

waidmann

I agree it s as much about informing people as anything else, I still use butchers waste but will be a little more careful thats all .

The more loony fringe will deny all but I do enjoy a bit of barf baiting lol.

[skellyb 8]

Lol at skelly, strange only the raw fed picked up contaminents. don't worry I expect the the UKRMD :wacko: and the cat lady l will still love you. You worry about real science when you quote from the sites I saw lololololololol, I'd get your tinfoil out there coming to get you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ah well, once again you try and stir up trouble with your "baiting" but succeed in only making yourself look a tit.

Instead of "skim" reading perhaps you ought to look in detail both at what you cut and paste and also the sites and authors you deride.

[stabba 10,745]

Ok.. over christmas my mate ended up with a form of E-Coli.. from handling raw chicken mince.. Yet no dogs of his showed any ill symptoms..i myself feed raw and the kids.. nieces and nephews are in daily contact with the dogs.. with no ill effects. its simple really... just make sure you are hygenic and everything should be fine...dogs are carnivores and as such should be fed a meat and bone diet imo.. atb stabba

[paulus 26]

bacteria appears naturaly on and in most things to some level or other. but everyone and everythings level of resistance to it is different. youve only got to turn the telly over to one of them cleaning programes and see how some people live quite healthily in houses that should according to the scientist kill them. maybe its because thier immune system is used to dealing with the high levels over long periods of time and maybe its the same for dogs that live exclusivly on raw food. if this is the case then no conclusion could be made that feeding raw is going to or not going to infect your dog or kids with anything as all the variables have not been investegated. all i know for definate is ive fed raw chicken mince and carcasses before that to my dogs over a 20 year period and me, my wife. my kids and my dogs have had no problems.