Royal Canin vet care??

DBB

Lizard_Moon wrote: »

I was very interested to read, in the RAW food threads, that products are available for purchase that take all the 'hassle' out of dealing with raw food. I assume the people selling these will have a mark up. Personally if I ever considered feeding my 15 yr old raw food- I don't he gets Hills- I would not feed a roll of "meat" to him. I have terrible memories of corned beef and Billy Roll as a kid.........

Of course they have a mark-up. I don't think anyone is arguing that the seller shouldn't mark-up. But I do think it can cause a seller to press harder for certain products to be sold, not necessarily because they're the best, but because they have greater profit margins.
To clarify, the "roll of meat" being described on the raw food thread is nothing like the old rolls of corned beef and Billy Roll! It is simply fresh, roughly minced meat and cooked veg all packed into a cylindrical plastic pack. It's as fresh as any pack of meat you'd buy in the supermarket or from the butcher. I've just moved my dogs onto it, and it is exactly the same as when I used to go and buy raw mince from Tesco, buy fresh veg, bring the veg home, chop it, liquidise it, freeze it, thaw it, cook it, then mix it into the meat... except I don't have to do any of what's written after the word "Tesco"! Plus, it contains herbs and seaweed. And it costs me a little less than buying all the ingredients and doing all the work myself, and all of this costs me less than feeding the better quality dry dog foods. Happy days!

Lizard_Moon

DBB wrote: »

Of course they have a mark-up. I don't think anyone is arguing that the seller shouldn't mark-up. But I do think it can cause a seller to press harder for certain products to be sold, not necessarily because they're the best, but because they have greater profit margins.

This is not the case in the majority of good veterinary practices.

Sweeping generalisations will deter people from taking their vet's advice as most posters here seem to have a negative attitude to their vet's advice regarding feeding.

Personally I cannot get over the food safety risks of having raw chicken/ meat in a household with young or old in it.
You make take all the precautions you like in preparation but your dog will have those bacteria on his muzzle/mouth to put in his water bowl, on the floor, table and especially your hands and face.

And before I get spammed I am not talking about the dedicated BARFERs with extra freezers and prep areas I am talking about the people who will feed raw 'as the Internet told them and sure what do vets know anyway!'

TooManyDogs

Lizard_Moon wrote: »

Personally I cannot get over the food safety risks of having raw chicken/ meat in a household with young or old in it.
You make take all the precautions you like in preparation but your dog will have those bacteria on his muzzle/mouth to put in his water bowl, on the floor, table and especially your hands and face

Do you actually honestly think that dried food is clean??? Here's a link to an article about the risk of humans contracting salmonella from dry dog food, and the advise from the CDC is to be extremely careful around dry dog food and not to feed them in the kitchen and wash your hands.
http://www.livescience.com/8439-dry-pet-food-linked-human-salmonella-outbreak.html

So if your dry fed dog has dry food dust/bits on their muzzle then they're equally a potential source of illness as any raw fed dog.

Cleanliness is paramount for ANY type of dog food, not just raw food

fatmammycat

Lizard_Moon wrote: »

Personally I cannot get over the food safety risks of having raw chicken/ meat in a household with young or old in it.
You make take all the precautions you like in preparation but your dog will have those bacteria on his muzzle/mouth to put in his water bowl, on the floor, table and especially your hands and face.'

This makes no sense at all, don't you have raw food in most kitchens anyway? How do you make dinner?
It's not hard to prepare raw food, or weigh it and freeze it. It's not hard to wash your hands afterwards. As to bacteria, I don't even want to know what bacteria my dog might have on his body/mouth from just being a dog. Between eating cat poo and his love of running through the slimiest bogs he can find I imagine it's high up there.

DBB

Lizard_Moon wrote: »

This is not the case in the majority of good veterinary practices.

Sweeping generalisations will deter people from taking their vet's advice as most posters here seem to have a negative attitude to their vet's advice regarding feeding.

Sorry Lizard Moon, but I simply don't accept that many vets don't routinely push the foods with the biggest profit margins! My experience, which is more widespread than most, suggests otherwise.
I have worked with hundreds of owners whose vets advised them to feed Hill's, and lo and behold! The vets are also the main agents for Hill's!
There are infinitely better dry foods out there which, if vets were really primarily concerned for the dog's diet and not profits, the vets would send owners to the internet to buy. Hill's is, quite frankly, a second rate, cereal-filled, meat-poor, additive rich diet. I think some vets have a bit of a cheek telling dog owners that this stuff is better for their carnivorous pet than one of the higher-quality, meatier, cereal-free dry foods. You know and I know, dogs cannot digest cereals, at all. So why, why do vets across the country insist on selling such cereal-rich schlock to owners for vastly inflated prices?
They know owners trust them... And will buy the food they're told to. Truth is, Hill's contains no more or less than a cheap bag of supermarket dog food, but vets sell it for €50 to €70+! At least twice the price, probably more, than the same sized bag of Pedigree or similar.
So no, your assertion that many vets do not have profit from dog food sales very high up on their priority list simply does not ring true in reality. The assertion that I'm making sweeping generalisations is untrue and unfair, I'm basing my opinion on having worked with hundreds, actually thousands of dog owners in the past decade.... It is a very, very rare event for me to meet an owner whose vet (a) did not insist they feed dry because it's "best for their dog" (please read the mountain of evidence refuting this in the journals), and (b) did not then sell them a demonstrably 2nd-rate food, usually Hill's, sometimes RC, sometimes Burns, sometimes others.
Not one single vet I know or have heard of sells the demonstrably meatier, low-carb/low cereal dry food options. The mark up is nowhere near as good for these as it is for the 2nd-string dry food though!

Lizard_Moon

Well I knew I would be attacked

One salmonella outbreak in a USA plant in 2006 linked to flavourings, one from someone claiming to work with 1000s of dog owners- not involved in dog food sales DBB???

FatMammyCat- go to the FSAI ( food safety authority of Ireland) read up on the dangers of raw chicken. Salmonella, campylobacter etc. Not all bacteria are the same. I mentioned households with young and old in them, people with possible compromised immune systems.

Pet food is fine for most family pets. From what I see those pets are more likely to die from being let loose in traffic than any possible or imagined side effect from dry food from any manufacturer.

boomerang

Totally agree with DBB on the poor quality of Hills' food. It's no better than any of the supermarket brands. The fact it is sold in vets and has the word 'science' in the name dupes people into thinking it must be really good! They must have a HUGE marketing budget that whacks up the price of their products, because the ingredients they use are mostly waste products from other food industries and cost them next to nothing. The prescription foods are convenient but in most cases if you have time you can create a diet of home-prepared meals for your doglet that meets the requirements for their particular affliction and with far better quality ingredients. (With the exception of hepatic disease, where the dietary requirements are more complex than say, diabetes or renal disease.)

For example, if you want a right shock, look up what the ingredients in Hills' weight reduction food "r/d" actually are. Sure your dog will lose weight on this food but they may as well be eating aeroboard.

fatmammycat

Lizard_Moon wrote: »

Well I knew I would be attacked





FatMammyCat- go to the FSAI ( food safety authority of Ireland) read up on the dangers of raw chicken. Salmonella, campylobacter etc. Not all bacteria are the same. I mentioned households with young and old in them, people with possible compromised immune systems.
Pet food is fine for most family pets. From what I see those pets are more likely to die from being let loose in traffic than any possible or imagined side effect from dry food from any manufacturer.

I don't see how you were attacked at all. I assume if you don't store raw food correctly it's a danger to all. Don't most people refrigerate raw meat?

Nobody said all bacteria were the same, but precaution from missue rather is.

Re your last point, most people can live happily on junk food until they get older, then show obvious signs that their diet was not the best for them: dogs are carnivores, their physical structure says so, it is not 'imagined' to think they might do better on a meat/bone/corpse based diet.

DBB

Lizard_Moon wrote: »

Well I knew I would be attacked

One salmonella outbreak in a USA plant in 2006 linked to flavourings, one from someone claiming to work with 1000s of dog owners- not involved in dog food sales DBB???

You weren't "attacked" LM, this is a discussion forum, and what you said is being questioned, just as you are questioning other posters.

I don't know why you aimed the salmonella outbreak/flavorings comment at me, my post did not address the salmonella issue at all. I think you're mixing me up with someone else.

Do I work in dog food sales? Lol. Not at all. Never did. And don't ever intend to!
My attitude to dog food is based on a lot of research, experience, and having to have an objective, professional eye on the whole issue. I don't "claim" to have worked with so many dog owners, I HAVE worked with so many!
Nevertheless, I still don't know what point you're trying to make... Unless you've mixed me up with someone else!

DBB

Lizard_Moon wrote: »

Pet food is fine for most family pets. From what I see those pets are more likely to die from being let loose in traffic than any possible or imagined side effect from dry food from any manufacturer.

Imagined side effect? Imagined? Aw c'mon LM! It's this head in the sand, taking the food company's word as gossip that really grinds my gears. Vets owe it to their customers to get up to speed on nutrition and feeding, instead of blindly following the bidding of the pet food manufacturers. Look what happened with cat food, for goodness sake! Vets, and consequently owners, blindly feeding their cats nutritionally deficient schlock, nobody questioning it because, sure doesn't IAMS (or whoever) say it's best for your cat? What an about-face happened there, huh? Oops.
And yet, still, it seems to me that vets continue to blindly be led by the dog food manufacturers without once questioning something as simple as why are these companies insisting that cereals are required to be fed in huge daily doses to carnivores?
To a child studying junior cert science, this would make no sense. So why on earth should it be accepted as gossip by highly trained vets? I just can not understand this!

I know vets are busy etc, but really, you should get reading the research papers LM. You know, must know as a scientist, that the independent research trumps what the food reps say hands down.

Lizard_Moon

TooManyDogs wrote: »

Do you actually honestly think that dried food is clean??? Here's a link to an article about the risk of humans contracting salmonella from dry dog food, and the advise from the CDC is to be extremely careful around dry dog food and not to feed them in the kitchen and wash your hands.
http://www.livescience.com/8439-dry-pet-food-linked-human-salmonella-outbreak.html

DBB this is the link regarding salmonella in the US in 2006 in flavouring, I wasn't mixed up at all.

I am not saying expensive pet foods are better than cheaper.

But most have a closed ingredient list which doesn't change with each batch so for some dogs it is better.

We don't just stock the main brands we have a range.
Personally the quality of the poops is great on hills, so easy to pick up.

How much statistically reliable independent research has been carried out bearing in mind that animal experimentation would be unacceptable?
Very few papers would be peer reviewed and carry the numbers of dogs studied to be conclusive. This issue is also argued at veterinary level.

DBB

That is a link posted by Too Many Dogs, not me. So your reply should presumably have been aimed at TMD, because I never brought up the subject of salmonella, so don't understand why you'd direct anything about it to me.

Closed ingredient list which doesn't change? I have had major pet food companies write to me to tell me my new bag of dog food, which I'd had my dog on for some time, was upsetting his tummy because there are different batches of cereal/meat/veg/whatever being used all the time, according to supply. I have also regularly seen this explained on their websites. So I don't accept that either.

Is quality of poop the real, scientific test of quality? Hmmm. Many dogs I know do pick-uppable poops... The fact that they're doing monstrous ones several times a day with all the cereal they've been fed would concern me more... But that's an aside, because I don't believe for one second that the fact that poo can be picked up indicates that the food is nutritionally sound. I am, quite frankly, aghast that you used this line as a justification for why dry food is good! Is that a line the customers get too?

I am also aghast at your comment re animal experimentation! Every single pet food producer does animal experimentation... How else are they going to test for sensitivity, palatability etc? I'm sure that these days, given far stricter ethical requirements, the animals being tested come to no harm, but don't make out that the multinationals who own the pet food companies are not themselves using widespread animal experimentation. I'm aghast because I assumed you'd have known this.

I asked you to go read the journals precisely because they contain papers which are independent, and peer-reviewed (not sure at all why you say they wouldn't be... That's the whole point of publishing them in the first place!)

Dogsfirst.ie has an extensive list of references to such papers. It doesn't seem to be working at the min, but I believe it's to be remedied in the near future. Maybe have a look at those when they're back up and running.

andreac

Both Hills and Royal Canin, the supposedly great foods have both caused severe Hot Spots with my Rottie so i will never feed him those brands again and i never recommend them to anyone. I also know several other dog owners whos dogs have severe reactions when being fed Hills and Royal Canin so go figure.

If i could afford to feed and if i had the room to store the Raw diet i would. Every so often i can get a batch of raw chicken pieces, wings etc and i feed that to my dogs along with other raw foods.

The difference in their poo's is unreal, hardly anything comes out, so just goes to show you how much of the dry food is actually digested when it comes out the other end!!

TooManyDogs

Lizard_Moon wrote: »

DBB this is the link regarding salmonella in the US in 2006 in flavouring, I wasn't mixed up at all.

You were mixing up who posted the link. I put up the link to show how easy it is to find salmonella poisoning linked to dry dog food from a simple google search. That wasn't an isolated case, here's another one from last year http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/05/us-usa-salmonella-dogfood-idUSBRE84407X20120505

Pet foods are recalled more regularily than you might think due to salmonella contaimination. I'm not saying feeding raw food isn't without it's risks but they're the same risks as feeding dry food, good food preparation hygiene should be adhered to at all times.

As fatmammycat said, dogs are happily cleaning their behinds, eating sh!te, rolling in god knows what, drinking out of filthy water so to assume that an old or young person is going to get sick from the dog's raw food diet is a little presumtious. My dogs are filthy little beasties, I wouldn't have it any other way, but I don't let them lick my face or my child's face, and I wash my hands before prepping food or eating, same goes for the child

Lizard_Moon

TooManyDogs wrote: »

You were mixing up who posted the link. I put up the link to show how easy it is to find salmonella poisoning linked to dry dog food from a simple google search. That wasn't an isolated case, here's another one from last year http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/05/us-usa-salmonella-dogfood-idUSBRE84407X20120505

Pet foods are recalled more regularily than you might think due to salmonella contaimination. I'm not saying feeding raw food isn't without it's risks but they're the same risks as feeding dry food, good food preparation hygiene should be adhered to at all times.

As fatmammycat said, dogs are happily cleaning their behinds, eating sh!te, rolling in god knows what, drinking out of filthy water so to assume that an old or young person is going to get sick from the dog's raw food diet is a little presumtious. My dogs are filthy little beasties, I wouldn't have it any other way, but I don't let them lick my face or my child's face, and I wash my hands before prepping food or eating, same goes for the child

TMD you are only putting up links of American outbreaks and the incidence is very low relative to the amount of dog food used. You can find salmonella outbreaks linked to every food stuff if you google hard enough.

Also I am talking about food borne pathogens not the ordinary bacteria found on your dog and in the environment.
I am sorry the chances of a food borne pathogen are much higher with raw meat than dry dog food.

Again some people will take care but many people won't follow the correct proceedure and the best way for them to stay safe is to minimise their exposure to the pathogens.

www.safefood.eu has good info on cross contamination.

http://http://www.safefood.eu/Food-Safety/Food-poisoning-allergies/Cross-Contamination.aspx

DBD- your last post much easier to read than the previous wall of text!

DBB

LM, if contradicting some of the misinformed stuff you've posted re dry dog food, profit margins etc means writing a wall of text, then I'll do it every time. I don't want readers here to take what you're saying without it being challenged. Maybe you're not used to people questioning your advice in relation to dog food in practice, but the fact is that vets in general (though not all) have perpetuated so much misinformation, it takes a wall of text to deal with it.
Truth is, you didn't effectively answer or refute one thing I said.
If telling me I've written a wall of text is the best counter you can come up with, well, I'll have to take it you can find no other way to counter what I've said!
Salmonella is a risk to anyone handling raw meat, esp chicken, but every time we clean up dog poo, change a baby's nappy, even go to the toilet ourselves, we risk being contaminated. There is also a risk with dry dog food. The risk is ever present in the environment. The truth is, if anyone who is handling raw food (whether feeding it to animals or humans), or eggs, or reptiles, or coming into contact with faeces, or dry dog food, is dumb enough not to be hygeinic about it, then they've only themselves to blame. But I think dog owners who've taken to feeding raw are copped on enough to exercise good hygiene!
I can't find any links to anyone catching salmonella from a raw fed dog's muzzle.

TooManyDogs

Lizard_Moon wrote: »

I am sorry the chances of a food borne pathogen are much higher with raw meat than dry dog food.

Except that there hasn't been a documented case of someone contracting food poisoning from raw dog food, even in America where there are alot more people feeding raw than here. All there is are a lot of sites saying that you MIGHT contract food poisoning so feed dry, which is funny considering there ARE documented cases of people contracting food poisoning from dry dog food.

Back to my origional point which is good food handling practices need to be maintained at all times when touching any dog food

fatmammycat

I'm sorry, but the notion one shouldn't feed raw on the off chance of bacterial infection seems a rather odd one to me. Hygiene is important in all food prep, we don't not use raw foods in our own diets on the off chance of contamination, why would it be any different for dogs?

DBB

DBB wrote: »

I can't find any links to anyone catching salmonella from a raw fed dog's muzzle.

Oops. I was mistaken.

http://k9joy.com/dogarticles/doghealth01salmonella.pdf

http://rawfed.com/myths/zoonotic.html

Jelly2

I've been following the thread with interest, though some of it is beyond me. I have a question though, and would appreciate if anyone could help out.
My dog (8) has quite bad arthritis in one leg (she had an accident a few years ago, and the arthritis is a long-term result of the trauma, I'm told). She is getting injections every three months for this (sorry, I can't remember the name of these), but she doesn't get Arthri Aid, as my vet says that recent studies have shown this to be a placebo and of no real benefit. However, the vet has also recommended Hills Prescription Diet J/D for mobility, and I have been feeding my dog that for the past few months. Apparently, it has lots of the oils which help mobility and joints. But I'm concerned by the fact that lots of people here seem to be saying that Hills is not a good food (too much cereal etc), and am wondering if I should return to raw food or just a better dog food (I used to give her Burns). If I do, what can I do about ensuring that my dog gets sufficient oils to help her arthritis? I heard that cod liver oil is very good because of the omega content. Would a dessert spoon of that in her food be enough every day?

andreac

Jelly2 wrote: »

I've been following the thread with interest, though some of it is beyond me. I have a question though, and would appreciate if anyone could help out.
My dog (8) has quite bad arthritis in one leg (she had an accident a few years ago, and the arthritis is a long-term result of the trauma, I'm told). She is getting injections every three months for this (sorry, I can't remember the name of these), but she doesn't get Arthri Aid, as my vet says that recent studies have shown this to be a placebo and of no real benefit. However, the vet has also recommended Hills Prescription Diet J/D for mobility, and I have been feeding my dog that for the past few months. Apparently, it has lots of the oils which help mobility and joints. But I'm concerned by the fact that lots of people here seem to be saying that Hills is not a good food (too much cereal etc), and am wondering if I should return to raw food or just a better dog food (I used to give her Burns). If I do, what can I do about ensuring that my dog gets sufficient oils to help her arthritis? I heard that cod liver oil is very good because of the omega content. Would a dessert spoon of that in her food be enough every day?

Why doesnt this suprise me :rolleyes:

Have you seen the bloody price of that food?? Arthri Aid would be way better hands down to give over Hills food. Any of those joint supplements are not placebos, im miffed as to how a Vet could advocate that they are??

You would be better sticking to anything like Arthri Aid, Cortflex, Glucosamine supplements over Cod Liver oil as they are designed for joint problems.

Im really starting to lose faith in some vets and their opinions and so called knowledge on nutrition and more

DBB

What? Your vet recommended Hill's? :-o

I'm sure cod liver oil is fine, but not too much. Salmon oil and flax seed oil can also help. But I think getting cartilage into the diet could help... Raw fish, or tinned fish like sardines or pilchards give your dog all the joint-nutrition already contained in it's original wrapper! You could simply add tinned fish to a high quality dry diet like Taste of the Wild, Barking Heads, and I see high praise for Skinners here, but haven't checked it out for myself. Or you could go raw, probably the best option but depends on how you feel about it.
I never found Arthri Aid any good either tbh.

fatmammycat

Jelly2, I'm no expert on arthritis in dogs, but one of my friend's dog has it and she raw feeds and uses cod liver oil- (she took her off all commercial dog food two years ago) but the thing she found MOST beneficial for her dog was having the dog as lean as possible, I mean really bearing no excess fat at all. It made a huge difference to the dog, that and really strict exercise. This dog is only walked on lead, never off it as she'd happily cripple herself, she ( the dog) don't seem to realise she is ten and has a condition.
Best of luck with your animal, it's really awful seeing them unwell or in discomfort.

boomerang

My Amber had a cruciate repair a few years ago. When ever I took her off Arthri-Aid for a break, she'd go lame again. Same with Boo. I reckon tis as good as any of the supplements, Stride, Cosequin etc.

Definitely fish oil is good for arthritic dogs, but salmon oil over cod liver oil, as others have said.

Cider vinegar is thought to help too, and you dog might tolerate a teaspoon of it on food.

Great info here: http://www.dogaware.com/health/arthritissupps.html

You'd be better off feeding a better quality food than j/d and supplementing with fish oil, IMO.

borderlinemeath

Hills is one of the few foods that disagree with Coco. Even a few nuts and she would clear a room with the farts and her poo is looser and a far more lurid colour than normal.

Lizard_Moon

Jelly2 wrote: »

I've been following the thread with interest, though some of it is beyond me. I have a question though, and would appreciate if anyone could help out.
My dog (8) has quite bad arthritis in one leg (she had an accident a few years ago, and the arthritis is a long-term result of the trauma, I'm told). She is getting injections every three months for this (sorry, I can't remember the name of these), but she doesn't get Arthri Aid, as my vet says that recent studies have shown this to be a placebo and of no real benefit. However, the vet has also recommended Hills Prescription Diet J/D for mobility, and I have been feeding my dog that for the past few months. Apparently, it has lots of the oils which help mobility and joints. But I'm concerned by the fact that lots of people here seem to be saying that Hills is not a good food (too much cereal etc), and am wondering if I should return to raw food or just a better dog food (I used to give her Burns). If I do, what can I do about ensuring that my dog gets sufficient oils to help her arthritis? I heard that cod liver oil is very good because of the omega content. Would a dessert spoon of that in her food be enough every day?

This is the very reason I get annoyed at the anti Hills type feed posts.

J/D is an excellent diet for dogs with arthritis. Easily digestible and yes with a balance of specific omega oils that does help a dogs arthritis.

There is also another brand with green lipped mussel extract which is good also.

If your dog is doing well on it there s no need to change because of what you read on the Internet.

Lizard_Moon

As requested. My comments in bold.

DBB wrote: »

Sorry Lizard Moon, but I simply don't accept that many vets don't routinely push the foods with the biggest profit margins! My experience, which is more widespread than most, suggests otherwise.
I refute your claim. If all vets were motivated by pure profit they wouldn't be vets. Also you would buy a cheap brand and sell it at a huge markup instead of an expensive brand at a small markup.

I have worked with hundreds of owners whose vets advised them to feed Hill's, and lo and behold! The vets are also the main agents for Hill's!
Many petshops sell Hills. Only the prescription products are only sold through vets as they are given to animals under the vets care with specific conditions. Other companies such as Royal Canin have these products too.

There are infinitely better dry foods out there which, if vets were really primarily concerned for the dog's diet and not profits, the vets would send owners to the internet to buy.
Vets stock Hills and Royal Canin for the prescription diets. Due to owner requests they then retailed the generally available Hills/ Royal Canin products. Not everyone can buy from the Internet. We stock a range, 5 or 6, of dog feed manufacturers products. A range of prices and most due to owner request as They cannot get them elsewhere easily.

Hill's is, quite frankly, a second rate, cereal-filled, meat-poor, additive rich diet. I think some vets have a bit of a cheek telling dog owners that this stuff is better for their carnivorous pet than one of the higher-quality, meatier, cereal-free dry foods. You know and I know, dogs cannot digest cereals, at all. So why, why do vets across the country insist on selling such cereal-rich schlock to owners for vastly inflated prices? Libellous so not commented upon. You cannot speak for my knowledge or beliefs

They know owners trust them... And will buy the food they're told to. Truth is, Hill's contains no more or less than a cheap bag of supermarket dog food, but vets sell it for €50 to €70+! At least twice the price, probably more, than the same sized bag of Pedigree or similar. Retail price reflects purchase price. Pedigree is cheap to buy hence cheap to sell and probably sold at a higher % profit than Hills.

So no, your assertion that many vets do not have profit from dog food sales very high up on their priority list simply does not ring true in reality. The assertion that I'm making sweeping generalisations is untrue and unfair, I'm basing my opinion on having worked with hundreds, actually thousands of dog owners in the past decade..sweeping generalisation as you are dealing with a certain subset of owners and a limited number of vets. Maybe you are motivated totally by profit and hence see the mirror of yourself in everyone else's actions..

It is a very, very rare event for me to meet an owner whose vet (a) did not insist they feed dry because it's "best for their dog" (please read the mountain of evidence refuting this in the journals ), and (b) did not then sell them a demonstrably 2nd-rate food, usually Hill's, sometimes RC, sometimes Burns, sometimes others.
Not one single vet I know or have heard of sells the demonstrably meatier, low-carb/low cereal dry food options. The mark up is nowhere near as good for these as it is for the 2nd-string dry food though! You don't know all vetsYou personal untrue opinion

boomerang

j/d ingredients:

Whole Grain Corn, Chicken By-Product Meal, Flaxseed, Soybean Mill Run, Brewers Rice, Soybean Meal, Pork Fat... Chicken Liver Flavor, Powdered Cellulose, Fish Oil, Lactic Acid, Potassium Chloride...

This is not an excellent diet, in my book.

All this diet offers an arthritic dog is the glucosamine/chondroitin and fish oil.

Interesting that the vet said not to bother with glucosamine/chondroitin supplements when j/d includes Glucosamine Hydrochloride and Chondroitin Sulfate? On what basis was he selling the product to his client then? It's a very expensive way of including fish oil in the diet!

It doesn't tell you how much of either additives are in the product, so how are you to know if it's sufficient?

Personally I would buy a better quality, less expensive food and add human-grade supplements.

boomerang

AAFCO DEFINITIONS OF DOG FOOD INGREDIENTS:

Poultry by-product meal (PBM) is a high-protein commodity used as a major component in some pet foods. It is made from grinding clean, rendered parts of poultry carcasses and can contain bones, offal and undeveloped eggs, but only contains feathers that are unavoidable in the processing of the poultry parts.[1] Poultry by-product meal quality and composition can change from one batch to another.

Chicken by-product meal, like poultry by-product, is made of "dry, ground, rendered clean parts of the chicken carcass" according to AAFCO and may contain the same ingredients as poultry-by product. Chicken by-product can vary in quality from batch to batch. Chicken by-product costs less than chicken muscle meat and lacks the digestibility of chicken muscle meat.


Soybean Mill Run - composed of soybean hulls and such bean meats that adhere to the hulls and such bean meats that adhere to the hulls which results from normal milling operations in the production of de-hulled soybean meal.

Brewer's Rice - the dried extracted residue of rice resulting from the manufacture of wort (liquid portion of malted grain) or beer and may contain pulverized dried spent hops in an amount not to exceed 3 percent.


Powdered Cellulose - purified, mechanically disintegrated cellulose prepared by processing alpha cellulose obtained as a pulp from fibrous plant materials.

Lizard_Moon

DBB wrote: »

Oops. I was mistaken.

http://k9joy.com/dogarticles/doghealth01salmonella.pdf

http://rawfed.com/myths/zoonotic.html

Read them Bit defensive?? Also not independent.

Read the last paragraph of the second link. They emphasise what I have been trying to emphasise that good hygiene essential. Repeating myself I know but you guys are preaching to the general public and do not highlight enough the hygiene levels needed in feeding RAW to indoors dogs.

You are very dogmatic in your anti approach to commercial dogfoods, unless they are some obscure type you can only get online. You are scaremongering people whose dogs are doing very well on whatever food they are on. honest owners who now feel terrible since they are not a RAW disciple.
The example is the J/D query above.

Also you ridiculed R/D. Of course the ingredient is mainly filler- it is a weight loss food. If the owner can get the kgs off in another way that's great and that's were we always start. However it does work and the dogs do well, with shiny glossy coats on the whole.