Aimee, these are apples and oranges comparisons.
There is no quantified measure of what’s called “varying degrees of periodontal disease” in the Foxhounds study and the risks of tooth injury and wear present in the Foxhound study and the Wild African dog (LOL) study is why smart PRM feeders feed their dogs soft edible bone (like chicken bones) that are very gentle on teeth and present a near-zero risk of tooth breakage as opposed to whole animal carcases of animals like antelopes or cattle.
So the point of comparison on tooth damage is a false one. Nothing is worse than cherry-picked science to promote fear-mongering.
Anyone with a brain can see the dramatic differences in dental hygiene and tooth health between a dog eating a PMR diet with 10% soft-edible bone in its diet and those of a kibble fed dog. There is no comparison.
PMR fed dogs are common. There is no need to reach for skulls in museums for African wild dogs to fairly compare a PMR diet with kibble diets in companion dogs.
That said, the African wild dogs had about half the incidence of periodontal disease compared with three-year-old kibble fed dogs (and three is a shockingly young age for a 70-80% incidence rate). One can presume the incidence rate only goes up for kibble fed dogs as their ages advance. How old were the African wild dog skulls in the museums? LOL.
IMO these arguments are a misuse of scientific studies. The benefits of a PMR diet with soft edible bone are as plain as day. As is the atrocious rate of periodontal disease in kibble fed dogs.
No comparison.
Bill
