# A few questions about protein content and which meat is best...



## missk4012 (Aug 28, 2011)

Hi everyone! I'm new to the forums and this looks like a great place to get some advice I've been looking for.

I have two medium-sized lab mixes, Maynard is 5 years old and Jasper is just over 1 year, and I am looking for a new dry food for them. Here's a little background on what they have been eating and how it's worked for them: 
Maynard's diet had been switched around a lot, some better quality, some nasty grocery store brands, and he's never had a problem adjusting to anything until recently. We started Jasper of Chicken Soup for the Puppy Lover's Soul (well, once we got him - I believe his first few weeks of life he and his mother ate AvoDerm) and then transitioned both dogs to Natural Balance Fish and Sweet Potato when Jasper was old enough (well, probably a little early really, but he was already stealing and eating all of Maynard's food anyway without any digestive issues).
On the Natural Balance they both did alright. Maynard, who was always a bit scrawny, bulked up some and Jasper lost the couple pounds the vet said he needed to lose. But I had two issues with the food myself. Firstly, I would prefer a higher quality fat content than canola oil. Secondly - it didn't seem like they were fully digesting the food - they would both poop way more often and those poops were so similar to the original food that Jasper would eat Maynard's excrement.
So I did some research and ended up switching them to EVO Red Meat Formula.
As always, Jasper handled the switch fine - but he can eat absolutely anything and he's always consumed HUGE amounts of water so the protein content was no issue. Maynard didn't do as well - he had plentiful and very sudden loose stools all over the house. I thought maybe it was because we transitioned them somewhat faster than we should have - but I suppose I'll never know because he won't touch that food now - we have gone back to his previous food for now. He's also never been much of a water drinker.

Based on that story, my first question is: Is the high protein content something I should simply steer clear of for Maynard? I have tried everything to get him to drink more water, but it just doesn't seem like it's going to happen. I had considered getting a different EVO formula, but maybe that's just too much for him?

Second question: Is there a particular meat that is better for dogs, or my dogs' situations in general?
I am getting overwhelmed trying to decide between regular "adult" formulas (which all seem to be chicken and turkey based), red meat formulas, fish formulas, etc. I know fish oil is great for the skin and coat - but if neither dog has any issues there, is there a better meat choice? Are the adult formulas mostly poultry just because it's cheaper to manufacture, or are certain dogs better suited to it? Are certain meats better for dogs that do different activities and have activity levels?

Oh my... this turned out to be a much longer post than I intended! Thank you in advance for any advice!


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I don't think the meat source makes a big difference when it comes to activity levels and such. . .the protein and fat levels would make more of a difference in that regard. Except for dogs with allergies/sensitivities/digestive issues, meat source isn't a huge deal.

The really rich foods like EVO and Orijen do seem to disagree with many dogs. Try feeding him less--too much food is one cause for loose stools, and he probably needs less of such a high-protein food. It's surprising how little of a high-quality food some dogs require.

Personally, I prefer a reasonably high but not too high protein level, and I prefer to rotate foods often to (possibly) prevent allergies and pickiness. Although I use different brands (TOTW among them. Chicken Soup, too), a lot of people rotate between the 4 Taste of the Wild formulas, and this seems to work well for many dogs. The 4 formulas are: bison-based, fish-based, lamb-based, and duck-based (the duck and bison formulas contain some chicken, the lamb and fish formulas do not). It's also reasonably priced, which is nice.


----------



## missk4012 (Aug 28, 2011)

Thanks for the advice! I always wondered if there was any particular reason to give my dog any particular type of meat - but there are no allergies that we know of.

I ended up ordering TOTW (the fish-based) as I've been trying to get him to eat the EVO but not having any success - after it made him sick the first time, even mixing a tiny bit into his old food and covering it with his favorite stuff (boiled eggs, bacon grease, even cheese) he won't touch it. He somehow manages to pick around the EVO, but eat everything else.

I really like the idea of rotating the formulas though. I had never considered that - I guess I just always went with the whole pick-one-food-and-don't-switch-it-up-unless-you-have-to way of thinking about dog food (I think I must have learned that myth from my parents, our family dogs have always had one kind of food and only change when their life stage changes) - but now that you mention it, it sounds much more realistic to switch up their diets every so often. I mean, if they were wild or if I was even making them homemade meals they wouldn't be eating the same thing every day.


----------



## Jilly&Whissy (Aug 31, 2011)

Hello there! I've been reading back and forth from what you two have been discussing and it does sound like your dog has a sensitive stomach to rich protein contents/food allergies. The issue with meat sources is that it does matter which type is in the food. Poultry (with no by-product meal) is most common even among vets because of the lowest fats in the meat but high protein content, fish and bison are not recommend as much because of the oils in the fish as a main ingredient and bison is a red meat which is hardest for canines to digest and fattiest. Lamb is so-so and duck is primarily used as a hypo-allergenic food. Another factor in food that many overlook is the grains that are in the food, not all grains are bad, corn is not bad for dogs as long as its not corn gluten. Rice is also very good for dogs to provide energy and fiber. There could be many factors that are affecting your dog but I would try a duck based food and ideally you should take the few bags of dog food that your dog was on and take them to your vet. Remember to always look past the first half a dozen ingredients and never by an "all life stages" brand of food, these types are based on a puppy diet and are full of fats and calories to make your dog gain a lot of weight much too fast. I'm saying this all from real experience (good and bad) and food really is an art that I'm very intrigued by . Most people also think vet food is so much more expensive when it really is not when you compare quantity vs quality so overall when in doubt pop by your vets office and most will be more then willing to look over the ingredients vs calories and it is so helpful I can't even tell you. My Lab. is on Medi-Cal Preventative and the great thing about vet foods that I never knew before is how specific the foods are to what your dog needs, but of course if that's not the route you want to take ask your vet to check out the brands for you, write a few down and they'll be happy to help! Mine were and I had the chance to work along side them and see different cases of dog sensitivities to foods etc. I hope I was somewhat helpful and best of luck!!


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

"Vet diets" (not prescription foods, which may be necessary sometimes) are usually extremely low-quality and overpriced. Corn as the first ingredient (dogs need meat!), lots of by-products, etc. Science Diet has basically the same ingredient list as Purina Dog Chow. . .but of course it costs a lot more! Most vets are not nutritionists and get very little nutritional training. So if you want good nutritional advice from a professional, consult a veterinary nutritionist, not a regular vet.

Fish oil is good for dogs so there's no reason to avoid fish-based foods on that account. All-life-stages foods are just fine, as long as you control the amount and prevent your dog from getting fat. Bison is an extremely lean red meat.


----------



## kafkabeetle (Dec 4, 2009)

Jilly&Whissy said:


> Remember to always look past the first half a dozen ingredients and *never by an "all life stages" brand of food, these types are based on a puppy diet and are full of fats and calories to make your dog gain a lot of weight much too fast.* I'm saying this all from real experience (good and bad) and food really is an art that I'm very intrigued by . *Most people also think vet food is so much more expensive when it really is not when you compare quantity vs quality so overall when in doubt pop by your vets office and most will be more then willing to look over the ingredients vs calories and it is so helpful I can't even tell you.* My Lab. is on Medi-Cal Preventative and the great thing about vet foods that I never knew before is how specific the foods are to what your dog needs, but of course if that's not the route you want to take ask your vet to check out the brands for you, write a few down and they'll be happy to help! Mine were and I had the chance to work along side them and see different cases of dog sensitivities to foods etc. I hope I was somewhat helpful and best of luck!!


Unfortunately, most of this information is not correct. 

1. All life stages food are just fine, in fact I prefer them. The only difference between puppy and adult dog food formulas are the fat and protein and these aren't things you need to restrict in adulthood, either. In fact, it would be just fine to feed a puppy formula food to an adult dog too, if one was so inclined. Many of the highest quality foods out there are all life stages formulas.

2. Veterinary diets are very low quality. They generally are corn based and contain very little meat. Now, I wouldn't avoid a veterinary diet if your vet is recommending one to treat an actual medical condition (aside from allergies--most vet diets would make allergies worse) but otherwise, you're basically just paying a very high price for a food of about the same quality as store brand generics!

3. I wouldn't recommend getting nutritional advice from your vet. They are not required to take many nutrition classes as part of their education, and what they do take is generally sponsored by companies like Hills (the maker of Science Diet and most veterinary diets) so they get somewhat of a biased education on the matter. Many very good vets don't know squat about nutrition, because they are vets, not nutritionists, the same way your family doctor might not know much about human nutrition, and would likely refer you to an expert if a nutritional problem arose.


----------



## Jilly&Whissy (Aug 31, 2011)

Actually your all very very wrong. Life stages is not a good idea what so ever as it is ALL based on puppy food and I can guarantee you that your dogs are over weight or will become overweight on the right and wrong amount of food. Puppy's and adults are very different in nutritional needs and from reading all of your posts not one understands what by-products mean. Everyone thinks all by-products are bad but do you really understand what they are. Hills does have a by-product in it but VET by- products mean that there are parts of a chicken for example that are all not the exact same such as a breast. By product MEAL is the terrible ground up stuff that is a derivative of real chicken and chicken fat and does not contain nutritional value and contains very little protein or none at all. 

Any meat that is not suitable and does not meet the standards of the AFFCO is sold down to grocery grade foods AND no one even mentioned about how all these other brands know for a fact that there is the SAME amount of nutrition in every bag. All these other brands do not have to follow guidelines and guarantees that each bag is the same, not one higher in corn then meat and the other the opposite. Any company can write whatever they want on the back of the bag with not one guarantee on it or under a law like Medi-Cal and Hills are to have the best they can. And people wonder why their having so many issues with dog food and have no problem with a few bags then all of a sudden there's issues that arise when on the same brand! A lot of people on here are also so concerned with "Control" if you feed the recommended cups of food as well as have your dog on the proper food there will be none of this concern about being so overweight or becoming sick. How can you possibly "control" the amount of the protein and other nutrition that your dog needs if you cant even give your dog the proper amount of food without it getting fat or sick! Mind boggling. 

I've used all these nasty grocery brands and even thought Acana, Origen, Natural Defense etc. were good and in the end no matter what type of meat my dogs would become over weight on not even 2 cups a day for a 60 plus lbs dog! And not to mention have loose stools, issues urinating etc. No one should have to keep changing foods around, your mixing your pet up so much its not even funny, might as well be a vegetarian, then eat meat the next few months then eat fast food, there's no CONSISTENCY. And if there is no consistency you will never be able to rule out any food allergies your dog may have because it is switched around so much. 

All vets are educated in nutrition, no if and's or buts. They don't go to school for 8 years to learn nothing yet people will go by what others say on the net from these dog advice forums etc. yet none is an official and reputable educator, anyone can pretend to be someone and try to be believable. Your GP can educate you very well on proper nutrition, nutritionists are to the extreme of foods and mostly on specialty diets, not once have I ever heard or know of someone who went to a nutritionist for their dog to see what it needs on a day to day bases. Vets can get your dog on proper food by its own individual health, age, weight, heart, liver function, enzymes in the blood, bowls etc. Proper nutrition consists of much much more then the one way street to a meat source. Understanding vitamins and minerals in the proper dose as well as grain, meat, fruits and vegetables is what true nutrition is all about. 

And as far as prices go, I am paying $42.00 taxes in for my 10KG bag of Medi-Cal food when many others pay almost that for HALF. Much more people need to do hard facts and research and go onto a Library database not crap on the net that someone can write in a few hours with no scholarly source behind it or from what teens-adults think they know about food when you walk into the store. I cannot stand when people run their mouths about how vets dont know anything yet you will go onto the net or ask some store owner who sells food or just look at the first half a dozen ingredients on a bag over a doctors opinion!


----------



## kafkabeetle (Dec 4, 2009)

I'm very curious about this "guarantee" Medi-Cal supposedly has that is somehow more believable than other dog food companies. Please do elaborate on this, lol. Also, I have no clue what you're talking about when you say people talk so much about "control". I frequent this forum and haven't heard the term myself...

This is a picture of my dog. She eats around 2/3-3/4 cup per day of Taste of the Wild (an ALS food), depending on how much exercise she got that day. Does she look overweight to you?










I assure you, if your dog becomes overweight, no matter the food they are eating, you are simply feeding TOO MUCH. There is no "right amount of food" for every dog of the same weight, and if your dog is becoming overweight, you need to adjust the amount you are feeding, not complain that the food did it. If you are uncomfortable with feeding a small amount, you can simply look for a lower calorie food, and that doesn't necessarily mean it has to be one full of fillers (like Medi-Cal).

As for vets, several actual veterinarians on this forum have conceded to the fact that they are not given much education regarding nutrition. That doesn't mean they don't know anything! It means that their area of expertise is medicine, surgury, etc. and not food. There's nothing wrong with that so long as you are aware of it and do your own research on nutrition. My diabetic father had to go to a nutritionist after he discovered that the advice he was getting from his doctor was DEAD WRONG and was having major blood sugar problems because of it. Nothing wrong with that. That's why specialties exist.

Please link your scholarly sources or information that would allow me to search out the articles you are basing your opinions off of at my local library. I will go check them out tomorrow afternoon.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

By-product MEAL, that you say is so awful, is in almost every vet brand out there. I'm not sure why you're saying the food is good if it has such a terrible ingredient.

My dogs aren't fat either. I don't have pictures (and 2 of them are fluffy anyway so it's hard to tell body condition), but they definitely aren't fat. And yes, the 85-pound male eats only 2 cups a day. What's wrong with that? If you feed the right amount for your dog, without worrying that it's "not enough" (if he's in good body condition it's enough), he won't be fat. My dogs would eat themselves to death if I didn't "control" their intake, regardless of the brand. In fact, my Rott ate an entire 20-pound bag of Science Diet when he was a puppy (before I owned him). 

Almost all grocery store brands are made to AAFCO specifications (AAFCO does not test or certify foods), with independent testing to prove this. So I'm not sure what you're saying about grocery store brands vs vet brands. And there are no laws (besides the laws governing all pet food manufacturers) governing vet brands in the U.S (I don't know about Canada). And considering that AAFCO stands for Association of AMERICAN Feed Control Officials and only operates in the U.S., I really am not sure what point you're trying to make. I'm sure Canada has a similar feed control group, but it wouldn't be the AAFCO.

If your dog develops allergies, you can do an elimination trial to pinpoint the cause. So that's not even an issue. But many people (including me) believe that rotating their food actually prevents allergies. Any human who ate the exact same thing every day for years and years would be very unhealthy. I feel it's the same for dogs.

I, too, would be interested in your library database information. I'd like to see this for myself.


----------



## missk4012 (Aug 28, 2011)

Firstly, thank you all for offering your advice. We clearly do not all agree on this forum, but I appreciate the effort from everyone. 



Willowy said:


> So I'm not sure what you're saying about grocery store brands vs vet brands.


As to the quote above: In this thread, people have mostly been giving me advice regarding protein quantities, and recomending premium dog foods not available in grocery stores (at least not in any grocery store I have ever been to). So the real argument here is more likely "specialty" brands (that's what I consider them since they're only available at one location in my town and otherwise only online) vs. vet brands. I suppose I failed to mention it in the OP, but I was specifically looking for non-gracery-store-brands as Jasper has never had a grocery-store brand or any dog food with grain in his life and Maynard hasn't since we got Jasper (although there are some grains in some of their treats) - I do intend to keep it this way. EDIT: I just realized this quote was referring to a different post that I thought - oops. Turns out I agree  Sorry!

To clarify my situation a little (although I've already chosen a new food and am waiting to see the results after it gets here): Maynard, the dog in question, has had his diet changed up many times in his life to all varieties of meats with no prior issues - at least that's what I am told by my boyfriend, who has had him his entire 5.5 years of life. I was relatively certain that his reaction to the EVO was not an allergy due to that reason, as well as because we have fed him fresh versions of all the meats in the food before with no adverse side effects - I assumed it was likely the high quantities of protein.

I didn't want to simply diagnose him myself, as I am not qualified, but I didn't JUST come here and ask a bunch of strangers on the internet - I came here for advice and opinions to supplement the info I am also getting from 3 vets AND a local dog nutritionist/ trainer (I am lucky enough to have connections to most of these so all my long discussions have been free!). I didn't include that info in the original post because I wanted unbiased opinions rather than people simply agreeing or disagreeing with what the professionals I consulted said. Not to mention, I wanted to see if the opinions of other dog owners were as skeptical as my own - there are three veterinary clinics in my town, and all of them push Science Diet or AvoDerm - both of which I have absolutely no interest in feeding to my dogs. All three vets also recommended I speak to someone who specializes specifically in canine nutrition as all three said they knew enough to help out my dog if he was actually sick, but not enough about nutrtion to pinpoint why the new food caused such a bad reaction. They all recommended the same lady, so that's who I called.

Based on most of the advice here, the opinion of the nutritionist, and the bit of research I did at my library, the issue (LUCKILY!) seems very simple: Of all the different foods Maynard has eaten before, none were nearly as high protein as EVO, we transitioned him too quickly, AND he drinks VERY LITTLE water, therefore giving him trouble digesting large quantities of dry meat. Why is it that my other dog handled it just fine? He has a digestive system like a freaking garbage disposal and has always consumed obscene amounts of water regardless of what he's eating. The bulk of people I have heard advice from, my local dog nutritionist, and my research are in agreement - not to mention, said advice meshes well with moral/ethical issues I have with certain foods and companies anyway (not specifically dog fods, mind you, most of my interest lies in human nutrition and food production (mal)practices in this country). So I based my decision on a combination on all of the above information.

In any case - that was a longwinded way of saying my food problems may very well be over - fingers crossed the TOTW I ordered goes down well  

Oh, and about the weight discussion also going on here: I really agree that it's the AMOUNT of food, not the type. This is based solely on personal experience, however. Until recently, Maynard has always looked like a scrawny, wild dog no matter what type of food he ate (from junk like Pedigree to fresh homemade meals) - he has started to look like an actual adult dog now, without changing the type of food, but because he eats more often to prevent Jasper from scarfing down all his leftovers. Jasper, on the otherhand, was a little overweight when we took him to the vet last, and has lost the extra weight while remaining on 1/2 cup less of the same food (or likely even less as we've realized we have to lock up the food on a high shelf in our guest room and barricade the trash cans or he'll help himself while we are at work! What a little punk!).

PS - kafka beetle, that pup is adorable!


----------



## flipgirl (Oct 5, 2007)

Jilly&Whissy said:


> Actually your all very very wrong. Life stages is not a good idea what so ever as it is ALL based on puppy food and I can guarantee you that your dogs are over weight or will become overweight on the right and wrong amount of food. Puppy's and adults are very different in nutritional needs and from reading all of your posts not one understands what by-products mean. Everyone thinks all by-products are bad but do you really understand what they are. Hills does have a by-product in it but VET by- products mean that there are parts of a chicken for example that are all not the exact same such as a breast. By product MEAL is the terrible ground up stuff that is a derivative of real chicken and chicken fat and does not contain nutritional value and contains very little protein or none at all.
> 
> Any meat that is not suitable and does not meet the standards of the AFFCO is sold down to grocery grade foods AND no one even mentioned about how all these other brands know for a fact that there is the SAME amount of nutrition in every bag. All these other brands do not have to follow guidelines and guarantees that each bag is the same, not one higher in corn then meat and the other the opposite. Any company can write whatever they want on the back of the bag with not one guarantee on it or under a law like Medi-Cal and Hills are to have the best they can. And people wonder why their having so many issues with dog food and have no problem with a few bags then all of a sudden there's issues that arise when on the same brand! A lot of people on here are also so concerned with "Control" if you feed the recommended cups of food as well as have your dog on the proper food there will be none of this concern about being so overweight or becoming sick. How can you possibly "control" the amount of the protein and other nutrition that your dog needs if you cant even give your dog the proper amount of food without it getting fat or sick! Mind boggling.
> 
> ...


First of all, vets have a limited education in nutrition, many have even told me so. Unless they are a board certified veterinary nutritious, I would not out so much faith in a vet's knowledge about nutrition. And why do you think that vets know so much about the hills and media-cal brands? Became some courses are actually sponsored by these companies and/ or the research used is based on their research. In addition, they learn mostly about te rx foods and the logic behind each food.For example, k/d is for kidney disease and so it contains lower protein, reduced phosphorus etc to lower the waste products going through the kidneys. I know that Medi-cal cleans out their factory and only makes hypoallergenic formula on Mondays(here in Ontario). I know this because a vet who works where I do worked there. Regardless, their knowledge is limited to rx foods typically. As far as maintenance foods go, they know little. I asked one vet why a maintenance cat food would contain.corn and grains when a cat is an obligate carnivore who cannot digest grains. He couldn't answer. When further questioned he said the pancreas releases enzymes to digest these carbs. Maybe but the cat is not going to derive any benefit from it other than stress on the pancreas. Another vet said that the beneful a client was feeding was just as good as hills. Well, that says everything. I think that to really be convinced.that a vet is well-schooled in nutrition, he or she must learn about ingredients as well as about the foods currently on the market. A vet should be able to explain to me why Medi-cal preventive is better than Orijen. Why would it be more suitable to have corn instead of meat? So far, I have not received a satisfactory answer. I read the discussions between vets about various aspects of nutrition and many don't know that cats are obligate carnivores and what they require or they are so brainwashed by hills or other rx companies, that they have tunnel vision. There are some vets, however, that rethinking outside the box and sell otc brands like evo or wellness. These vets prescribe evo to cats with IBD and have had success. So once you start thinking outside the box and questioning the status quo, you get more information. My one cat is in stage three kidney failure and while k/d is part of his rotation of foods, he eats mostly otc brands. His kidney values are stable, I just had them done today.

Also, feeding a food with quality ingredients requires lower amounts in feeding as they are not getting as much crap to poop. Keep in mind that the meat in pet food, hardly found in rx foods, is actually what is left over after the meat for human consumption are taken out. In essence, it is by-products if the meat used for human consumption. By-products as defined by the aafco for chicken for example, include skin, viscera , organs, etc. This may be nutritious for dogs but I don't know what the actual by-products are in any given food. You could be feeding your dog chicken beaks or feet. The aafco sets guidelines but it is up to each company to comply. It has no regulation powers. If you look deeply into the food industry, human or otherwise, you will find that rendering companies and pet food companies are in 'kahoots' and are not as law abiding as you may believe. Not that aafco is law..

Sorry went off topic a bit but I would suggest you do more research.


----------



## missk4012 (Aug 28, 2011)

Oh dear, I really didn't want to get too involved it the vet food vs. grocery store food vs. other food argument but... Just out of curiosity, I looked up the ingredients of a few of the brands I have sworn off, just to see if I was, in fact, judging them too harshly. I don't think I was. At all...

Rice, Soy Protein Isolate Hydrolysate, Chicken Fat, Natural Flavour, Dried Beet Pulp, Calcium Carbonate, Monopotassium Phosphate, Soybean Oil, Sodium Silico Aluminate (Zeolite), Fish Oil, Fructo-Oligosaccharides, Salt, Potassium Chloride, Taurine, Borage Oil, Choline Chloride, Vitamins (DL-Alpha-Tocopherol [Source of Vitamin E], Inositol, Niacin, L-Ascorbyl-2-Polyphosphate [Source of Vitamin C], D-Calcium Pantothenate, Biotin, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride [Vitamin B6], Riboflavin [Vitamin B2], Thiamine Mononitrate [Vitamin B1], Vitamin A Acetate, Folic Acid, Vitamin B12 Supplement and Vitamin D3 Supplement), L-Tyrosine, L-Lysine, Marigold Extract (Source of Lutein) and Trace Minerals (Zinc Proteinate, Zinc Oxide, Ferrous Sulphate, Manganese Proteinate, Copper Proteinate, Copper Sulphate, Manganous Oxide, Calcium Iodate and Sodium Selenite). Naturally Preserved with Mixed Tocopherols, Rosemary Extract and Citric Acid. Approximately 314 kcal/cup, 403 kcal/100 g, 78 g/cup 

Those are the ingredients for a random type of Medi-Cal I checked out (regular hypo-allergenic and yes this is from the company's website). Can anyone point out the food in this? Not meat specifically, but the ingredients that are not isolated extracts or processed food-like products? I see almost 3: rice, chicken fat, and I think dried beet pulp+fish oil makes one. 

Ground Whole Corn, Meat and Bone Meal (Natural Source of Calcium) *** Um, why aren't they specifying what TYPE of meat?***, Chicken By-product Meal (Natural Source of Glucosamine†), Corn Gluten Meal, Rice, Animal Fat ***Any particular type of animal?***(Preserved with BHA/BHT), ---

That's where I quit reading the Pedigree Large Breed Adult ingredients list. 1 mystery meat, 1 mystery fat, 1 by product meal, 1 useless grain, another grain, and corn gluten are the FIRST ingredients? I used to feed my dog this. I feel like a bad mommy.

In any case, I feel like staying away from these and similar brands was a good choice. Not everyone has to agree with me, but I like my decision.


----------



## kafkabeetle (Dec 4, 2009)

missk4012 said:


> PS - kafka beetle, that pup is adorable!


Thank you! 

I think you are on the right track here and making a good decision about what to feed.


----------



## flipgirl (Oct 5, 2007)

P


missk4012 said:


> Oh dear, I really didn't want to get too involved it the vet food vs. grocery store food vs. other food argument but... Just out of curiosity, I looked up the ingredients of a few of the brands I have sworn off, just to see if I was, in fact, judging them too harshly. I don't think I was. At all...
> 
> Rice, Soy Protein Isolate Hydrolysate, Chicken Fat, Natural Flavour, Dried Beet Pulp, Calcium Carbonate, Monopotassium Phosphate, Soybean Oil, Sodium Silico Aluminate (Zeolite), Fish Oil, Fructo-Oligosaccharides, Salt, Potassium Chloride, Taurine, Borage Oil, Choline Chloride, Vitamins (DL-Alpha-Tocopherol [Source of Vitamin E], Inositol, Niacin, L-Ascorbyl-2-Polyphosphate [Source of Vitamin C], D-Calcium Pantothenate, Biotin, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride [Vitamin B6], Riboflavin [Vitamin B2], Thiamine Mononitrate [Vitamin B1], Vitamin A Acetate, Folic Acid, Vitamin B12 Supplement and Vitamin D3 Supplement), L-Tyrosine, L-Lysine, Marigold Extract (Source of Lutein) and Trace Minerals (Zinc Proteinate, Zinc Oxide, Ferrous Sulphate, Manganese Proteinate, Copper Proteinate, Copper Sulphate, Manganous Oxide, Calcium Iodate and Sodium Selenite). Naturally Preserved with Mixed Tocopherols, Rosemary Extract and Citric Acid. Approximately 314 kcal/cup, 403 kcal/100 g, 78 g/cup
> 
> ...


I think you are on the right road. Sorry, didn't mean to get so nuts about the food debate, just felt like you were being given extremely erroneous information. Everyone has their opinions, so nutrition seems to create a debate often. 

All in all, you have to feed what you are comfortable feeding, what you can afford, and what your dog does well on. I say go with it.


----------



## InkedMarie (Mar 11, 2009)

Jilly&Whissy said:


> Most people also think vet food is so much more expensive when it really is not when you compare quantity vs quality so overall when in doubt pop by your vets office and most will be more then willing to look over the ingredients vs calories and it is so helpful I can't even tell you. My Lab. is on Medi-Cal Preventative and the great thing about vet foods that I never knew before is how specific the foods are to what your dog needs, but of course if that's not the route you want to take ask your vet to check out the brands for you, write a few down and they'll be happy to help! Mine were and I had the chance to work along side them and see different cases of dog sensitivities to foods etc. I hope I was somewhat helpful and best of luck!!


No offense to vets but unless they are a nutritionist as well, I probably know more about canine nutrition than my vets. I would not trust any of my vets, except for my holistic vet, for nutrition info. Veterinary diets, unless needed for a medical condition (such as the Purina HA that helped a dog of mine live for 3more mos), they are made of crappy ingredients. You say to ask the vet to check out brands? Anytime my vet has asked what I feed and I tell him, he is completely clueless. He feeds what he sells and that's fine, his choice.


----------



## missk4012 (Aug 28, 2011)

flipgirl said:


> Sorry, didn't mean to get so nuts about the food debate, just felt like you were being given extremely erroneous information. Everyone has their opinions, so nutrition seems to create a debate often.


No need to apologize - I am liking reading the debate and getting some good information out of it. I just wasn't originally going to jump in because A) My opinion is already pretty well covered by others and B) I find debating dog food very similar to debating human nutrition - People who buy into what a certain company/certain professional/ certain public figure/ etc. says is best without much question are unlikely to change their minds until they decide on their own that they want to. It's kind of like trying to tell someone who swears by the SlimFast diet how awful that is for them - if they tried it and lost weight, it's something they will continue to recommend to everyone, no matter what information is out there about it.

We all have our own opinions, but I am certainly glad for people who will jump in and correct downright incorrect information - If I wasn't doing my ow research as well, both directly and as mention of pet food comes up in my food-related books, I may be susceptible to believing the first information thrown at me. And if I think about what information I see most often...::shudders:: I believe that would be Beneful commercials!

While I'm here, I had an issue with the following:


> Remember to always look past the first half a dozen ingredients


I prefer to determine whether I'm going to waste my time reading the whole list of ingredients within the first 6 listed. Ingredients are listed by weight - high to low, so with the exception of whole meats (which are listed by weight inclusive of water content, so once dried they would actually end up lower on the list) the first ingredients are the most plentiful in the formula. If I am not impressed by the first 6 ingredients, then I have already decided that food is not something I am going to buy. If the first 6 look okay, then I continue and check out the entire list. This way, I narrow my choices down quickly, and what I am left to choose from at the end are typically the highest quality selections from whatever my original options were. This works absolutely as well with human food and beauty and cleaning products, by the way.



I am very relieved that I found a second-best choice to my original plan of a high protein diet. I must say, reading the ingredients on literally hundreds of brands of dog food over the course of 3 days was both tedious and terrifying! It bothers me to no end that there aren't more regulations, if not on what can go into dog food, then at least on what claims the companies can make about low quality foods. I suppose it's no different than the health claims of human food - but those are false as well! 

I am also perturbed by the sheer number of people who I've spoken to in person about dog food who don't get it: I tell them about my experience reading the Pedigree bag, my shock and disgust, and my subsequent switch and the only responses I seem to get are "What? You spend THAT much on dog food? They're just dogs, they don't care what's in it as long as it tastes good!" Of course they don't care - Jasper would be happiest if I just fed him raw onions all day but I care that onions are bad for dogs. I also care that a bag of our old grocery store food was $20 for, essentially, a bag of corn. A bushel of corn is priced around 7 to 10 cents - if that was what I wanted to give my dogs, I would buy a bushel for a dime and cook it myself! 45-70 bucks for 30 pounds of mostly meat makes more sense to me, both nutritionally and with regards to actually getting something of value for my money. That's how I look at it anyway: If I went into the grocery store with $50 for my own food - would I think it was a better deal to get 60lbs of corn or 20lbs of salmon and 10lbs of vegetables? No contest.


----------



## flipgirl (Oct 5, 2007)

missk4012 said:


> No need to apologize - I am liking reading the debate and getting some good information out of it. I just wasn't originally going to jump in because A) My opinion is already pretty well covered by others and B) I find debating dog food very similar to debating human nutrition - People who buy into what a certain company/certain professional/ certain public figure/ etc. says is best without much question are unlikely to change their minds until they decide on their own that they want to. It's kind of like trying to tell someone who swears by the SlimFast diet how awful that is for them - if they tried it and lost weight, it's something they will continue to recommend to everyone, no matter what information is out there about it.
> 
> We all have our own opinions, but I am certainly glad for people who will jump in and correct downright incorrect information - If I wasn't doing my ow research as well, both directly and as mention of pet food comes up in my food-related books, I may be susceptible to believing the first information thrown at me. And if I think about what information I see most often...::shudders:: I believe that would be Beneful commercials!
> 
> ...


Well I am glad you have succeeded in making a good choice. I totally understand. If I even hint I don't like the rx foods at the clinic where I work, I hear the big GASP!! before it happens. The food industry is really scary. Profit drives the industry and thus, the industry has some unspoken accomplices in maintaining the status quo. I don't like to put a lot of faith in aafco approval or feeding trials. Feeding trials prove that a dog will live for six months on the food being tested. Whooppee. And so what if the good meets the aafco nutrient profiles? There was a show about pet food and they demonstrated how they could make a dog food out of a leather boot. Obviously it is not edible bit the nutrient content met the profile. Means nada. Beneful probably meets the nutrient profile but would I feedibg to my dog? No way! Many of the vet-prescribed rx foods have not gone through aafco feeding trials or necessarily met their nutrient profiles. Small companies usually to not do the feeding trials as they are expensive.


----------



## Sarayu14 (Apr 26, 2010)

Just to put my two cents in. Go RAW no fruit, veg, or grains (the fruit and veg are up to you if you want them put them in) it is the best decision that I have ever made and my dogs love me for it.


----------



## Sarayu14 (Apr 26, 2010)

missk4012 said:


> Oh dear, I really didn't want to get too involved it the vet food vs. grocery store food vs. other food argument but... Just out of curiosity, I looked up the ingredients of a few of the brands I have sworn off, just to see if I was, in fact, judging them too harshly. I don't think I was. At all...


It does have a tendency to get a bit out of hand when it comes to the foods that we feed our animals. It is a very passonite(sorry for the misspell) topic.


----------



## missk4012 (Aug 28, 2011)

Sarayu14 said:


> Just to put my two cents in. Go RAW no fruit, veg, or grains (the fruit and veg are up to you if you want them put them in) it is the best decision that I have ever made and my dogs love me for it.


I really, REALLY want to do this. My only issue is that there isn't a good place to find quality meat in my area. I am very picky about supporting only pastured, properly fed, non-hormone-treated and non-antibiotic-treated meat sources. It's hard to do that purchasing dry dog food, but I try my best to get the most ethical brands I can find and afford. There's so limited a decent selection here that my boyfriend and I eat red meat about 3-4 times a year, no chicken or turkey except the thanksgiving turkey (which a local meat store special orders for us), and almost entirely frozen fish as it's the only wild caught variety available (we, of course, share this with the doggies!). Once in a while, when we can get quality meats, I dehydrate what we don't use right away, and that becomes our own jerky or dog treats.

On the plus side - we are planning a big move probably in about a year - to somewhere with far more options, both food-related and not. At that time, I definitely want to at least make one of dogs' daily meals a raw one 

Oh, and most of the meat here has been frozen, shipped, refrozen, then defrosted and sold as "fresh." Years ago I worked briefly in the meat department and deli at our local grocery store and it was enough to turn me into a vegan raw-foodist for a number of years. I would not feel comfortable feed THAT meat, raw, to my dogs. Man, this place is pretty, but otherwise it sucks!


----------



## BlackShadowCaneCorso (Feb 3, 2011)

We currently feed Acana ALS to our dogs (puppies and adults alike), do like the idea of RAW but with the number of dogs and limited storage at the moment it isn't an option. We have never had a problem with over-weight dogs on an ALS food, in fact they always seem to be in the best shape and have had it remarked upon at shows and other dog venues. We don't share the same experiences with stoole, with the exception that we get far less of it with this food. We are also able to feed less of a quality food and maintain healthy, happy animals that don't require I spend hours after they are in for the night picking up the messes that having several dogs can bring. With the puppies we tend to go with the lower protein ALS as we have large breeds and prefer a slower steady growth to prevent joint issues later in life but after the 18 month to 2 year mark we are more than comfortable feeding them whichever flavor they prefer of the food. 

We have tried several foods in the past, TOTW, Canidae, Pro Series, Kirkland, Euk. Low Residue as well as several of the vet diets like Medi-cal, Hills and Waltham's (now Royal Canin) and we have found what works best for our animals and will continue to stick with it. I have to agree that vets are given little knowledge about the diets they are pushing beside what they are told by the reps and companies pushing them (and I can say this because while I love my vet, she is my old boss who I still maintain a close relationship with and I know the "knowledge" they are provided with as I have sat through several of the "dog food lectures" on these foods) I do not go to her for food advise. We have different views on food and what is acceptable and she has listened to me and says while she may be hearing one thing from the reps she honestly can't argue the health and over all well being of my animals. I continue doing what works best for my animals and when asked give my recommendations on my experience, people can take it or leave it but I tend to let the dogs speak for themselves


----------



## Jilly&Whissy (Aug 31, 2011)

Well I forgot about this thread and it seems to have brewed up quite a discussion that is a good thing because we can see what other really know and what claim to know. I'm trying to remember what I read and to break it down, none of this is a factual discussion, just opinions as people do only read the first few ingredients. What I am saying and no one could answer back with it is how can you possibly know if your dog is receiving the proper amount of nutrients if you do not know what he/she needs as far as calorie intake, crude protein, fiber, crude fat, EPA/DHA levels etc.? I also find it contradictory how people can say they hate vet food but will use other foods such as Acana and yet it "contains" large amounts of fruits as well as vegetables. For all they know is that it could contain the most fruit rather then meat because of the water volume a lot of company's use in meats to make it to the top 3 ingredients that people like to see. That is ALL marketing, there's a huge difference between marketing and sponsoring yet again no one knows this and yet they say I need to do more research when I've been doing this for 4 years studying in the field of animal science at University. This also leads me to say that if anyone knew about University studies then they would know that I cannot just pull articles that I've researched for that many years in a matter of a day. Continuing on with some other questions etc.; Canada does follow the rules of the AAFCO and the AAFCO has specific food regulations and laws stating what it a suitable food for your dog, a grocery brand food could be certified but the AAFCO but more then not there was no actual testing done by the AAFCO, that is the manufactures job. The AAFCO is set up through the government/FDA to make sure there is no harmful food, but it does not mean it is GOOD food. It clearly states on the AAFCO web page that it is the manufactures job to test the dog food so in saying this, any type of product analysis could be written on there and "seem" like it is the best food as they want to have the best marketing strategies to sell the food. Sponsoring company are different, it is there name out there and they only sell in certain places such as vets offices as their food has be tested, tried, and guaranteed to be the best for your dog. 

I am not sure where everyone goes to for veterinary care but as another rule of thumb for vets is that they are not allowed to be biased on pet food brands, they cannot "promote" their food unless you specifically ask of if your dog is in great need of it. See they do not NEED to sell their food to keep the company going, if they did their wouldn't be such thing as a vet food because everyone seems to think they are bad and full of preservatives. 

So in saying that, corn/rice/oats are used in dog food as a low fat, easy to digest source of energy and fiber that dogs greatly need. This all meat and no grain food is much much higher in calories and once your dog begins to slow down weight will most likely be put on, pure meat dog food is also a lot harder to digest and many dogs will become bloated and have a problem with their stool. Corn gluten is also not bad, it is the compound in corn that contains energy and is used in dog and cat foods. The terms "by-product" and "by-product meal" is also different as I've said before and it is located on the FDA-AAFCO website that IS accurate because it is government so their should be no questions about that. Also on the AAFCO website there is a lot of information concerning the product analysis and says that manufactures will have a variation in almost every batch of food as manufacturers will try to buy the cheapest meats etc. in a bulk form but do not change their labeling to how much is actually in the bag. This is why there is a min. and a max. on food bags. In vet foods every bag is the same and in University I have also seen many documentaries on the food and into the Royal Canin- Medi- Cal factory etc. Maybe my vets are more educated then most, or studies may vary that much in the US compared to Cananda. But if you know where to look and take the few years to study the topics then opinions will change. 

I cannot be more clear on where to look and that it takes time and very important to look past the first ingredients. I could talk all day about this but obviously won't. I've had experiences with the foods people are talking about and they have given both my cat and one of my dogs urine crystals as I had tests done on the food and it was the culprit, I've also had a lot of weight gain even in my active dogs from all life stages foods because they are based on growth and development. Again this is information regulated by the government. Overall it doesn't bother me that others are against what I say because they simply do not know and understand and I do not look to offend people but share what I've learned, been through and know. This is a long post but I hope this shows that I am not just running my mouth. I would like to see more of what people have to say after they've done some hard research as yes foods are a very interesting topic.


----------



## Abbylynn (Jul 7, 2011)

I normally do not post to this sort of interest because I do not know the research as you do. But I will say that I chose my last food by reading every dog food and its ingredients from the Dog Food Advisor website. I chose a four star food that I can afford and looked better than the Beneful my poor dogs were eating for four years. I switched to 4Health. I knew that somewhere I had read that the AAFCO does just as you say and my food was approved but did not say it was actually tested. My food also says that all the ingredients are from the USA and nothing is imported. It also states that the meats used are USDA approved. I am thinking that my dogs are not eating euthanized animals and I hope I am correct in that aspect. The food is also no corn, no wheat, no soy. The red flags were beet pulp and whole flaxseed. What is your honest opinion on this food and the Dog Food Advisor? Keep in mind please that one of my dogs is allergic to wheat and this is also what drew me to this food. I am curious because I read in another post that the findings of this foods ingredients were actually imported despite what I read? I am just curious about what you may have learned.


----------



## Jilly&Whissy (Aug 31, 2011)

Hello, I just checked over that site you were referring to as well as a few more that are along the lines of dog food analysis, the most popular ones the came up first and the big problem with these sites is that no where on these sites does it say where this information is coming from and who by. All it says is that the information came from the "expert editors" yet it refuses to show their names as well if they are Veterinarians or Professors, by law it needs to be stated if they are one of these professionals (at least in Canada) and stated by their name. This is called a Scholarly source and I clearly read through the sites "Terms of Use" and "Privacy Policy" and all say that in no way is their information guaranteed to be correct or accurate in any way and to do your own research and consult veterinarians about questions on food. 

Mostly all foods of any type are imported, organic human food is mostly all imported as well but is still deemed as healthy and the best for you for example. A food being imported is not as important as the quality of the food. 

Beet pulp is an extremely easy food to digest and contains fiber to help your dog feel full, this is used in lower fat dog foods and a lot of adult maintenance foods for the dog to not have to eat so much meat for example if he/she is sensitive to the high content of protein which the majority of dogs seem to be or on a hypo-allergic food/vegetarian food or finally gains weight easily. Flax seed is also a great food to use for cats, dogs and livestock as it is a natural anti-inflammatory and can help food allergies, dry flaky skin, as well as improve the fluid between joints instead of using a supplement containing glucosamine, msm and chondroitin.

But going back to your 4health food, I looked at their website as I've never heard of it before as I live in Canada so I checked it out and the food does contain wheat germ, oats and flax seed, there is nothing wrong with that but where you said your dog cannot have wheat I would be a little weary on the wheat germ as it is will contain the compound of wheat. The other thing with what I can gather from the site is that there is no guidelines that do follow the AAFCO or say anything about animal testing on the food to see long term usages. This does not mean it is not good for your dog but I'm just wondering why this wouldn't be stated so that is a red flag to me. The other thing is that when they say there are no preservatives (even natural ones) that concerns me a bit, there overall needs to be a preservative to hold shelf life and when the bag is opened and oxygen is being let in every time you open it again. I'll try to go through the ingredients more thoroughly and see if I can find where they might be using a natural preservative. 

* One important tip is to always look for "Taurine" in your food labeling. Studies have shown that at least half of heart failure in dogs and cats is from a lack of Taurine in their everyday diet. Foods containing fish would naturally contain a bit of it but once again it is hard to be sure unless it states on the packaging or you can call the manufacture it self and ask for a true analysis. All manufacturers should have a call number and the only ones that don't need to are veterinary brand dog foods. (Sorry for any spelling mistakes, trying to write this up quick before class!)


----------



## Abbylynn (Jul 7, 2011)

Thank you for the lenghthy response. I will check the bag and see what it says. I am sure it states somewhere that the preservative was from a natural source. I am sorry.....I should have realized you were from Canada. I will post any findings I've come across on the bag this evening after dinner.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

If vets aren't allowed to be biased about food brands, there are a LOT of vets breaking the rules. So many push push push Science Diet (which isn't even a "vet brand") constantly. 

And you still haven't said why many of the vet brands contain "by-product meal". Because they definitely do. Have you even read the ingredient list on most of them?

I will say that Medi-Cal Preventive is miles better than anything Hill's makes. If my pet needed a prescription diet, I'd go with that one. . .if it's available in the U.S.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Abbylynn said:


> Thank you for the lenghthy response. I will check the bag and see what it says. I am sure it states somewhere that the preservative was from a natural source. I am sorry.....I should have realized you were from Canada. I will post any findings I've come across on the bag this evening after dinner.


Yes, 4Health says it's preserved "with mixed tocopherols", which is pretty standard for pet foods without BHA/BHT or ethoxyquin (which are known carcinogens).


----------



## blues327 (May 2, 2011)

> So in saying that, corn/rice/oats are used in dog food as a low fat, easy to digest source of energy and fiber that dogs greatly need.


 If corn/rice/oats are so greatly needed, why does both AFFCO and the NRC not list a needed dietary percentage amount of carbohydrates for dogs on their nutritional requirement tables, implying that carbohydrates are unessential nutrients in dog's nutritional needs? 

You've mentioned before that grains are a great source of energy for dogs, but you never have gone into much detail on exactly why and how. Carbohydrates, like proteins, contain only four calories of energy per gram (while fat is twice as energy dense at 9 calories per gram), and protein and fat (given enough) can convert into glucose for dogs by gluconeogenesis. I would think that dogs being scientifically classified as carnivores and in the same species as wolves, might benefit more from an animal energy source of protein and fat vs a plant carbohydrate form, as their main diet source is other animals, not plants. 

I've read that grains also may not be beneficial to dogs because they contain phytic acid which inhibits the absorption of calcium, magnesium, iron, zinc and iodine, according to Dr. David Kronfeld, DS Phd DSc MVSc (Home Cooking for Dogs, The Staples, Meat, Meat by-Products and Cereal, (American Kennel Club Gazette, July, 1978) 55). Dr. David Kronfeld was a Professor of Nutrition at the University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine, and participated in several nutrition studies. I'm curious on your thoughts on this studying 4 years in the field of animal science at a University.



> Beet pulp is an extremely easy food to digest


There seems to be some conflicting thoughts on this.

"High fiber carbohydrates are often found in dog foods. They can include bran, beet pulp, rice hulls, peanut hulls, cellulose and plant gums. Fiber is not digestible by dogs in these forms." Case, Linda P MS, Carey, Daniel PD, DVM and Hirakawa, Diane A, PhD, Canine and Feline Nutrition, ( Mosby Press, 1995) 17-18



> Flax seed is also a great food to use for cats, dogs and livestock


I thought the ALA form of omega 3's found in flax are just a precursor to the EPA and DHA found in fish oil and still need to be converted to EPA and DHA before it has any nutritional value and that conversion is difficult, specially if the animal lacks a lot (but not all) of the enzymes to break down plant matter, like carnivores do.



> I've also had a lot of weight gain even in my active dogs from all life stages foods because they are based on growth and development.


So couldn't you just feed less of the food?


----------



## Abbylynn (Jul 7, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Yes, 4Health says it's preserved "with mixed tocopherols", which is pretty standard for pet foods without BHA/BHT or ethoxyquin (which are known carcinogens).


 Thank you Willowy.....I didn't mean to jump over your response you were waiting on! Not intentional! Sorry  Thanks for the info!


----------



## Labmom4 (Feb 1, 2011)

kafkabeetle said:


> Unfortunately, most of this information is not correct.
> 
> 1. All life stages food are just fine, in fact I prefer them. The only difference between puppy and adult dog food formulas are the fat and protein and these aren't things you need to restrict in adulthood, either. In fact, it would be just fine to feed a puppy formula food to an adult dog too, if one was so inclined. Many of the highest quality foods out there are all life stages formulas.
> 
> ...


You took the words right out of my mouth kafka. 
I dont know many people that are more concerned with their dogs' health than Guide Dogs of the Desert, the organization I work with. They recommend all life stage foods. Believe me, they do their homework.

I would also like to say that a lot of the information you're giving, Jilly&Whissy, is incorrect. Here and on other threads. I link a lot of my friends and family to this site when they have questions and it concerns me that you're providing misinformation.


----------



## Labmom4 (Feb 1, 2011)

btw, maybe it's different where you're from, but here in the U.S., yes, vets DO promote their food.


----------



## Kathyy (Jun 15, 2008)

Jill&Whissy, I would love a link to the information on taurine. I know some dogs will have low blood taurine on certain foods and some of those dogs might develop heart disease but I had no idea it was that high a percentage!

Beet pulp is highly digestible? It is very high in fiber and by definition that means it isn't digestible. The analysis I have is 22% fiber, it can only be 78% digestible if that is the case.


----------



## MagicRe (Jan 8, 2010)

to the OP.

my husband is vegetarian and i am vegan. 

we feed our dogs raw. they are carnivores. not human.

we went from kibble to home cooked to raw and my twelve year old corgi mix looks like she is half of her age and acts it. 

my foods are whole, fresh, unprocessed.

why would you feed your dogs processed food ? this is akin to eating mc donald's every day.

to the other people going back and forth about vets and their education. they, like medical doctors, get a three credit course on nutrition. that's it. whether they push their food or not, they are not educated about nutrition.

when reading ingredients, read all of them, because tucked in there somewhere, you might see lecithin...and that is usually soy based....


----------



## flipgirl (Oct 5, 2007)

Jilly&Whissy said:


> Well I forgot about this thread and it seems to have brewed up quite a discussion that is a good thing because we can see what other really know and what claim to know. I'm trying to remember what I read and to break it down, none of this is a factual discussion, just opinions as people do only read the first few ingredients. What I am saying and no one could answer back with it is how can you possibly know if your dog is receiving the proper amount of nutrients if you do not know what he/she needs as far as calorie intake, crude protein, fiber, crude fat, EPA/DHA levels etc.? I also find it contradictory how people can say they hate vet food but will use other foods such as Acana and yet it "contains" large amounts of fruits as well as vegetables. For all they know is that it could contain the most fruit rather then meat because of the water volume a lot of company's use in meats to make it to the top 3 ingredients that people like to see. That is ALL marketing, there's a huge difference between marketing and sponsoring yet again no one knows this and yet they say I need to do more research when I've been doing this for 4 years studying in the field of animal science at University. This also leads me to say that if anyone knew about University studies then they would know that I cannot just pull articles that I've researched for that many years in a matter of a day. Continuing on with some other questions etc.; Canada does follow the rules of the AAFCO and the AAFCO has specific food regulations and laws stating what it a suitable food for your dog, a grocery brand food could be certified but the AAFCO but more then not there was no actual testing done by the AAFCO, that is the manufactures job. The AAFCO is set up through the government/FDA to make sure there is no harmful food, but it does not mean it is GOOD food. It clearly states on the AAFCO web page that it is the manufactures job to test the dog food so in saying this, any type of product analysis could be written on there and "seem" like it is the best food as they want to have the best marketing strategies to sell the food. Sponsoring company are different, it is there name out there and they only sell in certain places such as vets offices as their food has be tested, tried, and guaranteed to be the best for your dog.
> 
> I am not sure where everyone goes to for veterinary care but as another rule of thumb for vets is that they are not allowed to be biased on pet food brands, they cannot "promote" their food unless you specifically ask of if your dog is in great need of it. See they do not NEED to sell their food to keep the company going, if they did their wouldn't be such thing as a vet food because everyone seems to think they are bad and full of preservatives.
> 
> ...


And what research have you done? Who says vets can't be biased as to what foods they recommend? They can sell hillsvor they can sell wellness. There are vets who prescribe EVO for cats with diarrhea. I have done research and have read much of what vets have to say. Many of them do not put much faith in the aafco. It is only an organization that sets guidelines, it cannot regulate anything. Its feeding trials only certify for lack of a better word, that the targeted pet will survive on the food for 6 months. And I reiterate that many rx foods that you seem to be so loyal to, are not aafco tested or approved. And after all the research these companies have done, they still haven't figured out that cats should not eat grains, yet most of their foods are based on corn or its derivatives. Rx foods have their place but for the most part, all their research is on how to save money by using the cheapest ingredients. One can do more than read the label on a bag or can of food, but most people don't have the time nor the resources to do the research. 

Do you work for one of the big three companies? It sounds odd that you would defend rx foods with so much vigour and so little knowledge. I have never heard some of the things you have said, either on this forums, at work, on the vet forumas, or in any research that I have done. Sorry but the rx companies so sponsor many of the nutrition courses at vet school and even if the course Isn't sponsored, their learning is limited to the rx foods. If one vet can tell me logicallyband empirically, why a hills maintenance food is better than the food I feed my cats for example, then so think hell would have frozen over. The vets who are board certified nutritionists often ask for evidence based information; that is, information that has been scientifically tested. I can ask for the same. Give me some evidence that a food like Acana, is not better than a maintenance food from hills, Medi-cal or the other rx foods. I don't have any experience with Acana but used that as an example. When my dog had crystals, I was told to feed her hills c/d by a vet with 25 years experience. She told me feeding raw is not natural as the.meat is not the same meat my dog would hunt in the wild. She said if I wanted to feed natural, I should feed canned. I have never seen any animal, let alone a dog, hunt down a can. But seriously, I fed it for a couple of days, and the mounds of poop that came out of my 17 lb dog was horrendous. She originally was supposed to feed Royal Canine Urinary SO but I couldn't find the meat in te ingredients list. So I put her back on her raw, added a supplement and she has not had crystals since. Her crystals were struvite and were accompanied by an infection. I read the manuals and texts and she is crystal free and only tiny amounts of poop. The prices that the rx companies charge for these foods that mostly contain by-products (which are not inherently bad if they are.the organs and muscle meats but they should not be the biggest source of protein in a dog or cat food) and cheap grains like corn and brewer's rice as well as corn gluten meal and wheat.gluten. , is terrible and borders on unethical. Yes, othear companies outside of the rx realm do have marketing savvy, (e.g. Blue Buffalo) but I don't know how feeding meat is a bad thing. 

However, pet food is by and large, by-products of the human food industry. The parts that we wouldn't eat are put in pet food. The AAFCO defines poultry to be the meat from the chicken carcass but in reality, pet food chicken is what is left after the parts for human consumption are taken out. Sadly, many of the rx foods don't even contain these scraps. Hills will tell you that by-products are healthy, which, they are if they are the organs and muscle meats. But who's to say when no one is checking? 

You can insult me or others on this forum all you want but if you were a bit credible, I may consider what you say as valid.


----------



## abi88 (Jul 2, 2008)

MagicRe said:


> to the OP.
> 
> my husband is vegetarian and i am vegan.
> 
> ...


GREAT post as always Re!

Also to the OP I know of LOTS of Vegetarians and Vegans who feed their pet carnivores as they should eat! 
It is, IMO, all part of owning a pet carnivore!


----------



## kafkabeetle (Dec 4, 2009)

MagicRe said:


> why would you feed your dogs processed food ? this is akin to eating mc donald's every day.


I hate that metaphor. Sorry, but a high quality kibble is still processed and if it's comparable to McDonalds than I guess I don't know what I should be feeding since I don't have the luxury of being able to practically feed a raw diet. Also, even most low quality kibbles are at least nutritionally balanced so you won't run into any major deficiencies...it's just not the best. So I'd argue that even Purina Dog Chow is in no way comparable to McDonalds, which is in no way intended or designed to be an exclusive diet. It's just all a part of the propaganda and it makes me mad because it is misconception intended to guilt other dog owners into doing exactly what you do.


----------



## abi88 (Jul 2, 2008)

kafkabeetle said:


> I hate that metaphor. Sorry, but a high quality kibble is still processed and if it's comparable to McDonalds than I guess I don't know what I should be feeding since I don't have the luxury of being able to practically feed a raw diet. Also, even most low quality kibbles are at least nutritionally balanced so you won't run into any major deficiencies...it's just not the best. So I'd argue that even Purina Dog Chow is in no way comparable to McDonalds, which is in no way intended or designed to be an exclusive diet.* It's just all a part of the propaganda* and it makes me mad because it is misconception intended to guilt other dog owners into doing exactly what you do.


Its "propaganda" to feed a living being what they are designed my nature to be eating?!?

WOW.....


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

abi88 said:


> Its "propaganda" to feed a living being what they are designed my nature to be eating?!?


No, you can feed your pet whatever you want, that doesn't count as propaganda. But it is propaganda to say that any processed food is junk, or that kibble will kill my pet, or that a high-quality kibble is like eating french fries all the time, or any of those other non-factual hysterical accusations pro-raw people like to use to make commercial-food feeders feel guilty.


----------



## kafkabeetle (Dec 4, 2009)

Willowy said:


> No, you can feed your pet whatever you want, that doesn't count as propaganda. But it is propaganda to say that any processed food is junk, or that kibble will kill my pet, or that a high-quality kibble is like eating french fries all the time, or any of those other non-factual hysterical accusations pro-raw people like to use to make commercial-food feeders feel guilty.


^^This. It's not about facts when you make statements comparing one type of food to some unhealthy human food, when they aren't really comparable at all. It pits raw feeders against people who feed high quality kibbles like Taste of the Wild and Orijen and yes I absolutely do think it's propoganda, and frankly unhelpful bullsh*t as well. Yeah, I agree that raw diets are probably the best for many dogs, but that doesn't make any and every processed food including high quality kibble "like McDonald's". That's called a logical fallicy, and honestly, I think it's wrong to recommend a raw diet like it's the only thing your dog can be healthy on, since it DOES take time and skill and research and someone jumping on the bandwagon just because they were told all kibble amounts to junk food is going to end up HARMING their dog.


----------



## InkedMarie (Mar 11, 2009)

Willowy said:


> No, you can feed your pet whatever you want, that doesn't count as propaganda. But it is propaganda to say that any processed food is junk, or that kibble will kill my pet, or that a high-quality kibble is like eating french fries all the time, or any of those other non-factual hysterical accusations pro-raw people like to use to make commercial-food feeders feel guilty.


I agree. If I fed Beneful or Ole Roy, that would be like feeding french fries. I feed high quality grainfree kibble, I feed The Honest Kitchen, I add frozen raw to one of their foods....


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Even Ol' Roy is probably better than french fries. . .at least it's been proven to have all the vitamins and minerals to keep a dog alive for 6 months without loss of body condition, and to sustain a pregnant/nursing dog. If a person only ate french fries for 6 months I don't what would happen. I don't think any pet food can be compared to fast food, which is only intended for occasional consumption. Sure, some foods are very low-quality, but any dog food is better than feeding a dog cereal or hot dogs or chicken and rice (only, every day). And a lot of people do that.

So, yeah, people should do their research and feed their dog what they feel is best, to the best of their ability (financially or otherwise). But there are worse things to feed a dog than cheap dog food.


----------



## katielou (Apr 29, 2010)

Willowy said:


> No, you can feed your pet whatever you want, that doesn't count as propaganda. But it is propaganda to say that any processed food is junk, or that kibble will kill my pet, or that a high-quality kibble is like eating french fries all the time, or any of those other non-factual hysterical accusations pro-raw people like to use to make commercial-food feeders feel guilty.


Even as a staunch raw feeder of MY DOGS i have to agree 100% and i think the "raw brigade" have to realize they are doing the diet and its followers no service by spouting some of the stuff they do.


----------



## Jenn~n~Luke (Aug 20, 2010)

Jilly&Whissy said:


> I can guarantee you that your dogs are over weight or will become overweight on the right and wrong amount of food. Puppy's and adults are very different in nutritional needs and from reading all of your posts not one understands what by-products mean. Everyone thinks all by-products are bad but do you really understand what they are. Hills does have a by-product in it but VET by- products mean that there are parts of a chicken for example that are all not the exact same such as a breast. By product MEAL is the terrible ground up stuff that is a derivative of real chicken and chicken fat and does not contain nutritional value and contains very little protein or none at all.
> 
> Any meat that is not suitable and does not meet the standards of the AFFCO is sold down to grocery grade foods AND no one even mentioned about how all these other brands know for a fact that there is the SAME amount of nutrition in every bag. All these other brands do not have to follow guidelines and guarantees that each bag is the same, not one higher in corn then meat and the other the opposite. Any company can write whatever they want on the back of the bag with not one guarantee on it or under a law like Medi-Cal and Hills are to have the best they can. And people wonder why their having so many issues with dog food and have no problem with a few bags then all of a sudden there's issues that arise when on the same brand! A lot of people on here are also so concerned with "Control" if you feed the recommended cups of food as well as have your dog on the proper food there will be none of this concern about being so overweight or becoming sick. How can you possibly "control" the amount of the protein and other nutrition that your dog needs if you cant even give your dog the proper amount of food without it getting fat or sick! Mind boggling.
> 
> ...


Everyone on here is wrong and you are the only one that is right? Because YOUR dogs ended up overweight while being fed premium dog food with ingredients that are obviously of higher quality and healthier than those found in vet recommended foods, you are willing to guarantee that ALL dogs will end up sick or overweight on what they are fed? Wow....just...wow.

It is a FACT that vets are not trained in anything other than the very basics of ANIMAL nutrition. We won't even go into the very different nutritional needs that different breeds of just dogs require. I can tell you right now that from experience of not only myself, but almost every single Great Dane owner I know, that I can walk into every vets office in my entire city, ask what I should be feeding my Great Dane, and maybe, and Im serious, MAYBE one of those vets will have the right information. And it's a pretty good bet that if they do have the answer, it's because they learned it from a Great Dane owner not from school. So no, it is not correct that vets are the experts on canine nutrition, and an honest vet will tell you that right to your face. I know, I've met some. One of which was a vet for longer than I've been alive and a darn good one who is retired now, and even she told me, Jenn when you pick your vet, make sure it's someone who isn't going to put their ego over what you know about your breed because trust me, you know more about what Luke needs than they will. 

Fact...corn is not digested at all. It's a filler, and not a good one at that. Not to mention the fact that corn is one of if not the most common when it comes to food allergies in a dog. 

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to be able to read the ingredients on the back of a bag, and compare what's in let's say, Orijen, to what's in Science Diet, and walk away with the knowledge of which is the better food. To try and get around that by saying that all those chemicals and low grade ingredients are somehow better because a vet says so when we already know they aren't experts in the field is just wrong IMO. 

Your dogs might not have done well on the better foods. Who knows why. No two dogs are exactly the same. Some do better on high protein diets, some do better with lower protein contents. Some can do quite well on grain inclusive foods, while others can't handle grains at all. Each dog has it's own metabolism, just as we humans do. And you are dead wrong about the instructions on how much to feed on the back of the bag being the correct and only amount that should be fed. That's just WRONG. I can give you a dozen examples right now of Great Danes for example who are on the exact same food, same age, same breed, who require varying amounts of the food to stay in the proper shape and health. Each dog has to be fed based on their OWN set of needs. What might make your dog overweight might not be enough to keep my dog alive. 

The proof is in the pudding. A dog fed cheap, grain and filler inclusive food will produce twice as much waste as a dog being fed raw or a grain free diet. Why is that? Because the body actually digests and USES what's in the higher quality kibble. If I were to feed my dog, let's Purina dog chow, I would need to feed more than double what I feed him on Orijen, just to keep him at the right weight, and I'd never get out of my yard and away from scooping poop. 

You might not have much respect for these internet forums and people who actually have real life, hands on experience, who've done hours upon hours or years or research on nutrition, more than any vet will do in ten lifetimes...but they are here in thousands to stand up and tell you that the difference they see in dogs fed a high quality kibble or raw versus those fed crap foods like Ol Roy and Purina are too many to count. From shiny and healthy coats, to less waste, to better energy, to better MOOD, to allergies being reduced, we have seen the real evidence in our dogs. Not just read it in a paper put out by some vet who makes a cut out of every bag of a certain brand they happen to sell. 

I hope some lurker out there who isn't as knowledgeable about these issues and is having trouble with their dog, doesn't read the information you've posted on this site and take it as gospel because I'm afraid they may end up in worse shape because of it. When it comes to what we feed, for many dogs, it IS a big deal, dogs fed the stuff you claim is so great, might just well NEED a vet by the time they're done.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

I don't usually get involved in food discussions, I find them incredibly frustrating as all sides dig in their heels. But a couple of things are troubling me here.



Jilly&Whissy said:


> ... yet they say I need to do more research when I've been doing this for 4 years studying in the field of animal science at University.


Don't take this the wrong way, but 4 years of studying animal science is barely scratching the surface of all of the information that's out there. The real world is much, much different than the relatively sheltered life of academics. Unfortunately when it comes to food and nutrition (in humans, let alone dogs) there is more opinion than fact out there, a lot of correlation is mistaken for causation, there is a lot of money flying around, and strong feelings on both sides can reach the level of religious fanaticism. So the waters are nice and muddy. And the longer you are out there, the more you will come to see that. The bottom line IMO is that there is no "best" diet. There is probably a best diet for some individual dogs, but for capital-D Dogs? They're adaptable, they survive and thrive on a lot of different diets and ingredients. 

Things are changing, but unfortunately many vets do only have a rudimentary education in nutrition and some are biased in their food recommendations for a variety of reasons, although interestingly the veterinary nutritionists I know are the least biased people I know about recommending specific brands of foods or types of diets. There are plenty of highly motivated pet owners who know quite a bit about nutrition without a formal university education.

Having said that, I do find it tiresome to see vets spoken of as some sort of mindless collective when just like pet owners they are all individuals. A couple of other things I wish people would keep in mind are These: First, vets see how much larger numbers of dogs do on various diets than any individual pet owner will probably see in their lifetimes. Which means that when I see hundreds if not thousands of dogs thriving and living to a ripe old age on Science Diet or similar diets, it's hard for me to vilify them although I wouldn't say I "push" them, either. Do individual dogs do crappy on SD? Sure. I've also seen individual dogs do crappy on Orijen, or TTOW, or raw, or nearly any diet out there. There is no best diet. There are only diets that work best for an individual dog. 

Second, the vast majority of dog owners out there IME not only do not want to have the long discussion that deciding on a diet deserves, but they are not willing to put a large amount of time, money, or effort into their dog's diet. They want an inexpensive, easy kibble. Which doesn't make them bad owners and most dogs do not suffer for it. And honestly many, many JQP's I wouldn't want attempting a raw diet anyway -- millions of people give themselves and their families food-borne illnesses every year because they can't properly handle or cook raw meat trying to feed themselves, god forbid they add feeding their pets raw into the mix. I shudder to think. 



Jenn~n~Luke said:


> Fact...corn is not digested at all. It's a filler, and not a good one at that. Not to mention the fact that corn is one of if not the most common when it comes to food allergies in a dog.


Ugh, I'm sorry, I like most of your post but this is one of my biggest pet peeves EVER. Corn IS digestible! Entire cultures have subsisted on corn as a large part of their diet. People see those intact kernels in poop and assume corn is completely indigestible and that is untrue -- it's just that the digestible part of a kernel of corn is tucked inside an indigestible shell -- so you either have to completely chew it or grind it. Corn is actually an excellent source of digestible carbohydrates - a completely separate argument can be made about how much carbohydrate is appropriate for dogs, but corn itself is not indigestible. And the only reason corn is such a common allergen is that it's one of the most common ingredients in pet food, there's nothing inherently bad about it.


----------



## MagicRe (Jan 8, 2010)

kafkabeetle said:


> I hate that metaphor. Sorry, but a high quality kibble is still processed and if it's comparable to McDonalds than I guess I don't know what I should be feeding since I don't have the luxury of being able to practically feed a raw diet. Also, even most low quality kibbles are at least nutritionally balanced so you won't run into any major deficiencies...it's just not the best. So I'd argue that even Purina Dog Chow is in no way comparable to McDonalds, which is in no way intended or designed to be an exclusive diet. It's just all a part of the propaganda and it makes me mad because it is misconception intended to guilt other dog owners into doing exactly what you do.


why be a hater....processed is processed....the beef, chicken, fish that goes into your dog's kibble wasn't shaped like that before it was P R O C E S S E D
so why not call it what it is.

mc donalds is processed food.

so is hamburger helper....if you'd like, i'll be glad to compare kibble to hamburger helper and if you want me to go higher grade, then look in your frozen section or boxed section, pick out the highest priced organic frozen food or boxed food and i'll compare it to that.

doesn't make it any less processed. and, no they are not nutritionally balanced...only you can make nutritionally balanced food for your dog.

it is called raw proteins. a little bone. and a touch of organs.

and, yes you can afford to feed raw.


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

kafkabeetle said:


> ^^This. It's not about facts when you make statements comparing one type of food to some unhealthy human food, when they aren't really comparable at all. It pits raw feeders against people who feed high quality kibbles like Taste of the Wild and Orijen and yes I absolutely do think it's propoganda, and frankly unhelpful bullsh*t as well. Yeah, I agree that raw diets are probably the best for many dogs, but that doesn't make any and every processed food including high quality kibble "like McDonald's". That's called a logical fallicy, and honestly, I think it's wrong to recommend a raw diet like it's the only thing your dog can be healthy on, since it DOES take time and skill and research and someone jumping on the bandwagon just because they were told all kibble amounts to junk food is going to end up HARMING their dog.


This. 
I feed my papillons raw food. They love it, and are thriving on it. My 10 1/2 year old dog doesn't look like he's his age, and people many times guess that he is around 3-4 years old. That makes me grin from ear to ear, because this dog is never allowed to get old 
My GSD didn't do well on raw. He got eye boogars, a thin, crappy coat, had liquid diarrhea 24/7 and didn't "act" like he felt great. A few times he would refuse the food. Is raw bad? No. Was raw bad for this dog? You betcha. It wasn't that I was feeding the wrong foods, or I wasn't doing something I should have--the dogs's digestive system just did NOT like raw food, and raw food alone. Can I chuck some fresh foods into his kibble? I can, and I do. 
I do what makes my dogs thrive. I'm teamed up with 3 vets who can all attest that my dogs are in good shape. I don't usually pimp raw like it's the second coming because there are a lot of people who can't remember the brand of the dog food they've fed for 10 years, let alone feed raw and do it correctly with an iota of research.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

My dog who eats an all-lifestages diet (TOTW) Does she look fat to you? BTW, she gets about 3 cups a day.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

LazyGRanch713 said:


> I don't usually pimp raw like it's the second coming because there are a lot of people who can't remember the brand of the dog food they've fed for 10 years, let alone feed raw and do it correctly with an iota of research.


LOL, it's the truth. "It's the stuff in the... red bag? It might have stripes?" snrk


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

MagicRe said:


> why be a hater....processed is processed....the beef, chicken, fish that goes into your dog's kibble wasn't shaped like that before it was P R O C E S S E D
> so why not call it what it is.
> 
> mc donalds is processed food.
> ...


I personally wouldn't feel 100% happy with my diet, along with my dogs's, unless I raised and butchered the meat myself, had chickens lay the eggs right on my property, and had the vegetables grown right in my own garden. All organically raised, all free of hormones and pesticides, all chickens and cattle free range. The growth hormones and antiobiotics they pump into meat fit for human consumption bothers me, along with the amount of pesticides used on vegetables and fruits as a whole. Feeding my two small dogs raw is a bit more expensive than feeding kibble. Not by a whole lot, but it IS more money. I also buy their RMB's and ground meat from the only store in the area that raises their own turkeys and chickens, and I feel does it right.



sassafras said:


> LOL, it's the truth. "It's the stuff in the... red bag? It might have stripes?" snrk



It is. Every day people come into the kennel and "oops, we forgot the food". I ask what they feed, thinking I have something comparable so I won't upset the dogs's diet. "Oh, it's in that purple bag with the picture of the black and white dog on it." 

Uh.. 'k.


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> My dog who eats an all-lifestages diet (TOTW) Does she look fat to you? BTW, she gets about 3 cups a day.



She looks as lovely as she always has


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Jilly&Whissy said:


> Hello, I just checked over that site you were referring to as well as a few more that are along the lines of dog food analysis, the most popular ones the came up first and the big problem with these sites is that no where on these sites does it say where this information is coming from and who by. All it says is that the information came from the "expert editors" yet it refuses to show their names as well if they are Veterinarians or Professors, by law it needs to be stated if they are one of these professionals (at least in Canada) and stated by their name. This is called a Scholarly source and I clearly read through the sites "Terms of Use" and "Privacy Policy" and all say that in no way is their information guaranteed to be correct or accurate in any way and to do your own research and consult veterinarians about questions on food.


So, what you are saying is that we'd be better off going by your "expert" opinion. Care to provide your credentials?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

sassafras said:


> I don't usually get involved in food discussions, I find them incredibly frustrating as all sides dig in their heels. But a couple of things are troubling me here.
> 
> 
> 
> Having said that, I do find it tiresome to see vets spoken of as some sort of mindless collective when just like pet owners they are all individuals. A couple of other things I wish people would keep in mind are These: First, vets see how much larger numbers of dogs do on various diets than any individual pet owner will probably see in their lifetimes. Which means that when I see hundreds if not thousands of dogs thriving and living to a ripe old age on Science Diet or similar diets, it's hard for me to vilify them although I wouldn't say I "push" them, either. Do individual dogs do crappy on SD? Sure. I've also seen individual dogs do crappy on Orijen, or TTOW, or raw, or nearly any diet out there. There is no best diet. There are only diets that work best for an individual dog.


A question (and I have the greatest respect for vets). Do you routinely ask your clients what they feed? I know I've discussed food with my holistic vet (who does have a PhD in nutrition) but my usual vets (it's a multi-vet practice) have never asked. They do comment that my dogs and cats have "ideal" body condition.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Pawzk9 said:


> A question (and I have the greatest respect for vets). Do you routinely ask your clients what they feed? I know I've discussed food with my holistic vet (who does have a PhD in nutrition) but my usual vets (it's a multi-vet practice) have never asked. They do comment that my dogs and cats have "ideal" body condition.


We ask them the first time we see a new patient, and at yearly wellness exams. Sometimes at sick pet exams depending on what's going on (especially any digestive or skin issues).

Honestly if the dog is healthy, they're happy with/don't have any questions about diet and it's not something truly abysmal (like, say, Kibbles N Bits) I don't generally try to change people's minds. 

If people WANT to talk about diet I don't really just blanket tell them "feed x, y, or z" we have a discussion about what types of things are important to them in terms of cost, ingredients, etc. and what foods in different price ranges I have had good experiences with or good feedback about. If they want to do home cooked or raw I will refer them to someone with more experience. 

If an animal has health problems, especially any chronic nagging issue I suggest we should explore the diet as a possible contributor. You might be surprised how many people are really resistant to the idea, though. In general, I think a lot of people just want to buy the red bag with the stripes and not put any more thought into the dog food than that.


----------



## flipgirl (Oct 5, 2007)

sassafras said:


> I don't usually get involved in food discussions, I find them incredibly frustrating as all sides dig in their heels. But a couple of things are troubling me here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree. Studying at school is vastly different than reality. And Jill& Whissy, you are studying animal science.not nutrition. No disrespect meant, but real life is the education. Theory is great to have no doubt about that. But sometimes, life just doesn't fit into theory's puzzles. 

I see what you are saying about vets not being mindless people; however, their education about nutrition in vet school is basic and since they will be doctors, they would need to learn about the rx diets. Which is fine and dandy but I feel that they push the rx diets without being aware of what's out there. Why do the vets at the clinic where I work bother asking what clients feed their pets if they don't even know what the clients are talking about? Rx foods have their place but to be a mindful doctor, I believe you have to know the other side too. Can't prove anything by not negating the other side. Does that make sense? 

Yes many people don't want to spend time on researching foods or preparing them. That is why it's good that there are so many options available. I am a raw food proponent but I won't judge someone if they feed kibble. Obviously, as Pawzk9's pics show, dogs can thrive on kibble. 

And corn is a good grain but it shouldn't be the main source of protein in a food. It serves a purpose in some of the rx foods and can provide fiber, protein and omega 6 but I don't think it should be the primary source of protein.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

sassafras said:


> We ask them the first time we see a new patient, and at yearly wellness exams. Sometimes at sick pet exams depending on what's going on (especially any digestive or skin issues).
> 
> Honestly if the dog is healthy, they're happy with/don't have any questions about diet and it's not something truly abysmal (like, say, Kibbles N Bits) I don't generally try to change people's minds.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the response. Maybe they don't ask because I do my homework and it's never looked like a problem to them. I'm very fond of my vets, but if you were in my area, I'd seriously have to consider coming to you, I think! Your clients are lucky to have you.


----------



## InkedMarie (Mar 11, 2009)

Jenn~n~Luke;1069764
You might not have much respect for these internet forums and people who actually have real life said:


> Bravo for this post! I have no degree in anything vet but after having a couple dogs with issues, I've done enough research to be sure of a few things!


----------



## InkedMarie (Mar 11, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> My dog who eats an all-lifestages diet (TOTW) Does she look fat to you? BTW, she gets about 3 cups a day.


So pretty! How much does she weigh?


----------



## InkedMarie (Mar 11, 2009)

Sassafras: I wish I had a vet like you. One of my former vets was insistent my dogs go on a veterinary dental diet. I honestly didn't see the need, did the dogs have icky teeth? Yep but all of the shelties I had did as did both of my fox terriers. If the ingredients of the food were good I might have tried it but they weren't up to my quality of food


----------



## Jenn~n~Luke (Aug 20, 2010)

sassafras said:


> Ugh, I'm sorry, I like most of your post but this is one of my biggest pet peeves EVER. Corn IS digestible! Entire cultures have subsisted on corn as a large part of their diet. People see those intact kernels in poop and assume corn is completely indigestible and that is untrue -- it's just that the digestible part of a kernel of corn is tucked inside an indigestible shell -- so you either have to completely chew it or grind it. Corn is actually an excellent source of digestible carbohydrates - a completely separate argument can be made about how much carbohydrate is appropriate for dogs, but corn itself is not indigestible. And the only reason corn is such a common allergen is that it's one of the most common ingredients in pet food, there's nothing inherently bad about it.


I stand corrected then. I can honestly say that in all of my time obsessing over, and reading everything I coul (albeit the majority of my time was spent learning about Great Dane nutrition in particular) corn has been a no no and I have had it bashed into my head so many times I can't tell you that dogs do not digest corn. If that is wrong, then I apologize. As for the rest of my statement, I do stand by that because there just is nothing that will convince me that real meat is not healthier than the junk that's in Science Diet.
I too wish all vets or vet offices were like you described yours is, but it has been my experience as well as pretty much everyone I know or have met online, with few exceptions unfortunately, that they do indeed push the stuff they sell, whether it's medically required or not, and especially when it comes to my breed, where having a knowledgeable vet is so important, it's almost unheard of for us to hear proper information given on food and other areas, like vaccines for instance. I think with all the new info and the easy access to it nowadays it is probably getting better though...which would account for why some vets are starting to catch on to things like vaccinosis and holistic medicine as well as food. In my area it's pretty well unheard of yet. But you are so right, the majority of dog owners are still going to wallmart for the cheapest food they can get, or whatever flashed on their tv screens so much that the image is burned into their brains. I had to laugh when a new dane owner came into our group and basically said "you people DO realize you're insane right? You worry more about what is in your dog's food than you worry what's in your kid's food, or your own!" And she was right!LOL Here I am eating whatever is on sale, wouldn't DREAM of reading ingredients or checking protein/fat/calcium content...but I literally made myself ILL over what to feed Luke. We're the minority there's no doubt about it. And as to the comment "you CAN afford raw'....that all depends on what kind of dog you have, how much you'd have to feed, the availability of raw food and the price you pay. It's a luxury for ME to get chicken breasts, or a good steak, that's how expensive meat is here. I'm sorry but I already pay almost $200 a month for ONE dog, if I were to feed raw, and do it RIGHT...I'd be looking at almost double that. I checked. So, as much as I'd like to go raw, unless I win Atlantic Lotto, it isn't happening any time soon. Feeding raw the wrong way, according to what I've been told by raw feeders, can be worse than feeding cheap kibble. And with some breeds, getting the right amounts of everything all in order and in proper ratios is hard enough with a kibble let alone doing it from scratch. not every owner is up for that, has time for that or has the money for that. That's just life. If the best we can do is a high quality kibble that already costs an arm and a leg I don't think anyone should be made to feel like less of a dog owner for it. Atleast they're trying.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

flipgirl said:


> I see what you are saying about vets not being mindless people; however, their education about nutrition in vet school is basic and since they will be doctors, they would need to learn about the rx diets. Which is fine and dandy but I feel that they push the rx diets without being aware of what's out there. Why do the vets at the clinic where I work bother asking what clients feed their pets if they don't even know what the clients are talking about? Rx foods have their place but to be a mindful doctor, I believe you have to know the other side too. Can't prove anything by not negating the other side. Does that make sense?


It makes perfect sense. I will say, vets can't be aware of every single food out there. I personally make an effort to at least be aware of the existence of new foods as they come out, but there's no way for vets to know everything about every OTC food out there.

Regarding the rx diets, I recommend them because generally they work for what they're made for. ;-) But in many cases there are alternatives beyond the rx diets and if someone is really unhappy feeding a commercially available rx food it doesn't help anyone to be stubborn about it. The thing I recommend them for most strongly is a bit outside this discussion (urinary problems in cats), I am a bit more stubborn about that. But honestly these days a lot of the OTC diets are just as good or better for many allergy pets than the prescription diets anyway in my hands.

Regarding corn.. I don't think it's like, the best thing since sliced bread. But at the same time I think it's way over-vilified.

And thank you for the compliments. I am very fortunate to work in a fairly progressive practice with excellent colleagues and a well educated, demanding (in a good way) clientele, which makes it easy to fall into good habits/practices rather than bad.


----------



## BlackShadowCaneCorso (Feb 3, 2011)

Jenn~n~Luke said:


> So, as much as I'd like to go raw, unless I win Atlantic Lotto, it isn't happening any time soon.


 I hear ya! You would think things would be a little more reasonable in our area  Even the quality dog food in our area can be very pricy and availability isn't always there.


----------



## Jenn~n~Luke (Aug 20, 2010)

It's sad that people here have to be rich to eat good. My gf is a diabetic and is supposed to eat a bunch of small healthy meals a day. The cost of ONE of those meals would feed a normal family for a week! No wonder her sugars are a mess. I go to the little and veggie shop to save money on real food, and even there I can't walk out of there with more than a bag or two for less than $100, and that's when things are less than HALF of what we pay at Sobeys. I paid $10 there for two beef bones for Luke, and guess what I got? Hotdogs. LMAO


----------



## BlackShadowCaneCorso (Feb 3, 2011)

We were lucky this year, family got a cow and we got the bones  But with 9 dogs at the moment they go fast even at the slowest of times  I love the farmer's markets from Spring to Fall as it makes it easier to get fresh produce at much more reasonable prices. 

Sorry to hear about the gf, it is not easy when you have to eat a specialized diet and they over-price the items that you need just to stay healthy


----------



## Jenn~n~Luke (Aug 20, 2010)

Good lord NINE dogs? Wow...I envy you the energy, and whatever else it must take to raise that many at one time lol. Honestly that's awesome. We always had many animals growing up, but I like it at this stage in my life, just Luke and I. Not that he would ever let me have another dog here full time anyway  Sorry to highjack the thread OP


----------



## BlackShadowCaneCorso (Feb 3, 2011)

We have 4 adults and 5 puppies at the moment  And 2 cats and a 17 month old with another on the way  We like to stay busy and are a pony away from a petting zoo! But not all the puppies are staying. I'm sorry too OP just rare to meet people from my neck of the woods


----------



## abi88 (Jul 2, 2008)

MagicRe said:


> why be a hater....processed is processed....the beef, chicken, fish that goes into your dog's kibble wasn't shaped like that before it was P R O C E S S E D
> so why not call it what it is.
> 
> mc donalds is processed food.
> ...


As always Re is spot on.

And the only times Ive heard of dogs not doing good on raw is because of operator error.


----------



## kafkabeetle (Dec 4, 2009)

MagicRe said:


> why be a hater....processed is processed....the beef, chicken, fish that goes into your dog's kibble wasn't shaped like that before it was P R O C E S S E D
> so why not call it what it is.
> 
> mc donalds is processed food.
> ...


Sure it's processed. So is 90% of the food most Americans eat. I would be thrilled if I could eat exclusively high priced boxed organic frozen food, and I bet my dog would be too. I agree that unprocessed food is generally better than severely processed food. But that wasn't what I was taking issue with. I don't know why you have to make comparisons at all because dogs aren't people and frankly most human food is not processed in the same manner as dog food and AGAIN, all human food is intended to take up only a small part of your diet. Because humans are omnivores and need to eat a little bit of everything. Kibble is made to be a SOLE diet and so more thought goes into even the worst dog foods to make sure they can survive on it alone.

I don't understand why you think kibbles are not nutritionally balanced, I assume innately. What is different about the food your balance for your dog and the food you buy pre-made NUTRITIONALLY speaking (and I'm not talking about starch content bla blah here).

Last time I checked you don't know me or my income or my expenses or my budget or the resources I have available to me in my area. So I'm not sure where you get the idea that I can afford to feed raw. 

I'm not saying raw can't be done easily, but I AM saying that you have no right to give other people crap about feeding high quality kibble just because you personally prefer to feed raw. There is a world of difference between high quality grain free foods and Beneful, and yet you seem to lump everything processed into the same pile. You clearly are VERY biased on this subject and it's leading you to make some pretty extreme claims.


----------



## kafkabeetle (Dec 4, 2009)

abi88 said:


> And the only times Ive heard of dogs not doing good on raw is because of operator error.


Please explain the operational error LazyGRanch has made. I bet she'd be thrilled to know!


----------



## abi88 (Jul 2, 2008)

kafkabeetle said:


> Please explain the operational error LazyGRanch has made. I bet she'd be thrilled to know!



That would require knowing EVERY SINGLE detail...just like I go over with my Mum when she has issues with her dogs...which have ALL turned out to be operator error!:wink: (and which I do NOT think is something that should be gotten into on this thread...it is TOTALLY off of the OP and not something Im going to do!:wink


----------



## kafkabeetle (Dec 4, 2009)

abi88 said:


> That would require knowing EVERY SINGLE detail...just like I go over with my Mum when she has issues with her dogs...which have ALL turned out to be operator error!:wink: (and which I do NOT think is something that should be gotten into on this thread...it is TOTALLY off of the OP and not something Im going to do!:wink


Hey, don't act like you're not the one who went there. But I feel better now that I know you're established an opinion about ALL failed raw feeders based solely upon experience with your mother. That's what bias does to you, and that has been my point all along.


----------



## flipgirl (Oct 5, 2007)

sassafras said:


> It makes perfect sense. I will say, vets can't be aware of every single food out there. I personally make an effort to at least be aware of the existence of new foods as they come out, but there's no way for vets to know everything about every OTC food out there.
> 
> Regarding the rx diets, I recommend them because generally they work for what they're made for. ;-) But in many cases there are alternatives beyond the rx diets and if someone is really unhappy feeding a commercially available rx food it doesn't help anyone to be stubborn about it. The thing I recommend them for most strongly is a bit outside this discussion (urinary problems in cats), I am a bit more stubborn about that. But honestly these days a lot of the OTC diets are just as good or better for many allergy pets than the prescription diets anyway in my hands.
> 
> ...


Oh why can't there be more like you? I realize vets can't possibly know about every otc food out there. Holy geez, every time I think I've heard of all the foods out there, I read about a new one (on here most of the time). But a general knowledge would be nice. I think that we could provide our clients with better service if we knew more about what they are feeding them.


----------



## katielou (Apr 29, 2010)

kafkabeetle said:


> Hey, don't act like you're not the one who went there. But I feel better now that I know you're established an opinion about ALL failed raw feeders based solely upon experience with your mother. That's what bias does to you, and that has been my point all along.


An opinion that not all raw feeders have. This seems to be a new raw feeder attitude. My family have been feeding this way for generations and I can guarantee you hat none of them would spout half the tripe that new feeders do here and they probably know twice as much as them also.

Leave other peoples food choices alone when they are doing the best they can for their dogs. I will say it again you are doing the raw feeding world no favors but spouting off.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

InkedMarie said:


> So pretty! How much does she weigh?


She's 17.5 inches and a lean 32 lbs.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

abi88 said:


> As always Re is spot on.
> 
> And the only times Ive heard of dogs not doing good on raw is because of operator error.


Is that sort of like the anti-vaccination zealots who will tell you that if your unvaccinated dog dies of parvo, it's because of the sins visited on it's grandparent's DNA?
If people are comfortable feeding raw and it works for their dog, that's great.
If people are not comfortable feeding raw and a premium kibble works for their dog, that's great. 
People need to be informed and do what they feel is in the best interest of their lifestyle and their dog's health. And they aren't answerable to zealots who have other beliefs.
Evangelism is a drag where ever it shows up. And generally instead of convincing people of your point, it usually turns them off to it.


----------



## missk4012 (Aug 28, 2011)

> Ugh, I'm sorry, I like most of your post but this is one of my biggest pet peeves EVER. Corn IS digestible! Entire cultures have subsisted on corn as a large part of their diet. People see those intact kernels in poop and assume corn is completely indigestible and that is untrue -- it's just that the digestible part of a kernel of corn is tucked inside an indigestible shell -- so you either have to completely chew it or grind it.


I may have personal issues against industrial corn (and a problem paying 20+ dollars for a bag of mostly-corn dog food when a bushel of corn runs between 7 and 12 cents), but I must agree with this statement. And add that one can even get a large amount of B vitamins out of the hard-to-digest outer shell of corn kernels by either cooking or soaking their corn in a highly acidic medium, like lime juice - which is probably why South American and Mexican cultures have had such success with corn as a staple food.



> and, yes you can afford to feed raw.


I find this assumption rather insulting. Personally, as I mentioned earlier, I am very choosy about my meat sources. I suppose I could afford to feed raw if I weren't, but I am. Where I live, I rarely even eat it myself as my town does not have a reliable, affordable source for meat that is properly pastured, properly fed and raised without hormones or antibiotics. There is a specialty meat store here where they can special order anything I like. With the astronomical shipping costs associated with getting meat into a mountain town (with no airport and narrow, treacherous mountain roads that are closed due to ice and snow a notable portion of the year) while it is still fresh enough to be safe to eat raw - I could use my paycheck for 2 weeks of work to feed my dogs for about 5 to 6 days. That's the WHOLE check, without my paying rent or buying myself anything to eat. I've done the calculations many times over because I would love to re-introduce quality meat into my own diet as well as my dogs, but until I can relocate, it's not going to happen. I agree that a properly prepared raw diet is likely the healthiest option for most, if not all, dogs. But I also know that assuming EVERYONE can afford to do so is a very incorrect assumption - and I feel it's a little rude to guilt-trip people for living in certain areas or not making very much money or whatever each individuals' situation might be. Heck, I can't even get decent fresh produce except July through September, let alone MEAT.



> And as to the comment "you CAN afford raw'....that all depends on what kind of dog you have, how much you'd have to feed, the availability of raw food and the price you pay. It's a luxury for ME to get chicken breasts, or a good steak, that's how expensive meat is here. I'm sorry but I already pay almost $200 a month for ONE dog, if I were to feed raw, and do it RIGHT...I'd be looking at almost double that. I checked. So, as much as I'd like to go raw, unless I win Atlantic Lotto, it isn't happening any time soon. Feeding raw the wrong way, according to what I've been told by raw feeders, can be worse than feeding cheap kibble. And with some breeds, getting the right amounts of everything all in order and in proper ratios is hard enough with a kibble let alone doing it from scratch. not every owner is up for that, has time for that or has the money for that. That's just life. If the best we can do is a high quality kibble that already costs an arm and a leg I don't think anyone should be made to feel like less of a dog owner for it. Atleast they're trying.


^^^ This. I agree with this.^^^



> Sorry to highjack the thread OP





> I'm sorry too OP just rare to meet people from my neck of the woods


Haha, no problem. I chose a food a while back and so far it's working out great - now we just have a series of interesting discussions going on. Gives me something to read at work


----------



## InkedMarie (Mar 11, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> She's 17.5 inches and a lean 32 lbs.


wow, my Tucker (sheltie) was bigger than she was!


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

abi88 said:


> That would require knowing EVERY SINGLE detail...just like I go over with my Mum when she has issues with her dogs...which have ALL turned out to be operator error!:wink: (and which I do NOT think is something that should be gotten into on this thread...it is TOTALLY off of the OP and not something Im going to do!:wink


Since my holistic vet advised me to switch him back to a good kibble, I'll take her advice over the advice of an internet forum. :wink: 
Operator error? Who knows. I do know what a sick dog looks like, and I know what a dog looks like/does when they're NOT thriving on a food, and I personally got tired of cleaning up projectile diarrhea from the floor and walls every day without fail. Not something I'm willing to do.


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

katielou said:


> An opinion that not all raw feeders have. This seems to be a new raw feeder attitude. My family have been feeding this way for generations and I can guarantee you hat none of them would spout half the tripe that new feeders do here and they probably know twice as much as them also.
> 
> Leave other peoples food choices alone when they are doing the best they can for their dogs. I will say it again you are doing the raw feeding world no favors but spouting off.


I also find it hard to believe that people I've never met, and have never met my dogs, are so worried about the fact that one dog eats kibble. I think it's less about what's best for the dog and more about having to be right all the time, but hey, that's just my observation.


----------



## kafkabeetle (Dec 4, 2009)

LazyGRanch713 said:


> I also find it hard to believe that people I've never met, and have never met my dogs, are so worried about the fact that one dog eats kibble. I think it's less about what's best for the dog and more about having to be right all the time, but hey, that's just my observation.


Nah, it's about having some special knowledge that lets you join a club that necessarily makes you better than all the lowly ignorant people who aren't in the club. Paradoxically though, it appears that those with the most actual knowledge and helpful advice don't feel the need to join. :biggrin1:


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

blues327 said:


> I thought the ALA form of omega 3's found in flax are just a precursor to the EPA and DHA found in fish oil and still need to be converted to EPA and DHA before it has any nutritional value and that conversion is difficult, specially if the animal lacks a lot (but not all) of the enzymes to break down plant matter, like carnivores do.


ALA is NOT an Omega3 fatty acid, it's an omega 6, Omega 6 fatty acids have some benifits for the hair and skin however they are INFLAMMITORY. Omega 3 (DHA and EPA) are Anti-inflamitory and have far more benefits for the heart, eyes, brain and immune system, the also act as carriers for certain hormones.


----------



## blues327 (May 2, 2011)

cshellenberger said:


> ALA is NOT an Omega3 fatty acid, it's an omega 6, Omega 6 fatty acids have some benifits for the hair and skin however they are INFLAMMITORY. Omega 3 (DHA and EPA) are Anti-inflamitory and have far more benefits for the heart, eyes, brain and immune system, the also act as carriers for certain hormones.


Thanks for the info cshellenberger, but I'm a little confused by your answer. . .

_"There are two major types of omega-3 fatty acids in our diets: One type is alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), which is found in some vegetable oils, such as soybean, rapeseed (canola), and flaxseed, and in walnuts. ALA is also found in some green vegetables, such as Brussels sprouts, kale, spinach, and salad greens. The other type, eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), is found in fatty fish. The body partially converts ALA to EPA and DHA."_
-From the Harvard School of public health website http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/questions/omega-3/index.html


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Thank you, I stand corrected. However it would seem more efficient to give fish body oils and get the direct benefit of the DHA and EPA


----------



## blues327 (May 2, 2011)

> However it would seem more efficient to give fish body oils and get the direct benefit of the DHA and EPA


I completely agree, which is why I mentioned in my post that I thought flax contained the ALA form of omega 3's that still needed to be converted to DHA/EPA, and that conversion of ALA for dogs, may be difficult due to being carnivores and lacking a large amount (but not all) of the enzymes for plant matter.


----------



## NRG22 (Sep 15, 2011)

I wouldn't give my dogs flax seed unless it was ground. When eaten whole it mostly comes out the way it went in, at least in humans. If dogs generally have trouble with plant matter I think they'd have a big problem with whole flax seeds. 

There's always flax oil, but it's not complete in nutrition and lacks the fiber of the ground.

We stopped buying fish oil for our family because the menhaden are being over fished for it and heading toward extinction. If it's in our dog's store bought food that's fine, but we won't buy capsules anymore. We've switched to ground flax and eating more cold water fish.


----------



## Porphyria (Jul 18, 2011)

abi88 said:


> As always Re is spot on.
> 
> And the only times Ive heard of dogs not doing good on raw is because of operator error.



That is not necessarily true, and I think it's very presumptuous and insulting to those of us who have tried raw without success. My dog did not do well on raw, but I did everything by the books. I'm not saying raw doesn't work for some dogs, just that it doesn't always work for _every _ dog.


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

Porphyria said:


> That is not necessarily true, and I think it's very presumptuous and insulting to those of us who have tried raw without success. My dog did not do well on raw, but I did everything by the books. I'm not saying raw doesn't work for some dogs, just that it doesn't always work for _every _ dog.


Agreed. My oldest dog has thrived on raw. He has had NO bad knee flare ups, no back problems (2 bad discs), and his tear staining (which he's had since I got him at 8 weeks old) is 100% GONE without the use of things like Angel Eyes, etc. It really, really works for him, so that's what I feed him. The GSD was a complete wreck on raw. I would prefer he could have it as a stand alone diet, but the fact he can tolerate fresh foods in WITH his kibble is good enough for me. 
Like I said, I may not have the knowledge some raw feeders out there have, and perhaps someone could come up with a diet plan that doesn't break my bank for him. But I'm not stupid. I *know* what a sick dog looks like, and I know what a dog looks like when they are *not* thriving on their diet.


----------



## Miss Bugs (Jul 4, 2011)

lol my vet heavily researches everything, she is forever away traveling to courses to learn new things, she apprentices under specialists and is not afraid to refere you to someone who knows more on a subject then she does. 

her website says it all




> FRESH FOOD DIET RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HEALTHY DOGS
> 
> 
> 
> ...


the clinic sells Urban Carnivore(a raw company) and Orijen.


----------

