I don’t want to stir up a big controversy but whenever I see a “health” study, human or canine or feline, cited, I have an uncontrollable urge to find out more about the study, particularly how many subjects and how was it funded.
When I clicked thru a few times from the link posted above, I found that the study included 15 dogs and was funded by AgResearch Core Funding (A21247; including financial contributions from Bombay Petfoods Ltd., K9 Natural Ltd. and ZiwiPeak Ltd.) and the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (C10X1501). It further says, the funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The principal investigators were employees of the AgResearch Core Funding group. This is all properly disclosed in the original article, https://peerj.com/articles/3019/
but it is important to understand that funding did comes from three premium raw pet food companies…
I don’t mean to challenge the findings in any way, but this is a very small study funded by New Zealand pet food companies that sell premium raw foods…keep that in mind. I would love to see a study that isn’t funded by another pet food company (raw or kibble or whatever!) Someone recently asked about studies that have been done on benefits of raw vs other diets and aren’t just ancedotal, and I haven’t been able to find one myself. I would love to find one! I know that there are a lot of fans of raw feeding on this forum and I know that many have found those diets to work well for their dogs. It is just hard to find solid research in this field that isn't funded by some pet food company!!