The first paper uses a sample size of 10 dogs, which is acknowledged in the paper to be statistically insignificant. There is no proposed method of preparation of the food, in a hygenic sense, and is limited to only chicken. And only 3 of the 10 had tested positive for salmonella in the stool, and the paper does not discuss the health impacts of those that tested positive, if any were observed at all.

The second paper, with some further digging, is referencing greyhounds fed meat that was "unfit for human consumption."

And again, I'm not saying animals can't get salmonella. What I'm saying is, the risk isn't what you're making it out to be, and animals are not affected the way that humans are. I'm also mostly arguing that dog food companies are known to cut corners, use cheap and ingredients, and have incredibly and disgustingly low manufacturing standards. I know how to read medical journals, so I'm not sure if you thought you could just link that and assumed I wouldn't understand.