# Vet Recommendations Disapproval



## Patticakes0729 (Jan 12, 2015)

Hey guys,

So I currently have a lab mix named Bayrose who is 10 weeks old. I had done a lot of research on dog food and came to the conclusion that I wanted to put her on Orijen as it had a lot of great reviews.

Well I took her to the vet today and he seemed to think otherwise. He told me to put her on Royal Canin or Science Diet. I looked up some reviews and wasn't too sold on the brands. He made it sound like her being on Orijen wasn't in her best interest and because it has a lot of protein and we don't want her growing too fast and the dog food he recommended is more balanced.n

I really don't know what to do.


----------



## Zilla (May 11, 2013)

Anyone who knows anything about this subject will tell you do not ever listen to your vet when it comes to nutrition unless of course they are one of the rare educated holistic vets who have gone past their schooling to learn more. Most vets recommend science diet or royal Canin because in school their only ONE OR TWO nutrition classes were run by those companies. Also vet clinics supposedly get money for selling those brands in their facility. Now I'm sure you can look at the two ingredient lists and decide which one clearly blows the other out of the water. 

Now on the subject of to much protein for growing to fast. It's not the protein you have to worry about with large breed dogs. It's the calcium. You don't want them to get to much or their bones will grow to fast and cause problems later on. As much as I've read and learned the higher the protein the less filler you have. My old vet in California would tell you to stay 5 miles away from anything science diet or Royal canin. They are few and far in between but their are vets out there who have gone beyond their schooling to actually learn about nutrition. Think of it this way. In our human world we have medical doctors and we have dieticians. There is a reason we have dieticians . I'm sure there is a lot of people on here who feed Orijen including me and our dogs do phenomenal on it.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Zilla said:


> Most vets recommend science diet or royal Canin because in school their only ONE OR TWO nutrition classes were run by those companies.


Ah, not this crap again.


I see so many puppies on Orijen with diarrhea. So. Much. Diarrhea.


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

I'm curious about what's to be said about this topic. Following.


----------



## RonE (Feb 3, 2007)

Our vet told my wife that we should be feeding Purina Dog Chow. Not even Purina One. Purina Dog Chow. 

I had no problem ignoring that suggestion.


----------



## JanJanBunny (Feb 23, 2013)

I honestly never listen to my vet when it comes to food, he's against every food brand except the ones he conveniently sells. And then when I started volunteering at his office I learned that staff were forced to recommend it, cuz you know, money. 

With THAT said, I like to compare ingredients AND prices. If it's cheap with good (not great) ingredients, it works for me. If it's expensive with crap ingredients, nope. But I can't do that at the moment because I dont know where you shop or anything. So lets see the first 5 ingredients (the ones I usually care about)

Orijen: Boneless chicken, chicken meal, chicken liver, whole herring, boneless turkey...

Royal Canin Breed Specific Puppy: Chicken by-product meal, brewers rice, brown rice, corn gluten meal, wheat gluten...

Science Diet Puppy: Chicken meal, cracked pearled barley, whole grain wheat, pork meal, whole grain corn

In paper, Orijen wins hands down. In reality, there's no such thing as a perfect dog food. If you do the transition well (75/25, 50/50, 25/75) through out a week, ideally, it should work. BUT every dog is different and tolerates different things. I've seen people curse at Organix, Blue and even Wellness, I've also seen people praise Purina Pro Plan, Pedigree and Ol' Roy, YES even AFTER trying "the good and expensive" kind. Personally? I'm an Organix, Authority and Wellness girl. But I know for a fact that this new puppy I have? Might be better off with something else. Etc. 

In my opinion, out of the three choices, Orijen is better. And honestly, don't listen to people who curse out brands with no obvious bad ingredients, it's not the same bashing on a food that has by-product as the first ingredient than a food that on paper seems good. Your dog is an individual, what didn't work for them, might work for yours, what didn't work for yours, might work for them.

Go to dogfoodadvisor.com and check out the brands available to you in your area and pick whatever you think is best for you~


----------



## JanJanBunny (Feb 23, 2013)

RonE said:


> Our vet told my wife that we should be feeding Purina Dog Chow. Not even Purina One. Purina Dog Chow.
> 
> I had no problem ignoring that suggestion.


Omg lol wow xD At a second clinic I volunteered at we suggested Purina One, because here wasting more than a dollar per pound is literally ridiculous and laughable and you're considered absolutely craaaazy, if you do. So we stopped wasting our time with "OH wellness is good! So is Blue!" etc etc. But... Dog Chow? Wow.


----------



## Patticakes0729 (Jan 12, 2015)

Thanks for the reply guys. Since my last post I actually called the clinic and asked to speak with the main vet who owns the clinic. I actually prefer him over the last one. I asked for his HONEST opinion and stressed the word "honest".

He told me they like Royal Canin and Science Diet because they know exactly what goes in it as opposed to other brands. He said alot of their prescriptions come from them too. He said Orijen wasn't a bad brand, it is good, its just higher and protein and some dogs can't handle it. He said alot also depends on the dog. A dog with kidney or liver disease wouldn't do well on Orijen because high protein is to be avoided in that case.

He also gave me another recommendation that was a more personal preference of his outside of the clinic and that was Acana.

Oh and he said he would NEVER recommend Purina.


----------



## JanJanBunny (Feb 23, 2013)

Patticakes0729 said:


> Thanks for the reply guys. Since my last post I actually called the clinic and asked to speak with the main vet who owns the clinic. I actually prefer him over the last one. I asked for his HONEST opinion and stressed the word "honest".
> 
> He told me they like Royal Canin and Science Diet because they know exactly what goes in it as opposed to other brands. He said alot of their prescriptions come from them too. He said Orijen wasn't a bad brand, it is good, its just higher and protein and some dogs can't handle it. He said alot also depends on the dog. A dog with kidney or liver disease wouldn't do well on Orijen because high protein is to be avoided in that case.
> 
> ...


I've heard great things about Acana!


----------



## taquitos (Oct 18, 2012)

If I had to feed a vet prescribed food, I would feed Royal Canin... but I don't think it's necessary to feed vet kibble to have a healthy dog.

I worked at a store that sold only Orijen and Acana for kibble varieties (it was mostly cans, dehydrated raw, fresh ground raw, etc.). Most did fine on the formulas.

Just go with whatever works for your dog. Dog food that meets AAFCO requirements with half decent ingredients are fine. Go with what works for your dog. If he's doing well on Orijen, keep him on Orijen.

And I don't know about vets, but vet TECHS here are taught using an online course created by Purina (friend is a vet tech student). So yeahhhh.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

Large breed puppies benefit most from large-breed puppy formulas; if large breed puppies grow too fast it can cause joint problems later in life.

IMO, look into large-breed puppy formulas, and consider switching to Orijen when he's older and is mostly done growing.



Zilla said:


> In our human world we have medical doctors and we have dieticians. There is a reason we have dieticians .


I did want to address this point though... we do have medical doctors and dietitians, and yes, they have different specialties; however, both sets of professionals get their information from the same base of scientific evidence (its just that doctors may not be as up on it, and don't know it in as much detail).

In the veterinary world, there really aren't that many food studies; and most of the food studies are done by the big-name food companies. Marketing aside, SD's and RC's claims (especially for prescription foods) are actually backed by scientific trials and clinical data, which is not something that can be said for many other dog food brands. If I were a vet (or a doctor) I would not want to recommend a product to a patient that I knew didn't have any evidence to support it, whether it is a diet, medication, or other procedure.

(BTW I am not recommending SD or RC or any other scientifically formulated food, just trying to point out that it's not the poison that a lot of people make it out to be).


----------



## taquitos (Oct 18, 2012)

gingerkid said:


> Large breed puppies benefit most from large-breed puppy formulas; if large breed puppies grow too fast it can cause joint problems later in life.
> 
> IMO, look into large-breed puppy formulas, and consider switching to Orijen when he's older and is mostly done growing.
> 
> ...


There is a Large Breed Puppy formula from Orijen, but I read somewhere that it was still too high in calcium or something like that for larger breed dogs.

At any rate, I agree with everything you have said.


----------



## Zilla (May 11, 2013)

I won't debate on vets again but it's kinda like me saying oh I've seen a lot of dogs on science diet with diarrhea. It's all subject to opinion and personal experience. Yes some dogs may not handle Orijen. In that case something like Acana would probably be better. But to me I would much rather feed something with an ingredient list like Orijens... Not like Science Diets. My puppy at first didn't take Orijen well but 2 weeks later he did and he's been fine ever since. He gets Orijen Large Breed Puppy with Primal goat milk in the mornings and then it plain at night. It all depends on the dog. I don't know what area your in but you could always see if there's more of a holistic vet in your area and see what his opinion is on the subject. Never hurts to ask.


----------



## olivethedog (Feb 21, 2014)

Zilla said:


> Anyone who knows anything about this subject will tell you do not ever listen to your vet when it comes to nutrition unless of course they are one of the rare educated holistic vets who have gone past their schooling to learn more. Most vets recommend science diet or royal Canin because in school their only ONE OR TWO nutrition classes were run by those companies.


I must have missed that semester or something, because the nutrition class I took was taught by university faculty board certified by the American College of Veterinary Nutrition... Though, maybe we get the indoctrination right before graduation? Ya know, so it's fresh in our minds.

Anyways, why do so many veterinarians recommend food from Hill's, Royal Canin, or Purina? Because they're generally considered decent foods with decent quality. They're readily available. They have feeding trials backing them up. Does this mean they're the perfect food for every dog? Certainly not. However, they're usually a good starting point for your average healthy dog. It's very en vogue to hate on these companies right now, but they don't deserve the vilification they're getting. 

Since there are so many different brands popping up nowadays, in school we were taught to look for a few things when recommending foods to clients. 
1. Does the company employ at least one full-time credible nutritionist (i.e. a DVM board certified by the ACVN or Ph.D. animal nutritionist - not dentists or people who "have done their research")?
2. Does the company have its own facility where products are manufactured? Outsourcing production makes it more difficult for the company to guarantee what's actually going into the food.
3. Does the food follow AAFCO guidelines? Feeding trials are considered better than the food just being formulated to meet standards. If a food is labeled as formulated, was it actually tested to ensure nutrient levels are accurate or is it just based on calculations (either method is acceptable to attain the "formulated" label)?
4. In addition to actually meeting AAFCO guidelines, is the food an appropriate choice for the animal based on nutrient profiles and life stage? (i.e. growth, adult maintenance)
5. Is the company's contact information readily available on the label?

So, I really don't care too much what brand of food you choose as long as the company is reputable and puts some effort into their formulation. I just want your dog's nutritional needs met by a food that he both enjoys eating and tolerates well. Believe me, I'm not planning on paying back my student loans with the piles of cash I amass from selling unsuspecting dog owners poison kibble.


----------



## taquitos (Oct 18, 2012)

olivethedog said:


> Since there are so many different brands popping up nowadays, in school we were taught to look for a few things when recommending foods to clients.
> 1. Does the company employ at least one full-time credible nutritionist (i.e. a DVM board certified by the ACVN or Ph.D. animal nutritionist - not dentists or people who "have done their research")?
> 2. Does the company have its own facility where products are manufactured? Outsourcing production makes it more difficult for the company to guarantee what's actually going into the food.
> 3. Does the food follow AAFCO guidelines? Feeding trials are considered better than the food just being formulated to meet standards. If a food is labeled as formulated, was it actually tested to ensure nutrient levels are accurate or is it just based on calculations (either method is acceptable to attain the "formulated" label)?
> ...


This was very helpful. Thanks for posting! Gonna keep this in mind for the next time anyone asks me about food recommendations


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

olivethedog said:


> I must have missed that semester or something, because the nutrition class I took was taught by university faculty board certified by the American College of Veterinary Nutrition... Though, maybe we get the indoctrination right before graduation? Ya know, so it's fresh in our minds.
> 
> Anyways, why do so many veterinarians recommend food from Hill's, Royal Canin, or Purina? Because they're generally considered decent foods with decent quality. They're readily available. They have feeding trials backing them up. Does this mean they're the perfect food for every dog? Certainly not. However, they're usually a good starting point for your average healthy dog. It's very en vogue to hate on these companies right now, but they don't deserve the vilification they're getting.
> 
> ...


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I tried to Google to find out which companies might meet those criteria (can't find any specific info; would one just have to contact each company separately?) and I found this:


> "Many people consider AAFCO feeding trials as the 'gold standard' for confirming the nutritional adequacy of a canine or feline diet. However, because the products that met the 'feeding trial' test of nutritional adequacy do not have to meet the 'nutrient levels' criteria, there is the possibility that these products may contain excessive, deficient, or unbalanced nutrient levels that may contribute to the development of health problems if fed as a sole diet for periods that are in excess of the testing period."


which is. . .interesting :/. Also, are there any commercial foods that don't meet AAFCO guidelines? Every one I've looked at, including nasty dollar store brands, have the AAFCO statement. Not sure how bad it would have to be not to have that statement .


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

Willowy said:


> I tried to Google to find out which companies might meet those criteria (can't find any specific info; would one just have to contact each company separately?) and I found this:
> which is. . .interesting :/. Also, are there any commercial foods that don't meet AAFCO guidelines? Every one I've looked at, including nasty dollar store brands, have the AAFCO statement. Not sure how bad it would have to be not to have that statement .


So... what is the feeding period? And also... having the correct nutrient profile based on laboratory analysis doesn't help a dog if the dog isn't able to digest the food or absorb the nutrients.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

From what I can find---for maintenance the feeding trial is 26 weeks. For pregnancy and lactation, 13 weeks, for growth 10 weeks. If they want "all life stages" they have to do both so 23 weeks.


----------



## olivethedog (Feb 21, 2014)

That is true, Willowy. Products carrying the "feeding trials" label may not necessarily meet exact nutrient profiles. This allows companies to make and sell products that fall outside of the guidelines for specific reasons (i.e. Hill's y/d is far too restrictive in iodine for healthy cats, but is helpful for cats with hyperthyroidism). Still, feeding a product to a significant number of animals and not seeing ill effects is important. However, for what it's worth, I would be fine with a client feeding any food carrying a feeding trial OR formulation label if the animal is doing well on it.

The majority of your commercial dog foods carry AAFCO labels for complete and balanced nutrition. However, we see problems when owners are feeding products intended to be for intermittent or supplemental feeding as the sole diet. For example:
http://www.bynaturepetfoods.com/dog-food/organic/organic-chicken.php
It can be confusing for a lot of people because these products are often sold on the same aisle. People on this forum pay attention to these things, but a lot of other well-intentioned pet owners don't.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

Willowy said:


> From what I can find---for maintenance the feeding trial is 26 weeks. For pregnancy and lactation, 13 weeks, for growth 10 weeks. If they want "all life stages" they have to do both so 23 weeks.


Doesn't "all life stages" also include maintenance?


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

olivethedog said:


> I must have missed that semester or something, because the nutrition class I took was taught by university faculty board certified by the American College of Veterinary Nutrition... Though, maybe we get the indoctrination right before graduation? Ya know, so it's fresh in our minds.
> 
> Anyways, why do so many veterinarians recommend food from Hill's, Royal Canin, or Purina? Because they're generally considered decent foods with decent quality. They're readily available. They have feeding trials backing them up. Does this mean they're the perfect food for every dog? Certainly not. However, they're usually a good starting point for your average healthy dog. It's very en vogue to hate on these companies right now, but they don't deserve the vilification they're getting.
> 
> ...





gingerkid said:


>


Me, too, Gingerkid.


----------



## fourdogs (Feb 3, 2014)

Olivethedog <3 <3 <3 Thank you for posting this!! I know it's super cool to bash science diet and purina, but I have fed it to my dogs, and they did just the same as they did on other foods that "the experts on the intranets" tout to be the best. Well, the "best" mine got very sick on (Orijen). 

Anyway... dogs ate garbage for ten thousand years. And poop. They can eat all kinds of kibble and do just fine. 

One of my dogs just had a checkup and I drilled my vet on kibble... One thing my vet is seeing is more bladder stones and kidney trouble and diarrhea on the high protein foods. Just something to keep in mind, as not all meat meals are the same. If you look at the phosphorus content, it should be 0.6-0.9%, which indicates a quality meat meal with lots of meat and not so much bone. 1% and up- more bone- more phosphorus, more potential for trouble. 

just my humble opinion.


----------



## fourdogs (Feb 3, 2014)

JanJanBunny said:


> I honestly never listen to my vet when it comes to food, he's against every food brand except the ones he conveniently sells. And then when I started volunteering at his office I learned that staff were forced to recommend it, cuz you know, money.


Cuz, you know, vets aren't allowed to make a profit... they don't have to pay mortgages or feed children like the rest of us, right? LOL


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

I actually really like Royal Canin, I just don't buy it because it's expensive. It's one of the only corn containing foods I would ever feed my dog.


----------



## jade5280 (Feb 20, 2013)

I feed Science Diet dental as treats because the dogs love it. I wouldn't feed it as their main diet, but some dogs do well on it so whatever works.


----------



## RonE (Feb 3, 2007)

I think you do your research, but there's some trial-and-error involved because each dog is different.

I had a couple dogs who did very well on Purina One. Molly seems to need grain-free or her coat turns to sandpaper and she gets very loose stools. Zeke has some sensitivity to chicken. So all five dogs are getting TOTW Sierra Mountain with lamb. It took a while to arrive at that, but it's working for us.


----------



## fourdogs (Feb 3, 2014)

RonE said:


> I think you do your research, but there's some trial-and-error involved because each dog is different.
> 
> I had a couple dogs who did very well on Purina One. Molly seems to need grain-free or her coat turns to sandpaper and she gets very loose stools. Zeke has some sensitivity to chicken. So all five dogs are getting TOTW Sierra Mountain with lamb. It took a while to arrive at that, but it's working for us.


You are exactly right. The dog always gets the "last word" at our house when it comes to food. Got to have nice skin and coat, healthy ears, no itchiness, and good stool. Iv'e tried LOTS of foods. Keep coming back to Fromm Salmon Tunalini for Echo, Darby and Cookie, and Natural Balance LID potato/duck for Jack. Rotation causes more trouble than it's worth.

I guess I'm a little grumpy today, but I do wish people would stop bashing vets! They are hard working, dedicated people, too. They are not evil or uneducated.


----------



## So Cavalier (Jul 23, 2010)

I dunno...growing up I remember feeding our family dogs grocery store dog food, Skippy, Gravy Train, etc. and what was leftover from dinner. They were all healthy and lived well into their teens. I would never feed that now.


----------



## RonE (Feb 3, 2007)

So Cavalier said:


> I dunno...growing up I remember feeding our family dogs grocery store dog food, Skippy, Gravy Train, etc. and what was leftover from dinner. They were all healthy and lived well into their teens. I would never feed that now.


Yeah, I keep thinking, "Maybe if we hadn't feed Charlie Beagle Gravy Train and Gainsburgers, he'd still be with us today, instead of dying at age 14. He'd be 53 now, but I sure do miss that dog."


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I dunno. 

The vet bashing is pretty popular on the nutrition side of things. 

I've been dealing with Hank's finicky stomach a while now and our next step is probably Royal Canin's gastro formula, Either that or I/D but my vet preferred the RC. I've seen a lot of cases where people say the prescription diets work a lot of magic.

My dogs have been eating most purina these last few months. Hank is HORRIBLE on Acana. Horrible. Wellness was definitely the worst. And my other two dogs refuse to eat Wellness at all. Purina sport is ok. Purina sensitive skin and stomach is a bit better. The paps also eat the purina very well. 

I'm fine with trying Royal Canin though for Hank. Anything is better than a dog that gags you with farts and has constant runny poop. My vet is a good guy. He really likes Hank and I seriously doubt he's trying to poison him. 

I have not seen one lick of difference in my dogs with grain free or grain inclusive fwiw. Corn does seem to bug Summer a bit with the licking. Purina Sport has corn. But rice vs potato? I think she does better on rice.

I know a LOT of serious dog people feeding Purina Pro Plan or Purina Sport. People who NEED their dogs to perform and have been involved in dogs many years.


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

fourdogs said:


> Cuz, you know, vets aren't allowed to make a profit... they don't have to pay mortgages or feed children like the rest of us, right? LOL


Honestly, it's healthy to be hesitant when someone is trying to sell you something that they make a profit off of, when they are supposed to be a neutral party. I totally understand that.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

fourdogs said:


> I guess I'm a little grumpy today, but I do wish people would stop bashing vets! They are hard working, dedicated people, too. They are not evil or uneducated.


Sometimes I wonder what people think vets _do_ know.



chimunga said:


> Honestly, it's healthy to be hesitant when someone is trying to sell you something that they make a profit off of, when they are supposed to be a neutral party. I totally understand that.


Sass has said previously (and I have no reason to doubt her) that vets make very little or nothing on the food they sell. And I don't really believe they are supposed to be a neutral party. They are supposed to be a knowledgeable party and I can't see a good vet recommending a food (or anything else) they are not personally familiar with.


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

cookieface said:


> Sass has said previously (and I have no reason to doubt her) that vets make very little or nothing on the food they sell. And I don't really believe they are supposed to be a neutral party. They are supposed to be a knowledgeable party and I can't see a good vet recommending a food (or anything else) they are not personally familiar with.


Yes. I totally agree with you. I have no problem with vets recommending food they think is good. I just think people would probably be less hesitant if it wasn't sold through their office.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

You know, for a long time I was feeding things like Wellness Core, and other really expensive premium food in a rotation. I honestly think I did it mostly because spending a lot of money on dog food made me feel good about myself. Like expensive food showed I care. Dogs? Didn't care.

We hit a stage when our roof, our refrigerator, or dryer, our stove, AND our car broke within about 6 weeks. Yeah, we bought cheaper food.

At this stage the boys eat _this_ which is roughly a dollar a pound (and totally flunks out on dogfoodadvisor), or Diamond Hi-Energy Sport which is about the same. 

I 'd feed the girls the sports stuff except frankly they don't need that many calories/that much fat at all. So they eat Purina One or Pro Plan. Loosely because I'm not brand loyal. 

Everybody's just as healthy, with just as good coat quality, everybody's energy is fine. I literally saw NO CHANGE AT ALL in either amount I feed, nor their condition/health or their poop. I basically just no longer care. I have other things for them I can spend that money on and they can benefit from more.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Eh, my dogs eat either Kirkland or Diamond Naturals. They do just as well on them as more expensive brands so dang if I'm going to spend more for the same results. Toby can't have corn so some foods aren't an option. 

It makes me batty when someone's dog isn't doing well on a food, obviously, and they're all like "oh well, I'm not spending any more than that so tough". 

I don't quite trust the pet food industry though. Or the human food industry for that matter. I think they'll do what they have to do to make more money, and while they'll try not to kill anyone, to avoid lawsuits, oops, sometimes that happens when you cut corners. And since I and the animals have to eat, and I'm in no position to raise all our own food, I'm kinda stuck buying from an industry I don't quite trust. Such is life. But I'm not going to tell anyone these companies are super trustworthy. 

I do think that telling someone to look for the AAFCO statement on dog food is like telling them to check to make sure the bag says "dog food" on it . It probably is a good idea to remind people to make sure it doesn't say "for supplemental feeding only" though. I know some people don't realize that some Fancy Feast formulations aren't a complete diet. Even though it says so quite clearly on the container but I guess some people never read that. I think they could name the food "Not A Complete Diet For Your Cat" and some people still wouldn't understand, lol.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

chimunga said:


> Yes. I totally agree with you. I have no problem with vets recommending food they think is good. I just think people would probably be less hesitant if it wasn't sold through their office.


But the non-prescription foods can be purchased elsewhere. Not food, but our vet recommended something (maybe neosporin) for Katie. She actually told us to buy it from the CVS next to the office since it would be loads cheaper there (and it was).

On the hand, when my GP recommended I start taking Juice Plus, I almost walked out of the office. That seemed to cross some sort of ethical line.


----------



## olivethedog (Feb 21, 2014)

Willowy said:


> I do think that telling someone to look for the AAFCO statement on dog food is like telling them to check to make sure the bag says "dog food" on it .


Haha, it kind of is. But some people fail in that regard, too.


----------



## Jen2010 (Feb 12, 2013)

> He also gave me another recommendation that was a more personal preference of his outside of the clinic and that was Acana.


We just started transitioning our puppy from prescription food over to Acana and so far he's doing great on it! Apparently it's the sister company to Orijen.


----------



## dagwall (Mar 17, 2011)

cookieface said:


> But the non-prescription foods can be purchased elsewhere. Not food, but our vet recommended something (maybe neosporin) for Katie. She actually told us to buy it from the CVS next to the office since it would be loads cheaper there (and it was).
> 
> On the hand, when my GP recommended I start taking Juice Plus, I almost walked out of the office. That seemed to cross some sort of ethical line.


Yep similar with my vet and "prescribing" famotadine for Jubel's gassy upset belly. They always tell me we can sell you some here or you can just stop at the store and pick up a pack of generic Pepcid for much less. I always have the Pepcid on hand for him now.


----------



## JanJanBunny (Feb 23, 2013)

fourdogs said:


> Cuz, you know, vets aren't allowed to make a profit... they don't have to pay mortgages or feed children like the rest of us, right? LOL


Well when I literally worked for this vet for a year and saw him get super mad at his staff for even MENTIONING another food brand he didn't sell? Yeah, I don't think its right. Not everyone here is in the states, vets here DO make a profit from the food they sell. I just nod and smile and do my own research.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

JanJanBunny said:


> Well when I literally worked for this vet for a year and saw him get super mad at his staff for even MENTIONING another food brand he didn't sell? Yeah, I don't think its right. Not everyone here is in the states, vets here DO make a profit from the food they sell. I just nod and smile and do my own research.


That may have had nothing to do with profit and more to do with professionalism and ethics. It's possible that the vet didn't want his office recommending foods (or other products) he wasn't personally familiar with. The vet / clinic owner is responsible for information given by his office; maintaining control of that information is the responsible thing to do. Imagine how horribly wrong things could turn out if your doctor recommended a medication and his nurse suggested something different. 

And so what if he does make a profit - that's what business people do, I've yet to see a non-profit vet or lawyer or accountant


----------



## JanJanBunny (Feb 23, 2013)

cookieface said:


> That may have had nothing to do with profit and more to do with professionalism and ethics. It's possible that the vet didn't want his office recommending foods (or other products) he wasn't personally familiar with. The vet / clinic owner is responsible for information given by his office; maintaining control of that information is the responsible thing to do. Imagine how horribly wrong things could turn out if your doctor recommended a medication and his nurse suggested something different.
> 
> And so what if he does make a profit - that's what business people do, I've yet to see a non-profit vet or lawyer or accountant


No. That entire year his tantrum was always the same "Don't Fxxxing mention other foods they can't buy here!" That man was anything BUT professional. When I had to (as a volunteer) empty his entire freezer of dead animals, bag them and tag them because he would just throw them in there without any order, and then families would ask for their animal and no one knew which to give, and when healthy pups would get parvo because he purposely wouldn't clean his hands to vaccinate (more profit!), that's NOT professional. 

Im studying to be a vet tech, with plans on continuing to become a vet. There's absolutely nothing wrong with making a profit of that career. Specially after basically a decade of studying. But when you don't care about the animals health JUST to make a profit? That's disgusting and unprofessional. If I say That, I don't mean EVERY VET SHOULDNT MAKE MONEY. But a vet should have a balance between the health of the animal and profit. Where I live spending anything more than cheap as heck for your dog is laughable. People rather throw their dog over a bridge "to end their suffering" than pay for surgery. You, as a vet, need to understand your customers and take into consideration their patients. If you know they wont be buying your food (no one ever did) than at least give them advice on a cheaper alternative. 

My first post was not generalized AT ALL. I don't understand the hostility. I don't listen to MY vet because I know him and he's a mean person when it comes to certain things (he killed my rabbit in front of me by breaking her neck, wasn't gonna live anyways!) to say it lightly. He's also the only vet available in the entire city. In fact I stopped going to him for two years only because of the bad situation in his clinic. After an emergency I was forced to return and apparently something happened in those two years because the clinic actually resembles a proper clinic. But even so, I still don't follow his diet advice. Whenever I need one, (to lose weight or an allergy or something) I'll travel the 5+ hours to a second clinic for the advice.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

JanJanBunny said:


> Well when I literally worked for this vet for a year and saw him get super mad at his staff for even MENTIONING another food brand he didn't sell? Yeah, I don't think its right. Not everyone here is in the states, vets here DO make a profit from the food they sell. I just nod and smile and do my own research.


EVERYONE who sells food makes a profit from the food they sell, just sayin'. And vets have a much, much lower profit margin than anyone else does. 

I don't know why people are willing to give, say, pet store employees the benefit of the doubt that they are making recommendations they believe in rather than pushing particular brand... but not vets. Maybe they've caught sight of us sleeping on our piles of money? Oh wait, no, those were student loan statements and honestly, they're kind of scratchy. 


ETA: Everyone here should read "Dog Food Logic" immediately. You might find that you don't know as much about canine nutrition as you think you know.


----------



## Dog Person (Sep 14, 2012)

I didn't read the whole thread but the truth is even "lousy" food is nutritious coming from a major company. Some of us may prefer to not feed Purina but that doesn't make it totally wrong. When a professional gets good results from a product they tend to stick to that product - nothing wrong with that. I deal with human Anesthesiologists and they have they're preferred Anesthetic gases, same with general practitioners with other medicines - they get used to something because it works and use it.

I agree with sassafras with the pet food store employee comment - how well trained are they in dog nutrition vs a vet? I have had them tell me I fed too much Orijen because my dog had loose stools and people with 80 lb dogs only feed a cup a day ... Zoey is less than 40 lbs so that would mean by their standard I should feed less than 1/2 cup. Is my dog going to get all her nutritional needs met by less than 1/2 cup? I'm sure only a select few people in a pet food store can answer that question. Some may only know what the dog food rep tells them. The dog food rep may be truthful or may be giving a bunch of crap to the store owners/employees to sell more of their food. Zoey's Vet was totally honest in she said she can't follow all the foods that are available these days.

I am going to assume that Vets have to carry some sort of prescription food for their clients, I would guess that some may carry regular food as well. The foods they chose to carry have probably given them good results even if they aren't premium foods. They probably don't have to worry about the distributor running out of food for their special needs patients. And I would venture to say that 99.9% of the Vets selling the brand of foods they do do it because of the resul;ts they get.

Final thing - Zoey's Vet wanted her off of puppy food at 6 months old because she didn't want Zoey to have the extra protein. I have fed Zoey foods that range in the 24 - 33% protein range since I took her off of puppy food ... not too low but not too high. I didn't listen to what the Vet said by feeding her lower protein foods based on things I have read about feeding higher protein foods. You don't HAVE TO listen to the Vet if you feel that strongly about the type of food you want to feed.


----------



## Masterjedi688 (Apr 27, 2009)

Those vet diets are very expensive if you ask me. I've seen them on the Internet on these online pet stores you order from and the prices are insane. If your dog has some kind of health problem, I can understand a prescribed diet, but to buy a vet prescribed diet for a puppy with no health problems because the vet said buy it, no thanks.

One more thing........I've noticed that canned foods don't have the probiotics listed in the ingredients lime the dry foods. Why is that?


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

Masterjedi688 said:


> Those vet diets are very expensive if you ask me. I've seen them on the Internet on these online pet stores you order from and the prices are insane. If your dog has some kind of health problem, I can understand a prescribed diet, but to buy a vet prescribed diet for a puppy with no health problems because the vet said buy it, no thanks.


Some (maybe even most) vet offices sell non-prescription foods as well as the prescription ones.... I would also bet that most vets don't prescribe foods unless it is for a specific health problem. They might _recommend _them, but they're likely not writing scripts for PurinaOne or something.


----------



## luvmyfurballs (Mar 5, 2012)

The problem with foods that are higher in protein is over feeding it. If you take the dogs estimated grown weight or an already grown dogs healthy weight and divide that by the percent of protein in the food, that is what is fed. I can safely say that most people feed whst is on the bag and thst can be upwards of 4-6 cups a day, of course the dog won't handle it.


----------



## sandgrubber (May 21, 2014)

No company does the sort of feeding trial I'd love to see: dogs kept for several years and health problems monitored . . . preferably 30 or so dogs of each of several breeds. Separate trials for puppies and old dogs. It's simply too expensive. The only feeding trial I've read about that I respect, scientifically, is Kealy, R.D. et al. Effects of diet restriction on life span and age-related changes in dogs. See:
https://www.avma.org/News/Journals/Collections/Documents/javma_220_9_1315.pdf

Methods: —Dogs were paired, and 1 dog in each
pair was fed 25% less food than its pair-mate from 8
weeks of age until death. Serum biochemical analyses
were performed, body condition was scored, and
body composition was measured annually until 12
years of age. Age at onset of chronic disease and
median (age when 50% of the dogs were deceased)
and maximum (age when 90% of the dogs were
deceased) life spans were evaluated.

They reached a resounding conclusion that dogs were healthier when fed 25% less. I believe this. A lot of dogs would be healthier if fed less, no matter what food they are fed.

What I distrust most about pet food companies is what in marketing is called product differentiation. Add that special touch to make your product stand out, advertize it heavily, and jack up the price. Walk the isles of Petsmart and you'll see this up the yin yang. All these special, whoopedoo, organic, all natural, grain free bags that cost $2/lb and upwards. Look for any testing to show that the miracle ingredients actually helped skin, coat, digestion, teeth, or whatever, and you'll find none. Nor have I ever seen any real evidence to support BARF diets. Billinghurst is all anecdotes, and you can find anecdotes to support any position you choose.

End of rant


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

In what world is there no evidence for a barf diet.... The one where every animal on this planet eats whole foods as the majority, if not the total, of their diet except the domestic animals we choose to feed processed kibble? Like really, the common sense lacking in people that always talk about no proof of homemade or raw diets is astounding. Like yes, feeding a dog whole foods like actual real meat and real vegetables is completely unnatural and unhealthy. While were at it let's find a way to fit all our nutritional requirements into processed cereal and feed that to our kids to save me the time it takes to cook dinner. Fabulous.


----------



## poncho62 (Jan 11, 2015)

My 3 year old Shih Tzu has been a super picky eater from day one......tried various kibbles (store bought and vet bought)...various canned foods.....Finally tried canned Royal Canin and she eats it all down.....Table scraps are a treat for her. 

Just sayin' that's what works for us


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

xoxluvablexox said:


> In what world is there no evidence for a barf diet.... The one where every animal on this planet eats whole foods as the majority, if not the total, of their diet except the domestic animals we choose to feed processed kibble? Like really, the common sense lacking in people that always talk about no proof of homemade or raw diets is astounding. Like yes, feeding a dog whole foods like actual real meat and real vegetables is completely unnatural and unhealthy. While were at it let's find a way to fit all our nutritional requirements into processed cereal and feed that to our kids to save me the time it takes to cook dinner. Fabulous.


But do we know those animals are healthy and well-nourished?


----------



## fourdogs (Feb 3, 2014)

xoxluvablexox said:


> In what world is there no evidence for a barf diet.... The one where every animal on this planet eats whole foods as the majority, if not the total, of their diet except the domestic animals we choose to feed processed kibble? Like really, the common sense lacking in people that always talk about no proof of homemade or raw diets is astounding. Like yes, feeding a dog whole foods like actual real meat and real vegetables is completely unnatural and unhealthy. While were at it let's find a way to fit all our nutritional requirements into processed cereal and feed that to our kids to save me the time it takes to cook dinner. Fabulous.


I find the latest theory of dog domestication, that the bravest of hungry wolves essentially domesticated themselves by way of eating from the human's trash heaps- animal carcasses, veggie scraps, grains, and even human excrement, quite plausible. Latest research has shown that dogs do carry the enzyme in order to digest grains. 

So, as far as dogs "in the wild" go, the very dogs that our house-mouse dogs were manipulated (by humans breeding) into are, by their very nature, opportunistic scavengers with a preference for some meat in the diet. 

That's the beauty of dogs. They can eat a vast majority of foods (provided they are not allergic or intolerant to them). 

I used to be one of those people who would defend a raw diet, think I was superior than kibble feeders, think that those kibble feeders were just killing their dogs-- but now, having one had two dogs choke (one needing a heimlich, another me having to jam my hand down their mouth to push the raw chunk down,) two more breaking carnassial on "soft chicken bones and one being allergic to chicken, I find it just plain not worth it. 

Dogs can be loved and nourished by many means of feeding, isn't that the beauty of these animals?


ETA: I'd love to see a study conducted on raw diets (any how many "types" of raw diets are there) being more or less beneficial to a dog. The only evidence any of us has (besides the Pottinger cat study- please remember they did not know about taurine requirements back then, which was severely lacking in the cooked diet) is anecdotal. 
So... Volhard raw diet (raw beef {preferred} or chicken plus grains and many supplements to balance it)... Good stools, happy appetites, one dog just fine on it, the other two itched non stop. 
Barf diet: No more itching, good poops, although some constipation. Lots of work grinding veggie glop
the latest popular PMR diet (dogs don't "need" anything other than meat/bone/organs). Again, anecdotally, but this one was the worst for me... Broken teeth, horrible, dry wire coats, not lush and fully but moth eaten. 

Vets recommend Hills and Purina because there IS good, solid research behind the foods. I do and have fed these foods and the dogs did well. 

So anyway, just my humble point of view over 20 years of dog ownership.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

cookieface said:


> But do we know those animals are healthy and well-nourished?


Better yet, do you know if you and your family are healthy and well-nourished? Have you had your meals scientifically studied to make sure they're really healthy for you? 




fourdogs said:


> I find the latest theory of dog domestication, that the bravest of hungry wolves essentially domesticated themselves by way of eating from the human's trash heaps- animal carcasses, veggie scraps, grains, and even human excrement, quite plausible. Latest research has shown that dogs do carry the enzyme in order to digest grains.
> 
> So, as far as dogs "in the wild" go, the very dogs that our house-mouse dogs were manipulated (by humans breeding) into are, by their very nature, opportunistic scavengers with a preference for some meat in the diet.
> 
> ...


What it comes down to is this, regardless of scientific studies on specific foods... it's a scientific fact and common knowledge that whole foods are better for people and highly processed foods and refined carbs are linked with health problems and the increase in their consumption correlates with diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, and obesity among others. Kibble is a highly processed food. Common sense says that it is therefore unhealthy and probably linked to similar diseases in dogs, especially the ones containing refined grains. Grains are another thing that has been shown in studies to be the cause of inflammation, insulin resistance, hormone imbalance (infertility), increased risk of cancer and so on and so forth.... this is in humans, who actually do, undisputed, have the ability to digest grains. Funny thing though, grains don't like to be digested.... they've evolved to go in one way and out the other and they have defenses to make sure that happens. those defenses just happen to have a negative impact on our digestive systems. In an animal that's been eating them for a shorter period of time, such as a dog, one has to wonder what wonderful things it's doing to their digestive system as well. 

.... I don't need a scientific study of raw or homemade diets any more than I need a study done on every meal I choose to eat. It's more complicated in actually choosing ingredients, ratio of macros, amount of calories, vitamins and mineral, etc. and that's on me to look at the latest info available for my own health and for my dogs health. But it's not a complicated or difficult decision to choose whole foods over processed kibble. That's just common sense based on what's backed by science and pretty much any medical professional (of humans)... plain and simple. I don't know why that logic doesn't apply in the dog world but it's really kind of a joke.


----------



## amdeblaey (Jun 27, 2009)

I fed RAW-however when my dog acquired IBS, and couldn't tolerate RAW-I went through a lot of kibbles, my vet wanted him on prescription royal canin-but I refused. I tried everything else, kibble-barf, everything, and finally gave into the prescription-it's the only thing that has worked. It goes against everything I believe in in food, but it works-and he's not miserable. Granted your dogs doesn't have IBS (I don't wish that on anyone's dog) but you have to feed what works. My other dog gets Natural Balance LID.


----------



## fourdogs (Feb 3, 2014)

Lovable, I agree with you on grains. I don't eat them either. All of my dogs/cat are currently grain free as well, because they do best on it. 
However, I won't equate dogs with humans. We humans (2 adults, 2 kids) get the "good stuff," the fresh foods, 90% home cooked, and the dogs get the scraps, or cooked meat, fish, eggs, yogurt, sardines. 

I'm perfectly ok with a processed convenience food for the dogs. And hey, I would honestly love some people kibble! (Chicken in a Biscuit anyone??) Breakfast and lunch at least would make my life so much easier. 

Just- there are many ways to feed (and love) your dog. <3


----------



## InkedMarie (Mar 11, 2009)

I believe that I can tell a good dog food from an inferior one. I know what I want and don't want in my dogs food. That said, my regular vets would be happy if I fed what they sold. I don't, they arent the quality I'm looking for for my dogs. I don't talk nutrition with these vets but I do with my holistic vet.


----------



## Siould (Jan 2, 2015)

Congratulations on your new puppy. However, Orijen is way too high in protein. It is also too high in fat. Science Diet is the only food I will feed my dogs. My 16-year-old Cockapoo has been eating Science Diet since he was 18-months-old. Orijen is not in your puppy’s best interest because it has too much protein, too much fat and too much fiber. I recommend Science Diet because it contains ideal levels of protein, fat and fiber.


----------



## sandgrubber (May 21, 2014)

xoxluvablexox said:


> In what world is there no evidence for a barf diet.... The one where every animal on this planet eats whole foods as the majority, if not the total, of their diet except the domestic animals we choose to feed processed kibble? Like really, the common sense lacking in people that always talk about no proof of homemade or raw diets is astounding. Like yes, feeding a dog whole foods like actual real meat and real vegetables is completely unnatural and unhealthy. While were at it let's find a way to fit all our nutritional requirements into processed cereal and feed that to our kids to save me the time it takes to cook dinner. Fabulous.


This world. 

Early dogs probably ate anything they could get. This included human feces, rejected parts of the carcass from kills, rodent kills, and (based on DNA analysis of genes for digesting starch) a lot of grain. Little resemblance to a barf diet. Have your read Ian Billinghurst's (Mr. BARF) books? His evidence is all in the form of yarns. Almost nothing he says is based on scientific study. Some of the stuff he says if pretty far out, eg, he advocates not using a whelping box and letting your bitch nest in a big pile of sawdust or wood chips (I've forgotten what it was, exactly, only that it sounded very strange and that the BARF community, as a whole, ignored these suggestions). Some of the recipes in his early books include raisins, which many now regard as poisonous for dogs. His justification for vegetable matter -- that wolves gobble up stomach contents from their kills -- has been solidly refuted by people who study wolves in the wild. 

Processed feed kibble contains a large amount of the animal byproducts that humans reject for their own consumption (eg, bone meal, offal, grist), plus more (rice, non-grain starch) or less (corn) expensive fillers and misc. other ingredients. Apart from not containing feces or a lot of spoiled food that people considered inedible, this is probably fairly similar to the diets that animals were on as they transitioned from wolf to domestic dog. Some work has been done to ensure vitamin and mineral contents are balanced and complete. 

Btw., who says early domestic dogs were well nourished or healthy? All we know is that they (or at least some of them) were healthy enough to reproduce. 

It's very easy for home-made dog food to be unbalanced, eg., poor balance of calcium, potassium, and phosphorus.


----------



## taquitos (Oct 18, 2012)

A long time ago when I first switched to raw, I was one of those crazy fanatics lol. Working at a pet boutique that specialized in raw, it was really drilled into me that raw is the best, and wet second best, kibble third best... but after feeding raw for three years and doing my own research, I don't see it so black and white anymore.

I still think raw is the ideal diet for cats (personal opinion, and just from doing my own research about moisture, etc. from peer reviewed studies), but with dogs... *shrugs* Fresh food is, in my eyes, always beneficial. Vets always say it's beneficial. If I can feed only fresh food and it's balanced and my animals are healthy, then why not? I don't chastise people for feeding kibble.

Do whatever works for your dog.

My dog loves his food, it's not expensive for me to do it at all, and he's doing extremely well on it. If your dog does well on Science Diet, or Royal Canin, or Orijen, or whatever else food out there, that's just fine.


----------



## fourdogs (Feb 3, 2014)

Truly... all a dog needs to live well.... is a Person. <3 Whatever he feeds is of little consequence. But a home... that's what a dog needs most of all. 

I was a dog food elitist... most definitely was 100% pro raw (fed Volhard method at the time). Looked down on and chastised people all the time for feeding kibble. Told them they were killing their dogs. I am so ashamed. They clearly loved their dogs and here I come, some snotty, self-assured 20 something telling them they were killing their dog! 

I tried the "better" barf style and PMR style and wound up with 2 dogs breaking carnassials, and two choking- one I had to heimlich and the other shove my finger down his throat. These bad experiences were enough to get me to stop the raw feeding. It's just not worth the worry every time I feed my dogs. <shrugs>

I'm older and hopefully, wiser now! I feed kibble. My dogs had little change in their condition. Some improved (way, way less itching for my bichon). Teeth have become an issue for two of them, but I brush and it helps. 

So... we all need to support one another in owning and enjoying our dogs vs. being downright mean and nasty over which food we feed. Even the prissiest of house dogs will eat poop, given the chance!


----------



## RonE (Feb 3, 2007)

fourdogs said:


> Even the prissiest of house dogs will eat poop, given the chance!


When Zeke killed a rabbit a couple months ago, brought it in through the doggy door and deposited it on our family room floor in front of us, I thought, "Well, that's a little less rabbit poop that'll be available going forward."


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

1. Dogs are not wild animals. Haven't been for 10s of thousands of years.

2. Dogs evolved eating human scraps, not raw meat. They were not given the prime meat cuts and many dogs did fine eating bread crust and garbage. People couldn't afford to feed themselves prime meat. Sure weren't feeding it to their dogs!

3. Using 'but wild animals eat it' is not good evidence. Wild animals also die a lot more often from disease than our pets

4. Raw diets people feed don't tend to match what wild animals eat anyways. A diet primarily of factory farmed chicken with skin and feather and such removed is very different from a diet of whole wild game animals. Most people cannot afford to feed their dog premium whole free range type animals.

5. No raw diet is the same so saying raw is better than kibble is untrue. Some raw diets are poorly drafted and missing in key nutrients. I'd bet a lot of home made diets are not well made, actually. Those are obviously not better for a dog than a balanced kibble. 

6. There's no real feeding studies shown that raw is better than kibble. Heck there's no real feeding studies on most premium kibbles.

It's just impossible to prove. There is a big big difference between 'whole foods are better' and 'raw diet'. 

Dogs can survive on many diets. They're very adaptable animals. 

My dogs eat some raw, some human food, some kibble. Mostly kibble.


----------



## fourdogs (Feb 3, 2014)

MMMwwwah!! A kiss for the wise Laurelin


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

Laurelin said:


> 1. Dogs are not wild animals. Haven't been for 10s of thousands of years.
> 
> 2. Dogs evolved eating human scraps, not raw meat. They were not given the prime meat cuts and many dogs did fine eating bread crust and garbage. People couldn't afford to feed themselves prime meat. Sure weren't feeding it to their dogs!
> 
> ...


Nicely said.


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

I'm not sure where the idea that dogs shouldn't have any grain, corn, potatoes, etc. came from. It's not supported by research, is it?


----------



## sandgrubber (May 21, 2014)

parus said:


> I'm not sure where the idea that dogs shouldn't have any grain, corn, potatoes, etc. came from. It's not supported by research, is it?


To the contrary. DNA evidence shows dogs are much better adapted to digest starch than wolves. (Note, this was published in Nature in 2013)
http://www.geology-biology.eu/downloads/dogsandwolves.pdf

The genomic signature of dog domestication reveals adaptation to a starch-rich diet

Erik Axelsson, Abhirami Ratnakumar, Maja-Louise Arendt, Khurram Maqbool, Matthew T. Webster, Michele Perloski, Olof Liberg, Jon M. Arnemo, Åke Hedhammar, Kerstin Lindblad-Toh

Abstract

The domestication of dogs was an important episode in the development of human civilization. The precise timing and location of this event is debated and little is known about the genetic changes that accompanied the transformation of ancient wolves into domestic dogs. Here we conduct whole-genome resequencing of dogs and wolves to identify 3.8 million genetic variants used to identify 36 genomic regions that probably represent targets for selection during dog domestication. Nineteen of these regions contain genes important in brain function, eight of which belong to nervous system development pathways and potentially underlie behavioural changes central to dog domestication. Ten genes with key roles in starch digestion and fat metabolism also show signals of selection. We identify candidate mutations in key genes and provide functional support for an increased starch digestion in dogs relative to wolves. *Our results indicate that novel adaptations allowing the early ancestors of modern dogs to thrive on a diet rich in starch, relative to the carnivorous diet of wolves, constituted a crucial step in the early domestication of dogs.*


----------



## fourdogs (Feb 3, 2014)

Yup. Also I often hear the arguement that a dog's teeth shows that it is a carnivore. 

Evolutionary adaptations make perfect sense, especially when you consider the Panda Bear, who eats only bamboo yet has a set of carnivorous teeth.


----------



## Kathyy (Jun 15, 2008)

Most bears have omnivore type teeth with sharp canines and flattened molars. Pandas have flattened molars.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Giant_Panda_Skull.JPG

Evolution takes longer than the time dogs have been domesticated. Unless it was really advantageous to have the flattened molars and that particular tooth pattern actually appeared dogs just do what they can with what is available. 

To me the information that originally dogs and wolves had a common carnivorous ancestor and that dogs have more copies of a gene that expresses amylase production means to watch YOUR dog. Some dogs do poorly on carbs and some better on them. I fed a variety of foods and came to my own conclusion. 

Wouldn't a very good reason vets suggest SD and RC and those other foods with horrible sounding ingredients be because otherwise way too many pet owners would just go to the dollar store or the grocery store and get the cheapest food possible then whine about scratching, stinking, nasty stool, vomiting and so on? SD and RC are much better foods than that sort!


----------



## Jacksons Mom (Mar 12, 2010)

Laurelin said:


> 1. Dogs are not wild animals. Haven't been for 10s of thousands of years.
> 
> 2. Dogs evolved eating human scraps, not raw meat. They were not given the prime meat cuts and many dogs did fine eating bread crust and garbage. People couldn't afford to feed themselves prime meat. Sure weren't feeding it to their dogs!
> 
> ...


:clap2::clap2:

Death nuggets for the win! lol, jk


----------



## sandgrubber (May 21, 2014)

I personally boycott Science Diet. It is unacceptably pretentious to claim science stands behind you. Yes, they follow some guidelines. But no manufacturer does full-lifespan testing. Most test for just a few months, and they do not use a mix of dogs that speaks to all breeds and mixed breeds.


----------



## Shep (May 16, 2013)

The only reasonable argument I've ever heard against grain is that it may (MAY) make some dogs more likely to bloat, I guess because it expands in the stomach, causes gas, etc. Obviously some dogs are allergic to certain grains, but they're the exception.


----------



## RonE (Feb 3, 2007)

But if you're paying for meat and getting corn, I think that's a problem.


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

One of the things that weird to me about the emphasis on raw, versus on cooked but homemade, for example, is that cooking food is one of the things that allowed humans to evolve into what we are now. 

I've yet to see real evidence that not cooking meat confers some benefit. Besides making bones safer to eat for a dog, of course - if it's bone-in, it's a safety issue. I guess I haven't really been looking for it, though.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

sandgrubber said:


> I personally boycott Science Diet. It is unacceptably pretentious to claim science stands behind you. Yes, they follow some guidelines. But no manufacturer does full-lifespan testing. Most test for just a few months, and they do not use a mix of dogs that speaks to all breeds and mixed breeds.


I suspect the "Science" part of "Science Diet" comes from their prescription diets, which have been run in clinical trials which have been published in peer-reviewed journals. Also that they do a lot of trials on e.g. which starches and processing techniques are better digested by a variety of dogs, etc.

There are a large number of reasons that it makes sense to use one breed of dog for feeding trials... namely that it reduces the variables that you have to adjust for in the study. A lot of the point of science is to keep as many variables as close to the same as possible.... having too many variables outside the control of the researcher makes for poor science. Using one breed of dog doesn't totally eliminate genetic variation between dogs, but it sure as heck reduces it, and considering the genetic variation among dogs shown by the amylase study, it can make a big difference when the point of your studies are to test e.g. the digestibility of certain starches compared to others.


----------



## SydTheSpaniel (Feb 12, 2011)

My opinions on dog foods have changed over the years. I went from thinking Beneful was great, to then switching to Iams solely because that's what I grew up seeing my animals eat... to educating myself a bit and researching more into other brands that have a huge focus on protein and thinking grain free is the way to go, always and forever, to working at a vet's office for almost 2 years, to realize that the brand isn't what matters. What matters is how the dog does on a certain food. I work at a vet who sells Royal Canin prescription foods, but that isn't what they push at all times. They push for what works for the dog. They know I feed both my cat and dog Evangers, and they support it 100% because that is what works best for my pets. 

Find a vet who is going to care about the individual dog's nutritional needs, and not one who pushes any one brand.


----------



## sandgrubber (May 21, 2014)

gingerkid said:


> I suspect the "Science" part of "Science Diet" comes from their prescription diets, which have been run in clinical trials which have been published in peer-reviewed journals. Also that they do a lot of trials on e.g. which starches and processing techniques are better digested by a variety of dogs, etc.


It's still pretentous. To some of us science is the closest thing we have to religion. How would religious people feel if someone called a food God's diet because some group of monks used it to feed their dogs? Many of the S/D prescription foods are horribly overpriced, especially the canned stuff. At one point, when I had a dog on recovery, a vet I very much respect gave me a recipe to make the equivalent of the S/D that would be prescribed. Science is used as a justification for overpricing but there's nothing special about the food other than a mix that suits some health needs. A bit like hospitals charging $7.00 for a band-aid.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

sandgrubber said:


> It's still pretentous. To some of us science is the closest thing we have to religion. How would religious people feel if someone called a food God's diet because some group of monks used it to feed their dogs? Many of the S/D prescription foods are horribly overpriced, especially the canned stuff. At one point, when I had a dog on recovery, a vet I very much respect gave me a recipe to make the equivalent of the S/D that would be prescribed. Science is used as a justification for overpricing but there's nothing special about the food other than a mix that suits some health needs. A bit like hospitals charging $7.00 for a band-aid.


As someone who takes science very seriously... I wouldn't ever compare it to religion and actually kind of find that comparison offensive.


----------

