Royal Canin vet care??

boomerang

r/d ingredients:

Whole grain corn, corn gluten meal, chicken by-product meal, soybean mill run, powdered cellulose, soybean meal, chicken liver flavor, dried beet pulp, lactic acid, soybean oil, caramel color Is this really what we want to be feeding our dogs?

boomerang

Lizard_Moon wrote: »

Also you ridiculed R/D. Of course the ingredient is mainly filler- it is a weight loss food.

It's almost entirely cheap waste products of food processing for human consumption. Sure it works but how can Hills' justify the RRP then?

Lizard_Moon

boomerang wrote: »

r/d ingredients:

Whole grain corn, corn gluten meal, chicken by-product meal, soybean mill run, powdered cellulose, soybean meal, chicken liver flavor, dried beet pulp, lactic acid, soybean oil, caramel color Is this really what we want to be feeding our dogs?

This is a temporary weight loss for foods for owners trying to kill their obese dogs with kindness. Would you prefer these dogs to stay obese and suffer the consequences.

Maybe you guys should preach more that people should have lean healthy dogs and not feed them treats and allow them to get obese ???

Lizard_Moon

boomerang wrote: »

It's almost entirely cheap waste products of food processing for human consumption. Sure it works but how can Hills' justify the RRP then?

It is a prescription diet and I assume plenty of research had to be carried out to ensure that the dogs were fed enough to ensure adequate energy, vitamin, mineral intake yet still had controlled weight loss.
If cheap to produce I am sure Pedigree would have some in Tesco

boomerang

Plenty of healthier weight loss foods out there retailing at the same price. Also feeding for the ideal weight rather than the current weight helps. And gradually increasing exercise. Generally these obese dogs are highly sedentary.

'Temporary' is hard to define. My aunt's obese dogs ate this food for over a year to get down to their target weight.

You speak a lot of sense LM but we're going to have to disagree on the value of Hills' foods.

boomerang

Hill’s is a $2.2 billion, global subsidiary of Colgate-Palmolive.

Lizard_Moon

boomerang wrote: »

Plenty of healthier weight loss foods out there retailing at the same price. Also feeding for the ideal weight rather than the current weight helps. And gradually increasing exercise. Generally these obese dogs are highly sedentary.

'Temporary' is hard to define. My aunt's obese dogs ate this food for over a year to get down to their target weight.

You speak a lot of sense LM but we're going to have to disagree on the value of Hills' foods.

She got there which is great R/D is just a tool used in weight loss management in our practice.

Thanks for your comments. I am not defending value of Hills food just defending vets from being portrayed as only worried about the markup

Lizard_Moon

boomerang wrote: »

Hill’s is a $2.2 billion, global subsidiary of Colgate-Palmolive.

I know, it's amazing what companies own what companies

boomerang

Lizard_Moon wrote: »

just defending vets from being portrayed as only worried about the markup

A very unfair generalisation, I agree.

boomerang

Lizard_Moon wrote: »

I know, it's amazing what companies own what companies

My point is they have enormous R&D and marketing budgets. It doesn't necessarily defend the price of their products.

I'm not going to bash Hill's outright. In fairness, they started out simply and the k/d diet was their first product. It has extended the lives of countless dogs. Some of the other prescription diets are very useful and hard to replicate from scratch - for example the diets for hepatic insufficiency or urinary crystals.

But on the whole, I wouldn't rate them in terms of nutrition for your average, healthy dog.

DBB

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

I cannot find the libellous part of this? Can you point it out please? I'm not speaking for you: I am talking about "some vets", as you can see. The only bit I mentioned you specifically was to point out that you know, at least I'm assuming you were taught it in college, that dogs cannot digest cereals? This is a fact, Lizard Moon... what's to believe?
If you think it's libellous, report it!

Lizard_Moon wrote: »

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..

Lizard Moon,
Speaking of libellous... Given that many on this forum know me, your comment here is coming very close to being libellous.
You know nothing whatsoever about me: if you did, you would know how utterly untrue, and how utterly unfair your comment about me, personally, being motivated by profit, is. Nothing, nothing could be further from the truth and this comment is further out of line than you will ever know.
I sell no products. I do not rely on selling any gear or food, substandard or otherwise, to make my living. You have already leapt to a wrongful conclusion that I sell dog food: I already corrected you on this mistake, yet you still persist on the same line here, knowing that you are wrong.
Every comment I have made so far has been about some vets, or many vets, but I never, ever singled one person out, nor did I refer to all vets. So for you to single me out with this horrible comment is deeply offensive. So, I must respectfully ask that you withdraw this comment, because I take huge exception to it.
I have, unlike most vets, done a whole lot of research into food and nutrition. I do deal with a certain subset of owners, as do you. And I have dealt with thousands of them. And dozens of vets. As you will presumably know, this constitutes strong anecdotal evidence, which is a considerable step away from making a sweeping generalisation. I don't do sweeping generalisations unless in jest. I know what I say about the way *some* vets behave makes you uncomfortable, but this does not give you grounds to lob in nasty, personal comments about me. You know, attack the post, not the poster? Despite your attempts, very few of your answers have effectively answered any argument I or other posters put to you: but that's not my failing.

Rommie

Okay I just want to add my two cents to this growing debate. One of the dogs here has a luxating patella; my housemate was immediately reccommended to put him on Hills JD or start saving up for a 3000euro surgery. He used to stumble and fall several times a day, every day. Since putting him on glucosamine tablets (3.85 for 90), he has not stumbled or fallen once. This is over twelve months later now and he's still going fine. So instead of paying 90euro or whatever JD is, it costs about 40euro to feed him a month (this dog is also on a raw diet). I don't like Hills food, especially their newest 'better tasting range'. Just had a look at it the other day to see what the difference was. Main ingredient Maize. There's also maize gluten, wheat and soybean meal. Yeah, really worth 50euro for a bag of cereals

Now as for the bacteria in raw subject. I have a confession to make. About a month ago, I somehow managed to let a bag of frozen meat out in the garage without putting it into the freezer. No idea how I did it. Anyway, it was there for about five/six days before I discovered it. It stank, so naturally, i went to throw it out. The dogs went MENTAL when they got the smell of it, so I (perhaps stupidly) said what the hell and gave it to them. Yes, five/six day old rotten meat. And you know what? They were absolutely fine afterwards. No issues, not even with their poo which I was expecting. And then I remembered. These are dogs. Carnivores. Built to eat raw meat, and known to eat rotting food. If they are immuno-compromised then maybe they'll have a problem, but raw fed dogs already have good immune systems! That's my take on it at least.

bluecherry74

I don't think there are many people who would switch their dogs to a raw diet simply because of "something they read on the internet". Switching to raw isn't like trying out a different brand of dry food. It involves completely rethinking how and what you feed your dog. I made the change earlier this year after months of research. It wasn't a decision I made lightly and I was stressed as heck for the first few weeks, wondering if my dogs were getting the right nutrients! I'd be willing to bet that most other people feel the same at first. I'd also be willing to bet that most raw feeders are among the most well educated dog owners when it comes to canine nutrition.

But if I did for any reason go back to feeding dry, Hills would be bottom of the list. Seriously, a food that has chicken feed (corn) as it's first ingredient and the leftovers from the meat factory floor (chicken by-product meal) as it's second? And it's marketed as some kind of therapeutic food for dogs with ailments? That just makes me sad and angry beyond words. The two brands that DBB mentioned are excellent, they contain actual meat, veg, and little else, they're the only two that ever agreed with either of my dogs and they're not THAT hard to find. One of them is even available in pet shops. :shock:

On the hygiene/food safety aspect of feeding raw... I prepare and store my dogs' meat exactly the same way I prepare and store my own meat. As long as common sense hygiene practices are followed I don't see how this is even remotely an argument against feeding raw. If people don't practice good food hygiene they're probably going to get sick, it makes no difference whether the food is intended for them or their dog. Yesterday I bought 6 chicken legs on offer from my butcher. 4 went into a casserole for me, the other 2 went into my dogs' dinner bowls. Smiles all round.

bluecherry74

Also, in my opinion, putting a dog on a special weight loss food is close to the equivalent of putting a human on slim fast and diet pills. Most people know that the key to losing weight is to eat a balanced diet of fresh, natural foods and get a bit of exercise. Why should it be any different for dogs?

DBB

Lizard_Moon wrote: »

Read them Bit defensive?? Also not independent.

I found them from a very quick google search, and are not the independent, statistically sound research papers you need to familiarise yourself with which I referred to in an earlier post. Despite that, there's lots of info in those links which you seem to have been unaware of e.g. re salmonella surviving in the dog's mouth, and more.
Defensive? Perhaps in the face of unrelenting misinformation being given by many vets. Yes, some of the raw convention are a tad strident, but there's nowt untrue in what they're saying in those links, as you'll see when you read the research papers.

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.

And you are "preaching" to the general public to feed their dogs overpriced food that's more suitable for horses ingredients-wise.
You are not giving people much latitude in relation to their ability to find out, when doing their research into raw feeding, about hygiene: as you saw in the links above, the subject is brought up in the most easily-found raw feeding articles. Plus, I think people are copped on enough to know that they have to be careful when handling raw meat, whether it be for humans or dogs.
Do dry dog food companies give owners a spiel on hygiene, given that it poses a risk?

You are very dogmatic in your anti approach to commercial dogfoods, unless they are some obscure type you can only get online.

Go do some searches in this forum, and you'll see that most of the users here already shop for their dog food online.
I was just as enthusiastic as anyone else a couple of years ago in recommending x, y and z dog foods once I knew a bit about them, but since doing some proper research into the whole area, it's hard to recommend owners continue to feed their dogs the ingredients which make up almost all dry dog foods.
I'm not just coming up with this stuff for the laugh LM, just look at the ingredients of Hill's as posted by Boomerang, for goodness' sake... just look at the afore-mentioned turn-around pet food companies (and consequently vets) have done in relation to cat food.

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.

Scaremongering? There's a difference between informing the public of what the scientific literature is saying, and just coming up with something to deliberately scare people with! Contrary to what you say, every single owner I've spoken with about changing their dog off Hill's and the like has really embraced it and love the idea of feeding nutritional food. Why? Because it makes sense to them. So scaremongering is not what I'd call it. What really scares popele is product recalls, and pet food companies having to do an about-turn on the wonderful food they've been selling (to cat owners) for years.
Because I now see what science is saying about the ingredients of many dry foods, I'll only advocate those that come somewhere close to meeting nutritional needs: I recommended several of these during this thread, so no, not making anyone feel terrible for not feeding raw.

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.

"Ridiculed" R/D? You like your exaggerrations, don't you? More accurately, I expressed mock incredulity that the poster's vet had recommended Hill's... but then that post didn't suit your argument and supported my point.
Is it fair that obese dogs get a nutritionally poor diet in the name of weight loss? Perhaps feed less of a good quality food, bulk it out with veg, or low fat meats, like fish?
Shiny glossy coats indicate there's oil in the diet, not necessarily good health, a common misconception perpetuated by food companies. My last dog had a coat you could see your reflection in, even the very day she died of liver cancer.

DBB

Lizard_Moon wrote: »

Maybe you guys should preach more that people should have lean healthy dogs and not feed them treats and allow them to get obese ???

Lol... is that not your job?
It's an odd one... I don't know any obese raw fed dogs! Maybe because it requires that owners measure out the ingredients.
Weird how we've suddenly hopped from salmonella poisoning to obesity.
You will regularly see people posting here that treats given for training need to be included as part of the daily ration. I think you're "preaching" to the wrong audience here.

bfocusd

Rommie wrote: »

Of course the vet will tell you its great, he gets comission for every bag he sells! Personally, I dont like Royal Canin at all. It used to be a great food, but they've changed the recipe to include more cereals and less meat. They also list ingredients like 'animal protein', which animal exactly do these come from!? I also think it's completely overpriced for what's in it, there are far better, far cheaper foods out there.

Completely agree, no matter who you speak to, once their is a profit to be made the food they're selling is always the best, personally I wouldn't buy it as my dog doesn't agree with maize at all and I've gone through about €400 worth of different foods, she's on the TLC barking heads. And I've not had any problems.

Try a small bag and gradually swap them over and see how the dog is, it's all you can do, my vet recommended the usual anti allergenic stuff but its very expensive and turns out the other stuff she's on know is better for her

bfocusd

DBB wrote: »

But steeped in dogdom as I am, I see many, many more dogs of the older (10+) age group dying of diseases and cancers of the throat, kidneys, liver, and pancreas, than I did years ago. This is not to mention the huge number of younger dogs suffering from rumbly-tummy, flatulence, loose stools, problematical anal glands, and various diet-related behavioural problems that I see on a regular basis.
Whilst I used to painstakingly research various dry foods to advise dog owners to use, I'm now at the stage where I cannot, in all good consciousness, recommend pretty much any of the dry foods any more.
I feed my own dogs raw. Two of them are aged 10+, and I can directly affect such conditions as joint problems, digestive health, and mental health by targeting their diets to their age group. I also advise owners to feed raw, because at worst, you know what's going into your dog with it. But in fact, the benefits of feeding a fresh, natural diet far surpasses just this advantage.
If I had to have my arm twisted and was ordered by my dogs to feed them dry, then I'd be going for one of two brands. One is Barking Heads (hard enough to get but hopefully gaining ground), and Taste of the Wild (available on zooplus.ie). And even then I'd be supplementing the dry food with some fresh meat and fish, and meaty bones!

God you had me worried there for a moment!! Some of the foods are desperate and the price they charge is more rediculious, both of mine are on barking heads TLC, and I add this stuff into it too, http://foodforpets.ie/

Lizard_Moon

bluecherry74 wrote: »

Also, in my opinion, putting a dog on a special weight loss food is close to the equivalent of putting a human on slim fast and diet pills. Most people know that the key to losing weight is to eat a balanced diet of fresh, natural foods and get a bit of exercise. Why should it be any different for dogs?

Exactly. The food is used when the owner is unable through diet modification and exercise to reduce the weight of the dog

Lizard_Moon

DBB wrote: »

I cannot find the libellous part of this? Can you point it out please? I'm not speaking for you: I am talking about "some vets", as you can see. The only bit I mentioned you specifically was to point out that you know, at least I'm assuming you were taught it in college, that dogs cannot digest cereals? This is a fact, Lizard Moon... what's to believe?
If you think it's libellous, report it!



Lizard Moon,
Speaking of libellous... Given that many on this forum know me, your comment here is coming very close to being libellous.
You know nothing whatsoever about me: if you did, you would know how utterly untrue, and how utterly unfair your comment about me, personally, being motivated by profit, is. Nothing, nothing could be further from the truth and this comment is further out of line than you will ever know.
I sell no products. I do not rely on selling any gear or food, substandard or otherwise, to make my living. You have already leapt to a wrongful conclusion that I sell dog food: I already corrected you on this mistake, yet you still persist on the same line here, knowing that you are wrong.
Every comment I have made so far has been about some vets, or many vets, but I never, ever singled one person out, nor did I refer to all vets. So for you to single me out with this horrible comment is deeply offensive. So, I must respectfully ask that you withdraw this comment, because I take huge exception to it.
I have, unlike most vets, done a whole lot of research into food and nutrition. I do deal with a certain subset of owners, as do you. And I have dealt with thousands of them. And dozens of vets. As you will presumably know, this constitutes strong anecdotal evidence, which is a considerable step away from making a sweeping generalisation. I don't do sweeping generalisations unless in jest. I know what I say about the way *some* vets behave makes you uncomfortable, but this does not give you grounds to lob in nasty, personal comments about me. You know, attack the post, not the poster? Despite your attempts, very few of your answers have effectively answered any argument I or other posters put to you: but that's not my failing.

Actually meant libellous towards Hills not me. Not being libellous towards you. You talk of seeing 100s maybe 1000s of dogs and most small animal vets see a hell of a lot more therefore have a wider range of people to deal with.

"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.."

Is this the phrase that has you so upset as it is the only one directed towards you?
You are upset at being accused of in it for profit yet are quite happy to say that most vets are only concerned about markup!! Come on. Yes I incorrectly believed you were involved in dog food sales as a sideline, is it not training you do?

Lizard_Moon

As requested some articles, from a very quick google search as I am working today

Risks

http://deschutesveterinaryclinic.evetsites.net/sites/site-3089/documents/raw%20foods.pdf

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/raw-meat-and-bone-diets-for-dogs-its-enough-to-make-you-barf/

Balanced Argument

http://www.moderndogmagazine.com/articles/raw-debate/756

One sided RAW website, not balanced in any way!

http://www.rawfed.com

DBB

Lizard_Moon wrote: »

Is this the phrase that has you so upset as it is the only one directed towards you?
You are upset at being accused of in it for profit yet are quite happy to say that most vets are only concerned about markup!! Come on. Yes I incorrectly believed you were involved in dog food sales as a sideline, is it not training you do?

LM you are missing the point. I have carefully directed all comments I've made towards some vets. Not all vets. I was careful to use a nebulous term so that one person is not isolated.
However, your comment is aimed specifically at an identifiable individual, me. And because your comment is false, and aimed at an identifiable individual, it is defamatory.
It is also deeply personally insulting to me, as an individual, and utterly out of line that you descended to personal insults to gain ground for your generally weak arguments.
So, I respectfully ask you again to withdraw your comment.

Jelly2

I would like to thank everyone who replied to my question about J/D; I really appreciate their advice, regardless of whether I follow it or not. I have a question relating to salmon oil - would tinned salmon in oil, like you can buy in Aldi etc, provide this? I am presuming it will, after all, it is salmon, but perhaps you meant that it could be got in another way too. Thanks!:)

boomerang

It would be fish oil that you get in a health shop or pet shop, Jelly2. That way you know it has the correct proportion of fatty acids and you know exactly how much to give. It usually comes in liquid form, which you can spoon over the food, or in gelatin capsules.

From Dog Aware:

If I were to suggest any single nutritional supplement for dogs with arthritis, it would be fish oil (fish body oil, such as Salmon Oil or EPA oil, not cod liver oil). Fish oil provides omega-3 fatty acids that help reduce inflammation. They are beneficial no matter what type of diet you feed. Note that omega-3 fatty acids are fragile and break down quickly when exposed to light, heat or air, so just feeding a food that has omega-3 fatty acids added may not be helpful. Give as much as 1000 mg fish oil (300 mg EPA/DHA) per 10 lbs of body weight daily. Because fish oil depletes vitamin E in the body, you should also give vitamin E supplements whenever you supplement with oils of any kind. Give around 50 IUs to a small dog, 100 IUs to a medium sized dog, up to 200 IUs for a large dog, anywhere from daily to once or twice a week.

(I would look to see how much Vitamin E/tocopherols are in your dog food before supplementing Vitamin E in addition.)



Edited to add: I usually get mine from www.iherb.com as they have great prices and delivery is excellent and not expensive. But I sometimes stock up when Holland and Barrett have a sale. At the moment they are selling their Fish Oil Capsules at half price!

tk123

Jelly2 wrote: »

I would like to thank everyone who replied to my question about J/D; I really appreciate their advice, regardless of whether I follow it or not. I have a question relating to salmon oil - would tinned salmon in oil, like you can buy in Aldi etc, provide this? I am presuming it will, after all, it is salmon, but perhaps you meant that it could be got in another way too. Thanks!:)

I buy it from zooplus or amazon - it's approx €20 for a litre depending on which site has offers on. Just on the j/d - it was recommended to us by referral #1 (they didnt want to operate and told us never to let our 1 year old pup off his lead again) but my vet said there was no need to change foods if what he was on suited him and that it was fine to supplement instead. Referrel #2 agreed and was amazed to hear that my guy was being managed by diet and supplements without needing any metacam or rimadyl etc.
I supplement (my dog's back legs have been surgically straightened) raw with Luposan granules from zooplus, Flexicose (liquid glucosamine) and have started adding salmon oil in the last 2 months but for his coat more than anything else - I'm hoping he gets a fluffier proper retriever coat lol!!

Lizard_Moon

This is your post regarding vets that forced me to reply

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 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....!

Are you telling me that you are not saying above that many vets are profit hungry fools.
Do you not understand how this is insulting to members of my profession?

DBB wrote: »

What about Hill's Science Plan? RC is only recently becoming available in vet surgeries so can't comment for this brand, but any vets I've asked have grinned widely when asked what commission/mark up they get for Hill's. I can't remember how much it is, but it is substantial, or at least was when I asked.
As for Burns, I have received deals from them, as has my vet, which gave me the opportunity to add as much as 50% to the price I paid for it in order to match shop prices.
Likewise for other popular brands over the years.

You mentioned above that you sourced foods for people and had deals and markup so I assumed you retailed them, if it is being a dog food salesperson that upsets you then I am sorry.

If you are offended that I questions your motivation I am sorry but you did exactly the same to me and all vets out there. I assume in whatever service/business you offer dog owners you charge or maybe you do it for free and have another source of income.

DBB

You mentioned above that you sourced foods for people and had deals and markup so I assumed you retailed them, if it is being a dog food salesperson that upsets you then I am sorry.

No, no I didn't.
This is what I said

As for Burns, I have received deals from them, as has my vet, which gave me the opportunity to add as much as 50% to the price I paid for it in order to match shop prices.

I did not say I buy food for other people. You leapt to that conclusion, and you were wrong.
You don't need to apologise for calling me a salesperson, I don't find that offensive (don't know why you would think it would). But I'm not a salesperson, as I've already been at pains to point out to you.

Lizard_Moon wrote: »

Are you telling me that you are not saying above that many vets are profit hungry fools.
Do you not understand how this is insulting to members of my profession?

Oh dear. I never called anyone a fool, so please don't suggest I did :rolleyes:.
I said "many", because this has been my experience. I now expect owners, when I ask them what they feed their dogs, to say "Hill's" (but sometimes RC or others), and when I ask them who recommended it to them, I expect them to say "my vet", because that's what invariably happens... hundreds of times every single year.

*many* vets sell these foods at inflated prices for profit. There's absolutely nothing wrong with selling a product for profit, that's what being in business is about.
But to push a client into buying one type of (questionable standard) food, or a limited choice of foods which the vet *happens* to sell, when other better-quality and cheaper foods are available in the outside world, you have to agree, makes the casual onlooker very cynical.
My own vet does not sell any foods at all, because she does not feel comfortable with having clients feel obliged to buy a product she *happens* to sell. I know so many vet nursing staff who can't bring themselves to push the shlock food their bosses are pushing them to sell.
So, insulted *some* vets might be by me pointing this out, but I'm more inclined to think they're just a bit uncomfortable because they've been rumbled, and their traditionally unquestioned "veterinary infallibility", so common in Ireland, is being challenged more and more these days.

Again, and this is the last time I will explain this: I said what I said about a nebulous group of people, without naming any person or organisation. It's the same as me saying "politicians are all crooks": insulting to politicians, perhaps, but libellous, no.
However, what IS libellous, is to defame an indentifiable individual by publicly stating something untrue or unfounded about them. Let me refer you to the forum charter, specifically this quote:

What is libel/defamation?
A defamation is basically any statement about a person or an organisation (private, public, NGO, non-profit, whatever), which would damage the reputation of that person/organisation in the eyes of others.

Further to this, I'd encourage you to read the rest of what's said about libel and defamation in the forum charter: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056146511

What I am insulted by, one last time, is that you said that I am "motivated totally by profit and hence see the mirror of myself in everyone else's actions".
While of course I charge for what I do, that is not what is at issue here. As stated above, I have no problem whatsoever with anyone making a profit. But what I do object to is a trusting client feeling that they have to buy a product that I *happen* to sell, because I told them it is "best for their dog" in my professional opinion. For the sake of clarity, I send owners to best value websites for whatever food/toys/gear they decide to buy, having been given all the options.
My profit margins for what I do are tiny, believe me, and they are very hard earned. A lot of it is put straight back into dog welfare, as it happens.
So, whatever you think about what I have said about "vets", the fact remains that you issued a libellous statement about me, an identifiable individual, which I'd once more respectfully ask you to withdraw.

Lizard_Moon

Lizard_Moon wrote: »

Actually meant libellous towards Hills not me. Not being libellous towards you.

"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.."

Is this the phrase that has you so upset as it is the only one directed towards you?

Em, bit confused DBB, is this the phrase you wanted me to withdraw?
I did ask but you never let me know ( that's the bit I quoted from myself above).

If it is I will withdraw it, if you confirm this is the phrase upsetting you

DBB

Lizard_Moon wrote: »

Em, bit confused DBB, is this the phrase you wanted me to withdraw?
I did ask but you never let me know ( that's the bit I quoted from myself above).

If it is I will withdraw it, if you confirm this is the phrase upsetting you

Yes. I have already confirmed the part I meant in the above post:

DBB wrote: »

What I am insulted by, one last time, is that you said that I am "motivated totally by profit and hence see the mirror of myself in everyone else's actions".

I will take it now that you have withdrawn the comment. Thank you.

Jelly2

I don't want to resurrect this thread but I just wanted to give an update on my use of salmon oil in my dog's feed!
A fellow dog-lover in this threat kindly proposed that I might start adding a little of this to my dog's feed daily to help to combat the effects of arthritis. And I am so grateful that they did so! The results have been quite stunning - after the first month of taking it, she was beginning to run around in a way that I had not seen her do for several years. Three months later and I feel that I have a new dog - she runs, she jumps and she is always in good form!
I can hardly believe the transformation, and am so glad that she clearly is feeling much less stiff and sore. Salmon oil may not always be the answer for every creaky dog, I suppose, but it would certainly be worth a try for any dog suffering from arthritis, stiff joints etc - I really recommend it. My dog is now eating Burns every day, with just a little salmon oil, and thriving, and I really think that I have bought her 'extra time' on this earth - reduced or no pain, contentment and joie de vivre!