Thanks for the link Seaweed.
I've read their response and appreciate the 'compulsion' to produce a reasoned reply, yet, at the same time feel uneasy
when the conclusion of a study (which rightly states competing interests), notably an extremely small study, of only 8 dogs, fed different diets for an extremely small amount of time (4 weeks total =2 weeks on one diet, then 2 weeks on another), is then inadequately quoted!
I wonder was the quoted study a straightforward comparison of raw food vs kibble as it may at first seem? The raw diet consisted of beef added to a watered down manufactured "complement".
In the link there is a table of the 12 essential minerals. However, It's difficult to accept a comparison of minerals, between the standard accepted source (be that the NRC or the EU) and any manufacturer's "composite" meal!! To be accurate it is the comparison using the actual
individual complete meals that would provide the necessary indication of mineral content.