# Should I listen to the vet?



## Karolina (Apr 11, 2014)

Disclaimer:I know virtually nothing about dog food(except maybe to avoid corn).

We just adopted a six-year old lab/husky mix. He's our first dog and we've been feeding him blue buffalo life protection formula food because my sister recommended it. When we went to the vet he told us blue buffalo was "nothing special" and gave us a bag of hill's healthy advantage. I've heard people saying that science diet is bad and it's by the same company so I'm a bit wary of switching the food. On the other hand, I figure the vet knows best and I really would like to do what's best for our dog. Which food do people here think is the better choice? Hopefully they're not both terrible lol.


----------



## luv mi pets (Feb 5, 2012)

This how I feel about dog food. You can feed the very best dog food but if your dog has an allergy to a food, prime ingredients do not mean a thing. Now the number one selling dog food is Ol' Roy and Pedigree. I do not feed my dogs those foods but I do not see dogs dropping over dead that has been fed those foods. I will say that I agree that I do not think that Blue Buffalo is not that great of a food. That is my own feelings and other might feel different about that food. I know a lot of people on here feed raw and to me I would not feed raw. my own thoughts and their own thoughts/reasons for that diet/

What you feed your dog depends on activity level, age, diseases, allergies, budget and your own personal preference.


----------



## doggiepop (Feb 27, 2014)

There's tons of better food compared to Hill's and Science diet. The Vet probably
Gets a kick back on Hill's and Science Diet. I'm a rotation feeder so my dog gets
A variety of brands.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

^^^ what she said. There are better and worse foods, but the "best" food is whatever works for you and your dog.

All of Hill's health claims are backed by research, the "Lifesource Bits" in Blue Buffalo are super gimmicky, and the ingredients lists for both foods (in my opinion) are about equal. Both foods also have similar levels of protein and fat (24/15 for Hills, 24/14 for BB). Even though BB has slightly lower fat, that also means it has higher carbs, but the difference between Hills and BB is negligible in my "highly" (read:not at all) trained view.  So if the cost is similar and the dog does equally well on both, I'd side with your vet and try the Hill's. Because SCIENCE. But there may be other things about choosing a food that you want to consider, OP, that aren't as important to me. For instance, I would also pick Hill's over Blue Buffalo for MY dog because he doesn't do well with oats, and they're further down the list on the Hill's. 

There may also be other foods that you want to look into. Dog Food Advisor is a good resource to start, but try not to get too hung up on the specific ratings.


----------



## Gally (Jan 11, 2012)

There are so many other foods out there. I wouldn't pick either of the foods you mentioned for my dog.

Do some research and shop around would be my advise but if your dog does well on a food that is all that really matters in the end.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I do not automatically think that because a company does a lot of research, this means they're actually using the findings of that research to good purpose. I think some of them use their research to find out how they can produce food as cheaply as possible without making anyone keel over :/. So that doesn't get a food company any extra points in my book. That said, I'm not overly impressed with Blue Buffalo or Hill's. I guess I'm not overly impressed with any pet food company if you get right down to it . 

But, again, what really counts is finding a food your pet does well on. And there's no point in switching if you're happy with the results of the food he's currently on.


----------



## Amaryllis (Dec 28, 2011)

BB doesn't do it for me. Kabota will eat drywall, but he totally ignored the "Lifesource bits". But Hill's? No, not for a dog without any health issues. That's really expensive for no particular reason. Taste of the Wild is at least as good, and costs a lot less.

As for SCIENCE, um . . . that's a tad naive. Ever see drugs get pulled from the market for killing people? You think there was no SCIENCE happening before they were released for sale?


----------



## Little Wise Owl (Nov 12, 2011)

I don't think Science Diet is HORRIBLE... But for the price, I'd personally avoid it. It costs too much for what's in it. I'm also not a huge fan of Blue Buffalo. It's also not horrible but not great (lots of questionable ingredient quality). It also costs quite a bit (at least where I am)

I'd look into these food:
Farmina
Dr. Tim's
Fromm (Gold formulas are the most affordable)
Annamaet
Acana (my dogs are currently doing very well on this food)
Redpaw X-series


----------



## Hambonez (Mar 17, 2012)

If your dog is doing well on the Blue then why mess with it? 

I personally wouldn't use it because I don't think its as good as the price tag would suggest, but I also wouldn't feed non-Rx Hill's. 

None of the vets I worked for got kickbacks from food. There actually was minimal markup and it took up a ton of space. We did get heaps of sample bags of food, and for a while the food companies were allowing each employee to get a free bag of food each month -- majority of those freebies were turned around and donated to the shelter.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

Amaryllis said:


> BB doesn't do it for me. Kabota will eat drywall, but he totally ignored the "Lifesource bits". But Hill's? No, not for a dog without any health issues. That's really expensive for no particular reason. Taste of the Wild is at least as good, and costs a lot less.
> 
> As for SCIENCE, um . . . that's a tad naive. Ever see drugs get pulled from the market for killing people? You think there was no SCIENCE happening before they were released for sale?


Between the two foods listed, both of which make ridiculous claims, I'd rather support the one that at least does research that the one making ridiculous claims _without any_ research. I wouldn't choose on my own to buy either BB or Hill's, but if those were the only two choices in the world, I'd go with Hill's.

The problem with pharmaceuticals getting recalled is often less the testing and more in how they are used in the real world. Clinical trials are done with populations that are optimized to show the highest level of effectiveness with the lowest likelihood of side-effects (partly because it gives better looking results and partly because including high-risk individuals could cause ethical issues). Those results obtained with the optimized population are then extrapolated to populations that differ significantly than the test populations when the drug goes into general use. For decades blood pressure/cholesterol drugs were tested only on men between the ages of 40 and 60 who were otherwise healthy, but once they hit the market they were being prescribed to people outside of that population, most notably people older than 65 and/or women, or with other health conditions, all of which may affect both the efficacy and safety of the drug. It could be argued that drugs require further testing in higher risk populations if that is who will be the mass consumers of them, but that also isn't as easy as it sounds, so for better or for worse, the use of drugs outside of the study population is where a lot of the problems occur.


----------



## Benjismom (May 19, 2013)

If you are going to do with Hills I think I would suggest True Balance. Not sure why the Vet gave you that or was suggesting you change at all if he has been on BB and is going ok and there are no problems. Why fix it if it ain't broken?? That is all I am saying. He is implying the Hills was better but what was his reason?? I would ask. Can you compare the bags and ingredients? Maybe someone with a husky/lab mix would be better at advise for your breed?


----------



## Jacksons Mom (Mar 12, 2010)

With Hills, I'd only feed their Ideal Balance food. I don't like Blue Buffalo personally. They're super gimmicky and are honestly no better than any of the 'bad' companies people don't like on the internet. I've read of LOTS of GI problems with dogs on BB, not to mention the food is made at like 5 different plants, who knows how it's regulated or what they're quality control is like.

But yeah I agree with the list above
Farmina
Dr. Tim's
Fromm 
Annamaet
Acana (but they're adding a bunch of lentils, etc, now so I don't think it's as good as it used to be)

Also, if you're looking for a food in the grocery store, check out Purina One Beyond. My dog does very well on this food in a pinch.


----------



## Jacksons Mom (Mar 12, 2010)

Benjismom said:


> If you are going to do with Hills I think I would suggest True Balance. Not sure why the Vet gave you that or was suggesting you change at all if he has been on BB and is going ok and there are no problems. Why fix it if it ain't broken?? That is all I am saying. He is implying the Hills was better but what was his reason?? I would ask. Can you compare the bags and ingredients? Maybe someone with a husky/lab mix would be better at advise for your breed?


It's really more about ingredient comparison (BB makes you think that's all there is to it) but it's a lot more intricate than that. Guaranteed analysis', calcium and phosphorus, levels of Vitamin E, etc. Some of the newer foods are dangerously high in ash and this is the kind of thing that won't be known until your dog is older if it's kidneys are suffering because of it.


----------



## Little Wise Owl (Nov 12, 2011)

Jacksons Mom said:


> With Hills, I'd only feed their Ideal Balance food. I don't like Blue Buffalo personally. They're super gimmicky and are honestly no better than any of the 'bad' companies people don't like on the internet. I've read of LOTS of GI problems with dogs on BB, not to mention the food is made at like 5 different plants, who knows how it's regulated or what they're quality control is like.
> 
> But yeah I agree with the list above
> Farmina
> ...


I would probably also used Ideal Balance if I HAD to but it does utilize pea proteins/fibres (the grain free varieties have it as the third ingredient).


----------



## ScottieThaRottie (Nov 10, 2010)

Karolina said:


> Disclaimer:I know virtually nothing about dog food(except maybe to avoid corn).
> 
> We just adopted a six-year old lab/husky mix. He's our first dog and we've been feeding him blue buffalo life protection formula food because my sister recommended it. When we went to the vet he told us blue buffalo was "nothing special" and gave us a bag of hill's healthy advantage. I've heard people saying that science diet is bad and it's by the same company so I'm a bit wary of switching the food. On the other hand, I figure the vet knows best and I really would like to do what's best for our dog. Which food do people here think is the better choice? Hopefully they're not both terrible lol.


Blue buffalo is crap too. They claim this and that with their lifesource bits with nothing to back it up. 

Hill's is OK but the vets are programmed like robots to sell it. It'd be nice if they could think for themselves rather than sell what the reps tell them to when they in school.

Look into a good, small company like Rayne Nutrition if you want quality.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

corn is not tthe devil people make it out to be... ii feed roxie royal canin chihuahua and she honestly does amazingly on it. she also gets pure balance, currently bison and pea. I'm not sure what is wrong with pea fiber either.


----------



## deege39 (Dec 29, 2008)

Like others have said, some vets get commission off of pushing certain dog foods in their practice.

I wouldn't feed HILLS if it was the last kibble on earth. An ex and his sister worked at their dog food plant, and refused to give me too many details about anything but summed it up to say is they'd rather starve then eat that dog food knowing what goes in it. The fact their clothes, skin, and hair was permeated w/ this awful stench didn't help; I'm sure that's common w/ any dogfood plant but after opening a bag of HILLS, look at how GREASY the dog food and the bag is, no thanks!!

At any rate, I would stick to grain free or limited ingredient diets; Each dog is different. For example, Donatello can't eat anything w/ any form of corn in it b/c of his allergies, but does well on any brand of dog food as long as the protein content is not above average.... Miggy on the other-hand does well on anything- but Venison made his breath SO freaking RANK I couldn't stand it... Within just a couple days of switching to beef and chicken his breath is normal.

I don't feed just one brand, I jump around; They get get bored, and I don't blame them. Who would want to eat chicken everyday for 15years. lol!


----------



## Chichan (Apr 1, 2014)

Kayota said:


> Corn is not the devil people make it out to be... I feed roxie royal canin chihuahua and she honestly does amazingly on it. She also gets pure balance, currently bison and pea. I'm not sure what is wrong with pea fiber either.


^this.
Same here.
My puppy is very healthy on RC (plus some homecooked meals I give him for extra glossy fur).


----------



## Maxine22 (Jun 22, 2013)

My medium sized poodle is due for booster vaccinations so said my vet. I have read things about vaccinations that can make your dog very sick or dead. I am new to this and am not sure if I should have my dog get vaccinated again or not and which ones to have done. Please advise me. Thanks.


----------



## taquitos (Oct 18, 2012)

Maxine22 said:


> My medium sized poodle is due for booster vaccinations so said my vet. I have read things about vaccinations that can make your dog very sick or dead. I am new to this and am not sure if I should have my dog get vaccinated again or not and which ones to have done. Please advise me. Thanks.


Dr Jean Dodds is the resource to go for vaccination protocols.

It depends on what you are vaccinated against.


----

I don't listen to my vet on food. Last time I took my cat in because of an upset tummy, they gave me canned food that was supposed to be easier to digest, but they couldn't tell me what it is in the foods that made it easier to digest. I checked the ingredients and honestly it's the same stuff as any of the cans you find at your local grocery, minus corn (rice instead).

I just fed my cat plain raw chicken for a few days and he was back to his normal self. He wouldn't touch the can.

My pets are all super healthy on raw. I don't know how many times they have warned me about raw, but they always tell me my pets look super healthy and in great shape... so clearly I am doing something right in terms of diet lol  I just ask for vets who I know are not against raw when I go now...


----------



## Jacksons Mom (Mar 12, 2010)

Maxine22 said:


> My medium sized poodle is due for booster vaccinations so said my vet. I have read things about vaccinations that can make your dog very sick or dead. I am new to this and am not sure if I should have my dog get vaccinated again or not and which ones to have done. Please advise me. Thanks.


How old is your Poodle? If she's already her vaccines as a puppy and at one year of age, MY personal opinion is you don't need anymore (but still continuing to follow the law and do rabies eery 3 years is smart).

Over-vaccination is not just some internet mumbo jumbo talk. Some of the worlds leading researchers of vaccines have provided us with information that should definitely be thoroughly discussed as a pet owner.




> The present study examines the DOI for core viral vaccines in dogs that had not been revaccinated for as long as 9 years. These animals had serum antibody to canine distemper virus (CDV), canine parvovirus type 2 (CPV-2) and canine adenovirus type-1 (CAV-1) at levels considered protective and when challenged with these viruses, the dogs resisted infection and/or disease. Thus, even a single dose of modified live virus (MLV) canine core vaccines (against CDV, cav-2 and cpv-2) or MLV feline core vaccines (against feline parvovirus [FPV], feline calicivirus [FCV] and feline herpesvirus [FHV]), when administered at 16 weeks or older, could provide long-term immunity in a very high percentage of animals, while also increasing herd immunity.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19959181



> Even more exciting is the task force has acknowledged that in the case of the non-rabies core vaccines, immunity lasts at least 5 years for distemper and parvo, and at least 7 years for adenovirus.


http://healthypets.mercola.com/site.../10/27/new-canine-vaccination-guidelines.aspx

As far as the non-core vaccines that have to be given yearly in order to be "effective",
Lyme disease in the dog is an infection for which over 90% of infected dogs will never get sick and the 5% to 10% that do get sick can be easily treated with a safe inexpensive course of antibiotics. To me, the vaccine is simply not worth it. There is also talk that kidney disease can occur in some individuals with long-term antigen exposure, in which case vaccination might be just as bad as actual infection.

Oh FWIW, Jackson is very active, always outside, in the woods, in the farmfields, playing with other dogs, at dog parks, in pet stores, at the beach, etc, etc, and I still will not be vaccinating every year and am not worried one bit. But I'm also not 'anti-vaccine' -- I hope the pendulum doesn't stray TOO far to 'no vaccines' either as they ARE vital IMO at preventing diseases. But year after year? No.


----------



## Jacksons Mom (Mar 12, 2010)

deege39 said:


> Like others have said, some vets get commission off of pushing certain dog foods in their practice.
> 
> I wouldn't feed HILLS if it was the last kibble on earth. An ex and his sister worked at their dog food plant, and refused to give me too many details about anything but summed it up to say is they'd rather starve then eat that dog food knowing what goes in it. The fact their clothes, skin, and hair was permeated w/ this awful stench didn't help; I'm sure that's common w/ any dogfood plant but after opening a bag of HILLS, look at how GREASY the dog food and the bag is, no thanks!!
> 
> ...


Have you ever fed Orijen, Acana, Taste of the Wild, Canidae, etc? Have you read all the complaints about Champion's stinky plant? Diamond? I'm pretty certain all food plants, human and dog alike, aren't really a 'great' place lol. If you ever read the amounts of bugs, etc, allowed in human food, it's kind of gross to think about, LOL. 

Vets make hardly anything, if anything at all, on pet food. I kind of hate that that gets tossed around (I used to say it too, with no proof that this actually happens). If anything, vets promote these foods because they work and they don't have the time to go research EVERY brand of food out there. The brands Hills, Purina, RC, etc, have loads of science and research behind them and some of the best quality control regardless of that the ingredients look like. I'm not saying they're perfect by any means. But I've never once been to a vet that pushed ANY brand of food on me, and some of these vets I didn't like for other reasons.

I think you would feed Hills if your dog was horribly sick otherwise. I've seen some dogs who are vomiting, diarrhea-ridden messes and Hills RX foods make them BETTER. Would you actually let your dog suffer if Hills was the only thing that helped, because you don't like the ingredients? I should add, the RX foods are in a completely different category than their standard foods. But if you've looked at Ideal Balance -- it's really no different than 90% of the other GF foods out there now. The grain inclusive Ideal Balance foods are better then the GF imo.

I agree with you that each dog is different. I have found that Jackson tends to lose muscle mass or get a bit chubbier on grain-heavy foods, and that lots of rice, lentils, tons of peas, don't do him any favors. But otherwise he did great on Purina Beyond for the past 3 months while we were waiting on Farmina to become available. I think because it's quite simple. Some of the newer more holistic popular foods out there now tend to have extremely high ash, tons of ingredients, and aren't even formulated by people with degrees or any experience in pet food.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

taquitos said:


> My pets are all super healthy on raw. I don't know how many times they have warned me about raw, but they always tell me my pets look super healthy and in great shape... so clearly I am doing something right in terms of diet lol  I just ask for vets who I know are not against raw when I go now...


The problem with raw is there is zero research on it, which is a shame, IMO. But it if were me, and I were a vet, I don't think I'd be able to recommend something for which there is no evidence of benefit, even if it is only because there is no evidence period. (I don't think I'd recommend specifically against it either - in the end its the owner's decision, and owners are usually going to do what they feel best regardless of what a vet says).


----------



## deege39 (Dec 29, 2008)

Jacksons Mom said:


> Have you ever fed Orijen, Acana, Taste of the Wild, Canidae, etc? Have you read all the complaints about Champion's stinky plant? Diamond? I'm pretty certain all food plants, human and dog alike, aren't really a 'great' place lol. If you ever read the amounts of bugs, etc, allowed in human food, it's kind of gross to think about, LOL.


The fact I said, "I'm sure it's like that any dog-food plant," kind of makes your argument redundant.... I don't like the ingredients list, I don't like the history my own friends, family, and coworkers have had w/ it, and I don't like the fact it's greasy as hell.



> Vets make hardly anything, if anything at all, on pet food. I kind of hate that that gets tossed around (I used to say it too, with no proof that this actually happens). *If anything, vets promote these foods because they work and they don't have the time to go research EVERY brand of food out there. The brands Hills, Purina, RC, etc, have loads of science and research behind them and some of the best quality control regardless of that the ingredients look like.* I'm not saying they're perfect by any means. But I've never once been to a vet that pushed ANY brand of food on me, and some of these vets I didn't like for other reasons.


A lot of people have been pushed into HILLS Science dog food, a lot of people I know personally; And the fact that Vets won't MAKE the time to do research and find different BETTER brands is a reason I'm picky about where I take my dog. Science and dogs are ever changing, there's better methods, training, medicine and food out there; The fact you say Purina is a great company w/ research to back it up, did you hear about all the recalls falling under Purina surrounding the chicken jerky treats the last couple years?



> I think you would feed Hills if your dog was horribly sick otherwise. I've seen some dogs who are vomiting, diarrhea-ridden messes and Hills RX foods make them BETTER. Would you actually let your dog suffer if Hills was the only thing that helped, because you don't like the ingredients? I should add, the RX foods are in a completely different category than their standard foods. But if you've looked at Ideal Balance -- it's really no different than 90% of the other GF foods out there now. The grain inclusive Ideal Balance foods are better then the GF imo.


No, and no. I wouldn't feed HILLS if my dog was sick or otherwise, b/c there's more than one way to do anything; What your Vets explained to you, is something COMPLETELY different then what my Vets explained and the half a dozen dog-food gurus I've talked w/ for years; Rx diets might be necessary, but you can find that w/ other foods if you do enough research and ask the right people.

There's been more than one story of a dog suffering from an ailment like Kidney Stones, and once the dog found a diet other than the HILLS Rx Diet, it cleared up... 

I'm just summing this up to say, I respectfully disagree.


----------



## Jacksons Mom (Mar 12, 2010)

deege39 said:


> The fact I said, "I'm sure it's like that any dog-food plant," kind of makes your argument redundant.... I don't like the ingredients list, I don't like the history my own friends, family, and coworkers have had w/ it, and I don't like the fact it's greasy as hell.


I was aware I was being redundant. But you specifically were talking about Hills so just thought I'd mention the other plants I know that have had complaints about cleanliness, smelliness, etc. http://www.stalbertgazette.com/article/20111227/SAG0801/312279997/pet-food-plant-cuts-smell <-- example.

I do understand judging other dogs on these foods, as I've done it before, but it's very hard to when you aren't living with them, plus a lot of it can be anecdotal. It's really hard to say "oh this dog is doing horrible on Hills" when you don't know 100% how much exercise they're getting daily, what other treats they may be getting, what human food they may be getting, plus like you said every dog is different, and it may not even be food that is the problem. I dogsat a dog who was chubby, had soft stool, etc, on Orijen. Could it have been the food? Yep, but it could've also been the Merricks canned food he was getting, or the treats, or whatever. On the flip side, I've seen some gorgeous Yorkies on Royal Canin.




> A lot of people have been pushed into HILLS Science dog food, a lot of people I know personally; And the fact that Vets won't MAKE the time to do research and find different BETTER brands is a reason I'm picky about where I take my dog. Science and dogs are ever changing, there's better methods, training, medicine and food out there; The fact you say Purina is a great company w/ research to back it up, did you hear about all the recalls falling under Purina surrounding the chicken jerky treats the last couple years?


That's sad. I'm sorry you've experienced vets pushing food onto others. It's not something I can say I've ever seen personally. And absolutely think that it's good when vets expand, etc. My vets office sells both RC Rx food and Honest Kitchen in their waiting area.

Purina has been around for the last 8 decades. I am NOT saying they're perfect. They also have some pretty crappy foods out there. I'd never touch Beneful. Yes the chicken jerky recall has been very sad. A cause has not been found even after years of FDA testing. It has not even definitively been proven that dogs eating jerky according to package instructions have gotten ill. But the amount of recalls they've had over 8 decades is nothing compared to so many of these newer companies promoted so highly on dog forums today.

Have you checked out Merrick's recalls in the last 10 years? Lots of recalls. 10+. They manufactured a food for another company that killed several dogs. As of a couple years ago they had a hard time providing guaranteed analysis on chews. Warning letter from the FDA in 2010 calling them out for salmonella, lack of quality control, and delayed recall. Simply google Garth Merrick or Merrick FDA. You can read all about his rendering plant. They "use everything except the moo". 

Taste of the Wild has only been around for, what, 10 years? Something like that? How many problems with quality control has Diamond had?

The main reason you're going to hear about/see more issues with foods like Purina is because they are probably fed to 85% of the US's pet dog population. More popular = more complaints. 




> No, and no. I wouldn't feed HILLS if my dog was sick or otherwise, b/c there's more than one way to do anything; What your Vets explained to you, is something COMPLETELY different then what my Vets explained and the half a dozen dog-food gurus I've talked w/ for years; Rx diets might be necessary, but you can find that w/ other foods if you do enough research and ask the right people.
> 
> There's been more than one story of a dog suffering from an ailment like Kidney Stones, and once the dog found a diet other than the HILLS Rx Diet, it cleared up...
> 
> I'm just summing this up to say, I respectfully disagree.


I would prefer to avoid these foods too if I can. But there is so much more to them than simply an ingredient list. RX foods make sure there is no cross-contamination, they are quality checked, formulated by vet nutritionists, proper levels of vitamins and minerals and calcium and phosphorous. etc.

I think it's GREAT if one with a sick dog can find another food that works. But sometimes, you simply can't. These foods are made for a reason. And it makes me sad when people come online and looking for another food because they're too scared to continue feeding Hills or RC because of what the internet says, even if the dog is improving on these foods.

Look, they're not my first choices either. I don't really PREFER to feed my dog foods filled with by products and corn and pea protein and everything else in between. But, really, the fact that your dog is going to die from ANY pet food or live a longer/shorter life, etc, is more than likely due to things like environment, dogs altered or not, amount of vaccines, exercise, lifestyle, etc. Food IS an important piece but it's not the only piece and lots of very healthy dogs eat Purina and do just great.


----------



## Hallie (Nov 9, 2008)

I used to hate science diet, but then I had to go to one of their information sessions. It was constant science diet information for 6 hours a day. Pictures of their plants, their food philosophy, their sources, their quality control. I went in hating Science Diet, and I came out still disliking it from an ingredient standpoint to appreciating the things they do right. 

They have one of the strictest quality control programs around, and they use the highest grades of meat. Ingredient lists alone do not tell you the grade of the meat that's being used, the grade of the oatmeal, peas etc. There are several big name 'good' brands that use lower quality meat, meaning there's more ash content in the food and more bone in the meat. They don't have to list that on the bag. So you read the ingredient list and you're sold on the food primarily because it has "chicken meal" listed first and then chicken meat, however what you don't see is the quality of the meat.

Working in the pet food industry for four years, I've spoken to many reps, presidents etc, you name it. I've never been more impressed by a company's quality control than I was with Science Diet's. The research they back their food up with is legit. It isn't just to make sure the dog is alive, or see how they can cut costs and still have a healthy dog. It's to make sure that the foods they produce actually work in reality vs. looking good on a piece of paper. There are tedious rules that must be followed in a feed study, and it costs a ridiculous amount of money. Science diet conducts more research on their products than any other company I have ever encountered. Their foods cost more because of the feed studies, and the research they conduct.


----------



## taquitos (Oct 18, 2012)

gingerkid said:


> The problem with raw is there is zero research on it, which is a shame, IMO. But it if were me, and I were a vet, I don't think I'd be able to recommend something for which there is no evidence of benefit, even if it is only because there is no evidence period. (I don't think I'd recommend specifically against it either - in the end its the owner's decision, and owners are usually going to do what they feel best regardless of what a vet says).


Yeah I totally understand but there is a difference between being open to the idea of raw, and maybe doing your own set of research from what you can find and understand, and putting on gloves and making a special note on the client card and telling them that they are killing their dogs.

I totally understand them giving a fair warning, or saying how there is no research that has been done yet... but it is not the same as some of the reactions you get at the vet. A friend of mine went to the vet and the vet literally put on gloves and a mask while handling her cat when they found out he was on raw "because of salmonella."

My vet understands that there are people who have had great results from being fed raw. They understand the importance of moisture in a dog's diet, etc. and can apply that to the raw diet. But of course they always advise to handle the meat properly, etc. I am not saying vets should recommend raw blindly. I just think a lot of them haven't looked into raw diets themselves so they don't often know what it actually entails.


----------



## Little Wise Owl (Nov 12, 2011)

Hallie said:


> I used to hate science diet, but then I had to go to one of their information sessions. It was constant science diet information for 6 hours a day. Pictures of their plants, their food philosophy, their sources, their quality control. I went in hating Science Diet, and I came out still disliking it from an ingredient standpoint to appreciating the things they do right.
> 
> *They have one of the strictest quality control programs around*, and they use the highest grades of meat. Ingredient lists alone do not tell you the grade of the meat that's being used, the grade of the oatmeal, peas etc. There are several big name 'good' brands that use lower quality meat, meaning there's more ash content in the food and more bone in the meat. They don't have to list that on the bag. So you read the ingredient list and you're sold on the food primarily because it has "chicken meal" listed first and then chicken meat, however what you don't see is the quality of the meat.
> 
> Working in the pet food industry for four years, I've spoken to many reps, presidents etc, you name it. I've never been more impressed by a company's quality control than I was with Science Diet's. The research they back their food up with is legit. It isn't just to make sure the dog is alive, or see how they can cut costs and still have a healthy dog. It's to make sure that the foods they produce actually work in reality vs. looking good on a piece of paper. There are tedious rules that must be followed in a feed study, and it costs a ridiculous amount of money. Science diet conducts more research on their products than any other company I have ever encountered. Their foods cost more because of the feed studies, and the research they conduct.


I'm not really disagreeing with you but recently Hill's Science Diet had food that tested positive for aflatoxin B1. http://truthaboutpetfood.com/aflatoxins-melamine-and-cyanuric-acid-found-in-us-made-pet-food


----------



## Hambonez (Mar 17, 2012)

deege39 said:


> And the fact that Vets won't MAKE the time to do research and find different BETTER brands is a reason I'm picky about where I take my dog.


People over-estimate how much money vets make, and under-estimate the amount of work they actually do. Personally, I would rather my vet spend their research time keeping up to date on recent medical information than trying to learn about every food on the market.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Hallie said:


> I used to hate science diet, but then I had to go to one of their information sessions. It was constant science diet information for 6 hours a day. Pictures of their plants, their food philosophy, their sources, their quality control. I went in hating Science Diet, and I came out still disliking it from an ingredient standpoint to appreciating the things they do right.
> 
> They have one of the strictest quality control programs around, and they use the highest grades of meat. Ingredient lists alone do not tell you the grade of the meat that's being used, the grade of the oatmeal, peas etc. There are several big name 'good' brands that use lower quality meat, meaning there's more ash content in the food and more bone in the meat. They don't have to list that on the bag. So you read the ingredient list and you're sold on the food primarily because it has "chicken meal" listed first and then chicken meat, however what you don't see is the quality of the meat.
> 
> Working in the pet food industry for four years, I've spoken to many reps, presidents etc, you name it. I've never been more impressed by a company's quality control than I was with Science Diet's. The research they back their food up with is legit. It isn't just to make sure the dog is alive, or see how they can cut costs and still have a healthy dog. It's to make sure that the foods they produce actually work in reality vs. looking good on a piece of paper. There are tedious rules that must be followed in a feed study, and it costs a ridiculous amount of money. Science diet conducts more research on their products than any other company I have ever encountered. Their foods cost more because of the feed studies, and the research they conduct.


I've been to information sessions like that (various things), and every one of them makes their product sound like a miracle product. Walking on water, cures cancer, straight-up miracle! But I suppose it's to be expected; they aren't going to talk about their weak points. I guess I would more impressed if it were an outside source confirming their claims, instead of the company themselves saying so :/.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Maxine22 said:


> Trying to reply again. Forum won't let me do it. Don't know why.
> Anyway, my poodle had rabies booster and other shots one year and 3 months ago. Should she have another rabies booster shot or any others at this time. Thanks.


Jackson's Mom answered this a few posts above . Very useful links. You would probably get more and better info if you made your own thread instead of piggybacking on one about food (people won't be looking here with vaccine info).


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

taquitos said:


> Yeah I totally understand but there is a difference between being open to the idea of raw, and maybe doing your own set of research from what you can find and understand, and putting on gloves and making a special note on the client card and telling them that they are killing their dogs.
> 
> I totally understand them giving a fair warning, or saying how there is no research that has been done yet... but it is not the same as some of the reactions you get at the vet. A friend of mine went to the vet and the vet literally put on gloves and a mask while handling her cat when they found out he was on raw "because of salmonella."
> 
> My vet understands that there are people who have had great results from being fed raw. They understand the importance of moisture in a dog's diet, etc. and can apply that to the raw diet. But of course they always advise to handle the meat properly, etc. I am not saying vets should recommend raw blindly. I just think a lot of them haven't looked into raw diets themselves so they don't often know what it actually entails.


Oh, I totally agree, vets need to have less of a and I think it also depends on the training the vets get - younger vets are probably less adverse to raw feeding than older vets, etc. I've brought up RMB with my vet, and the only concern he brought up was that Snowball might chip a tooth. Considering Snowball doesn't have great teeth... that's totally a legit concern. But mostly What Hambonez said:



Hambonez said:


> People over-estimate how much money vets make, and under-estimate the amount of work they actually do. Personally, I would rather my vet spend their research time keeping up to date on recent medical information than trying to learn about every food on the market.


----------



## luv mi pets (Feb 5, 2012)

Raw is not the miracle diet either. Diet is all about balance. Out of balance, the body is out of whack. This can happen in any dog or cat. Too much ash, too much calories. Feeding raw is more than going to the butcher and throwing your dog a bone. You must remember that raw meat would not pass an inspection either. I forgot what the percentage was on chicken that tested positive for Salmonella. I think all of them. Raw diets would have a high recall on them. I know there are some on here who do feed a properly balanced raw diet but too many do not take the time to study and research a proper raw diet. 

On bladder stones, it seems to me to be more about breed than diet. I am not saying diet is not the cause but just you see a Shih Tzu living with 2 other dogs and surprise the Shih Tzu ends up with the stones. 

Vets recommend Hills because of the scientific research behind the food. Vets get sued they will have the lawyers of such dog food help them in the courts. A vet or a doctor is going to recommend something that has research behind it and not that Mrs. Jones cat got better on such and such food. The researchers at such facilities are often vets themselves. As far as kick back, not hardly. The kick back is knowing that if Dr. X recommends a food it has been studied for such and such disease.

You do not have to buy it and can do your own research.


----------



## Jacksons Mom (Mar 12, 2010)

luv mi pets said:


> Raw is not the miracle diet either. Diet is all about balance. Out of balance, the body is out of whack. This can happen in any dog or cat. Too much ash, too much calories. Feeding raw is more than going to the butcher and throwing your dog a bone. You must remember that raw meat would not pass an inspection either. I forgot what the percentage was on chicken that tested positive for Salmonella. I think all of them. Raw diets would have a high recall on them. I know there are some on here who do feed a properly balanced raw diet but too many do not take the time to study and research a proper raw diet.
> 
> On bladder stones, it seems to me to be more about breed than diet. I am not saying diet is not the cause but just you see a Shih Tzu living with 2 other dogs and surprise the Shih Tzu ends up with the stones.
> 
> ...


Yep, this^


----------



## taquitos (Oct 18, 2012)

gingerkid said:


> Oh, I totally agree, vets need to have less of a and I think it also depends on the training the vets get - younger vets are probably less adverse to raw feeding than older vets, etc. I've brought up RMB with my vet, and the only concern he brought up was that Snowball might chip a tooth. Considering Snowball doesn't have great teeth... that's totally a legit concern. But mostly What Hambonez said:


Yeah for sure but that doesn't mean they can just poopoo on a diet they don't know anything about. I think a knowledgeable vet SHOULD be doing at least some basic research on it considering the spike in the popularity of raw diets recently.



luv mi pets said:


> Raw is not the miracle diet either. Diet is all about balance. Out of balance, the body is out of whack. This can happen in any dog or cat. Too much ash, too much calories. Feeding raw is more than going to the butcher and throwing your dog a bone. You must remember that raw meat would not pass an inspection either. I forgot what the percentage was on chicken that tested positive for Salmonella. I think all of them. Raw diets would have a high recall on them. I know there are some on here who do feed a properly balanced raw diet but too many do not take the time to study and research a proper raw diet.
> 
> On bladder stones, it seems to me to be more about breed than diet. I am not saying diet is not the cause but just you see a Shih Tzu living with 2 other dogs and surprise the Shih Tzu ends up with the stones.
> 
> ...


Yes I agree for sure that an unbalanced diet is going to cause problems. I never said vets should recommend it blindly. There is a difference, like I said between putting GLOVES on when a raw fed cat comes in for a checkup because of a fear of salmonella contamination, and letting clients know of the possible effects of an unbalanced raw diet. If a vet is going to recommend a specific food to me, such as the digestive upset food that was prescribed to me, I expect to know WHY it does what it says it does. Unfortunately the vet was not able to answer my question. THIS is what I have a problem with.


----------



## luv mi pets (Feb 5, 2012)

taquitos said:


> Yeah for sure but that doesn't mean they can just poopoo on a diet they don't know anything about. I think a knowledgeable vet SHOULD be doing at least some basic research on it considering the spike in the popularity of raw diets recently.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I agree for sure that an unbalanced diet is going to cause problems. I never said vets should recommend it blindly. There is a difference, like I said between putting GLOVES on when a raw fed cat comes in for a checkup because of a fear of salmonella contamination, and letting clients know of the possible effects of an unbalanced raw diet. If a vet is going to recommend a specific food to me, such as the digestive upset food that was prescribed to me, I expect to know WHY it does what it says it does. Unfortunately the vet was not able to answer my question. THIS is what I have a problem with.



I agree putting on gloves was a bit much, unless that Doctor had an immune compromising disease.. Some people are on meds that lower their immune system and have to be a little bit more careful about such stuff. Doubt this with your doctor but you never know what type of meds people are on these days. 

I know at work we will recommend a certain product and also we will hand them a sheet that Hills actually have made. They are diets that Hills have come up with to give to customers. So to me Hills is not all that bad. The problem is some doctors just do not want to go outside the box, not all but some are still old school out there. I did find this link that will get you to those recipes. http://www.beaverlakeah.com/site/view/68476_NutritioninfoandRecipesforHomemadeDiets.pml

I do think it is harder for a vet who is in a solo practice to go to CE conferences and keep up with stuff. I know that where I work CE conferences are very important and some will go weekly to a conference to keep up with stuff.


----------



## ScottieThaRottie (Nov 10, 2010)

luv mi pets said:


> I agree putting on gloves was a bit much, unless that Doctor had an immune compromising disease.. Some people are on meds that lower their immune system and have to be a little bit more careful about such stuff. Doubt this with your doctor but you never know what type of meds people are on these days.
> 
> I know at work we will recommend a certain product and also we will hand them a sheet that Hills actually have made. They are diets that Hills have come up with to give to customers. So to me Hills is not all that bad. The problem is some doctors just do not want to go outside the box, not all but some are still old school out there. I did find this link that will get you to those recipes. http://www.beaverlakeah.com/site/view/68476_NutritioninfoandRecipesforHomemadeDiets.pml
> 
> I do think it is harder for a vet who is in a solo practice to go to CE conferences and keep up with stuff. I know that where I work CE conferences are very important and some will go weekly to a conference to keep up with stuff.


good point. No way to know if that vet just wanted to be careful. Really no point in judging them based on some silly, second hand info.

Vets are required to get CE for their licenses though --- to bad they prolly all get bombarded by more Hills reps when they go to a big CE meeting.


----------

