One question I’m quite frequently asked in my consultations is, “what is the best advice to follow for feeding my dog”? In the age of technology and arguably information, this is a surprisingly difficult question to answer. This article hopes to help you as pet owners know how to differentiate good advice and information from the more questionable and arguably misleading approaches out there.

A quick Google or social media search for “what to feed my dog?” alone yields over 20 different approaches to feeding: Kibble, breed-specific kibble, condition-specific kibble, raw, lightly cooked, cooked, BARF, complete and balanced, hybrid, rotational mono-feeding and prey to name a few.

Here’s what you need to understand first and foremost. There is NO “one best way” and we’ll never get everyone to agree on what is wrong and what is right. That sounds like a fence-sitting comment, I know, but stay with me here. What it actually is, is GOOD science. We need to remember that good unbiased science, where we haven’t been funded to prove a predetermined assumption or outcome, is not a static concept. Research like our own knowledge is constantly evolving the more we observe, learn and understand the world around us, our views evolve. This concept applies to our pet’s health too! It’s just sometimes we get a little lost along the way. When someone tells me to feed a certain way based on this evidence or information or hearsay, I want to know I have the tools and knowledge to critique that evidence and know whether to take it, or leave it.

When it comes to looking for advice these are my top tips to sort valuable information from…well let’s call it for what it is - CRAP information!

• Common or new knowledge: There are some things we can largely agree that don’t need to be supported by evidence because we know them to be irrefutably true. Healthy dogs have four legs. Dogs need water for hydration. We call this common knowledge and when reading this, we don’t tend to disagree. BUT, when something is said to be true that can’t be proven to be irrefutably true or false here we should look to dig a bit deeper. My favourite ones are, “pets don’t need a variety of foods in their diet”, “dogs should only consume dry food to reduce bacterial load”, “dogs have evolved well beyond wolves, we shouldn’t even link the two”. Right now, I can guarantee some part of you is a little uncomfortable reading this, even though I wrote it! It’s not even that the information is so outlandish (well some is), but it’s that our brain on some level is screaming WHY?! And that’s the point! If you read something like this, don’t take it as read, go look for their evidence (and make sure it’s credible) as to why this opinion might be valid. If they can’t provide multiple reasons to support and others to counter their claims, I’m probably going to ignore it.
• Sources of the information: Look at where your information is coming from. Just because it is an academic journal article, doesn’t make it unbiased and factual. If the publication is owned or funded by interested parties that hold certain views and values, this means their publications are asked to support these, not challenge them. This doesn’t mean we disregard that information, but we should be aware of potential bias.
• Funding: It’s rare to find studies that are independently funded and run, but these or case studies from vets and health practitioners are hidden gems. When there isn’t a funding body, we are avoiding bias and conflicts. When funding is awarded for research takes place, this means the project aligns with the funding organisations values and intended outcomes. Just look at who funded soft-drink and tobacco studies. This is also why we tend not to see many natural or holistic studies, because the funders don’t see that as aligning with their business.
• Affiliations and endorsements: Similarly, if you follow individuals in a less academic capacity, it’s worth questioning their affiliations and endorsements. There’s big money in companies paying for affiliates to endorse their products and brand. In many instances this fame and influence comes at the behest of actual quality in a product or truth of information.
• Examples or study participants: If you’re reading a study, I always like to inspect in some detail the “data-set”. A case study is a single case and it’s usually highlighted to the reader that this hasn’t been tested beyond what they’ve explored with this dog or cat. What is said though, is it’s worth exploring in more detail to see if it applies to more cases.

However, in bigger studies we will find a sample size. Often, I see people basing an opinion on a study because, “oh it had 200 dogs in it”. Yes, that is a statistically significant sample size, but it’s still a ripple in the ocean of the dog population. That doesn’t mean it’s not a good study. You’re never going to capture all the dogs in one study, nor should a researcher want to. However, what we need to understand are the factors surrounding the participants' study: health, age, breed, diet, duration of study, medication, environment, the list goes on. A good study will control key variables to hone in on the focus of their research, but this means not all factors can be accounted for. These are what we deem “out of scope” for the study at hand. What I want you to know here is that this study should inform our thinking and decision making but we shouldn’t take it as a complete and exhaustive justification for that decision making. We should acknowledge and consider its merit but not it isn’t conclusively proving something to be irrefutably true or false.

My main take home point for you is to explore widely and critically. Sorry to disappoint but there isn’t one best way to feed our pets. I do think there are some we should highly not consider, but that for next time. In the meantime, go out there and explore the evidence with new skills to question validity and relevance for your own individual pet.