Quoted by J.W. Patton, 'Oh, Doctor! What Shall I Feed My Dog?’, Veterinary Medicine 28 (2) (Feb. 1933), pp. 81-85.
Description:

'As a profession we have been criticised times without number about our disagreement on nutritional problems. More often than not these criticisms have been unjustified in their general application; but because there has been some cause for the criticisms they have carried weight. One of the more recent of these public “slaps on the wrist” appeared in the May, 1932, [sic] issue of The American Kennel Gazette. The author of this article, “My Experiments with Dog Diets,” is no less an authority as a breeder than Mr. Leon F. Whitney, the author of the original, excellent and timely work, “The Basis of Breeding.” The following statements are taken from this article. Many sentences and whole paragraphs are omitted. But nothing is omitted that changes the meaning of the parts quoted.

Suppose that you were feeding a diet that was thought by people in general to contain all the essential ingredients of a complete diet, and then suppose that you were unable to raise a single puppy for nearly two years. How would you feel? You would feel like I did, after I lost nine complete litters of Bloodhounds and a number of litters of other dogs used in my experimental breeding. You might begin to get curious as to why the bitches you had boarded out on farms seemed to do well and raise puppies, and why those under home conditions failed to raise theirs. The interesting part of it all was the advice which was given me by veterinarians whose business it was to know how to feed dogs (italics mine J.W.P.) as well as how to administer to their other needs. There were doctors, too, who made suggestions, and practical dog breeders. Most of them advised me to give up keeping dogs at home until such time as the premises could become free from the infection that was causing me trouble. The veterinarians, of course, as you may expect if you have had much occasion to call them in, advised my giving a raw meat diet with vegetables chopped up in it, cooking stews, and all the usual things. Nearly all felt they could trace a possible source of trouble to the fact that I fed a corn meal, but I knew of the thousands of dogs all through the South that not only survive but prosper on a cornmeal diet, and I discounted their advice in this regard. Indeed, the more I talked with people, the more I found how tradition-bound they were in the field of diet. So I began to make some studies myself, and was fortunate in not having any preconceived ideas which had been taught me, which I had to unlearn. My ideas were based upon observations of systems of diet which I had observed in many sections of the country. I had tried to find the best in each, and the reasons of their success, if they were successful. But besides this, my observations brought me into scientific laboratories, and that was where I really learned something new. The scientist has a way of looking at a dog that the layman hasn’t learned. He regards the dog as an organism, just one of many, that will respond to external stimuli. He knows the way that a dog differs from other organism, for example, he finds that the dog has a different kind of saliva than we have or that many other animals have. Whereas, when we chew food, we change the starch into sugar in our mouths, the dog cannot. Now, that one fact is one of the most important to know, and yet how many dog breeders ever think of it? Then another point that I observed was this: That dogs can and do exist on the widest possible variety of diets. The scientist studying nutrition first, learns what are the dietary requirements of dogs, then sets out to furnish these requirements in any form that comes handy, or in any form he may be using to test the physiological effect of diets.

For example, here is one diet that was being used in certain tests in one of our most famous laboratories. It is purely artificial from start to finish. Practically nothing is given to the dog in the form in which nature grew it; commercial casein, cane sugar, boiled butter fat, lard, bone ash, and a mixture of essential salts and vitamin-bearing substances. Now if you ask nearly any veterinarian if that diet would be good for dogs, his tradition would make him moan and wail.

Swing from this extreme to another diet, in which the dog seems to have nothing but meat. And for another example, take the dog that is fed on the artificial diet of dog biscuit, canned lean meat, and vegetables ground up with the diet. All three types of diet seem to nourish the dog and keep him well. Indeed, he can live on a wide variety. So it struck me that actually it actually didn’t make much difference what the dog got, if he got enough of the right elements. The first important fact I learned was in regard to the dog’s saliva. What we do when we chew food is to split the starch into sugars, chemically. Now, [82-83]if the dog couldn’t do that, then it was not correct to feed starches to the dog. But wait a minute: heating the starches when moist would do it. So I decided that if I were to put boiling water on cornmeal or other ground grain and let it stand, that would be making a food that a dog could digest without chewing. I must split the starches. But that was already done in foods like bread and bakers’ products. There were amply carbohydrates in these products, too, although the white flour products tended to be constipating. Why not use these as a base, or plain cornmeal heated with boiling water and allowed to stand. These would be my bases.

But there was the animal protein supply. I remembered from my nutritional courses at college that hogs grew faster when there was a little animal protein, and so I considered the chief sources. Dried beef scraps first suggested themselves. I had used tons of that in the past. But I found that it was deficient in iodine, as, in fact, is the diet of most of our dogs. What about fish, I thought. Two veterinarians advised against feeding fish. “Dogs do not digest fish readily,” they had been taught, But I thought of the thousands of dogs that subsist on an exclusive fish diet, and this more than ever made me scorn the old school of veterinary advice.  I’d try fish. It contained 60 per cent protein and more. It was rich in iodine, richer than any other source. It contained phosphorous and calcium. So I tried a diet of whole wheat bread, alfalfa, and fish meal. It seemed to work. Then I told a professor about it. “What about some animal fat?” he enquired. “What form would you advise?” I asked in reply. “Beef suet. Give each dog a good lump every day.” “Ah! But that is against the advice of tradition and veterinary practice. They are always harping on giving dogs lean meat and keeping the fat away.” The professor scowled. I saw through the scowl. I went home and began to add beef suet to the diet. My diet had now come to be crumbled whole wheat bread or white bread or cornmeal heated with boiling water, alfalfa leaf meal, ground fish with a lump of suet, plus dried ground bone. And there, friends, you have my diet on which my dogs have been reproducing, growing and living in the best health I have ever known my dogs to enjoy. There are plenty of every vitamin. There are all the minerals, including iodine in abundance. The proportion of protein, carbohydrate and fats in accordance to accepted standards, roughly about 22-48-20. There is animal fat, animal protein. The only element lacking seems to be tradition, and results seem to show that this isn’t altogether an essential element of a dog’s diet.

Now, colleagues, this is but one of the many similar articles which have come to the attention of the writer. Many times, when talking with dog food manufacturer, breeder, or dog owner, similar experiences have been recited. Many of our clients will agreed [sic] with Mr. Whitney. We as veterinarians will have to agree that such conditions exist; but it is taking in too much territory to leave the impression that this criticism can be applied to the vetreinary profession in general, for this is not true.

Mr. Whitney has inferentially indicted the whole veterinary profession in the charge of not knowing its business so far as the feeding of dogs is concerned. His high standing among dog breeders and the prestige of the magazine that published his article both require that his charge be answered.

It is axiomatic amongst military men that the flanks of a field force must be protected or disaster ensue. Further, that advance elements must not be pushed forward beyond the reach of supporting forces. Mr. Whitney has laid himself open to three lines of attack; on either flank, and frontal. [83]

...

[84] I think [however] that the article will do us good in that it will awaken us to a better appreciation of our obligations to our clients and out patients. The veterinary pofession has sufficient meritorious achievements to its credit to enable it to withstand this parade of shortcomings before the foremost breeders and fanciers of this country and abroad. The average small animal practitioner appreciates that our knowledge of nutrition of the dog is sadly in need of revision and extension. However, it is not within his province to institute and maintain nutritional experiments. That is a field in itself.

The dog occupies a rather unique position... we think a great deal of [84-85] him, yet not much has been done for his welfare. Not much, in a scientific research way. He is denied public funds for research because he is not a farm animal. The veterinary profession is closely connected with things agricultural. Agricultural experiment stations, both state and Federal, furnis a great deal of experiemental data on all domestic animals except the dog (and cat). On the other extreme, he is denied public funds supplied in such abundance for research into health and nutritional problems of man. With the research problems of man, the dog is a means to an end - usually his end. But there is one group he can look to for relief. That is the veterinary profession. No other scientific group is interested in him.' (82-85)