Tuesday, May 12, 2026 VOL. III · NO. 17
Proactive Pet Health Considered reporting on the animals we live with.
← Back
Nutrition · Analysis

Raw, Kibble, Fresh: A Calm Comparison

The pet food aisle has gotten loud. Raw feeders and kibble defenders treat the question like a proxy war, and fresh-food brands spend heavily to position themselves above both. The research does not support that level of certainty from any camp. Here is what it actually shows.

IMAGE Three bowls, top-down, on linen
PHOTO — Three bowls, top-down, on linen.

Kibble

Extruded dry food is the most studied format by a wide margin. It is complete, affordable, shelf-stable, and convenient. Those are not small things.

The legitimate concern about kibble is what high-heat extrusion does to nutrients. Temperatures above 120°C can reduce the bioavailability of certain vitamins and denature proteins, and some extrusion processes produce Maillard reaction compounds, the result of proteins and sugars reacting under heat, whose long-term effects in pets are not well characterized. A 2024 University of Illinois digestibility study found that extruded diets generally had the lowest macronutrient digestibility compared to frozen raw, freeze-dried raw, and fresh formats tested in the same conditions.

That said, digestibility is not the whole story. Kibble meets AAFCO nutritional standards, has decades of feeding trials behind it, and the dogs eating it are, as a population, doing fine. "Lower digestibility" does not mean "harmful." It means less of what goes in comes out as usable nutrition — a real difference, but a calibrated one.


■   Filed under Nutrition. Corrections: corrections@proactivepethealth.com