-
CycleTrack and SDN are teaming up to make medical school admissions more transparent and accessible! Read the announcement to learn how we’re supporting the future of CycleTrack’s free application-tracking tools .
"Best" Cat foods...
Started by r00
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
Truth in information, the most recent site you provided was by a journalism student named Paulette Perhach as a class project in Spring 2004 semester.
From the same site "So why don't vets warn people? The question should be, what makes veterinarians think they can recommend food. In Food Pets Die For, Ann Martin says, "Our family physician doesn't display weight loss products in the reception room … So why is this going on in our veterinary clinics that do not specialize in nutrition." She says she considers it unethical for vets to sell pet food unless they are trained in pet nutrition. "
However, strangly, I have seen weight loss products in some doctors offices, and have seen charts and diagrams recommending 5 servings of fruit/vegetables.
Next: "In vet school, the only classes offered on nutrition usually last a few weeks, and are taught by representatives from the pet food companies."
Actually, just to attend, I had to take a nutrition course. NCSU also offers a weekend seminar on nutrition which isn't sponsored by pet food companies.
The entire site reminds me of the advertisements in magazines that read like articles, but have, on the perimeter of the page, the words 'advertisement.'
Finally, it promotes a particular business, providing a link for food purchase at:
Earth Pets Natural Pet Market
500 NW 60th St., Suite F, Gainesville FL, 32607
(352) 331-5123
From the same site "So why don't vets warn people? The question should be, what makes veterinarians think they can recommend food. In Food Pets Die For, Ann Martin says, "Our family physician doesn't display weight loss products in the reception room … So why is this going on in our veterinary clinics that do not specialize in nutrition." She says she considers it unethical for vets to sell pet food unless they are trained in pet nutrition. "
However, strangly, I have seen weight loss products in some doctors offices, and have seen charts and diagrams recommending 5 servings of fruit/vegetables.
Next: "In vet school, the only classes offered on nutrition usually last a few weeks, and are taught by representatives from the pet food companies."
Actually, just to attend, I had to take a nutrition course. NCSU also offers a weekend seminar on nutrition which isn't sponsored by pet food companies.
The entire site reminds me of the advertisements in magazines that read like articles, but have, on the perimeter of the page, the words 'advertisement.'
Finally, it promotes a particular business, providing a link for food purchase at:
Earth Pets Natural Pet Market
500 NW 60th St., Suite F, Gainesville FL, 32607
(352) 331-5123
I've got a related question...
Do you guys (particularly with knowledge/experience with many cats) think it's a good idea to vary the types of diets your cats are fed? So long as they are all good brands? I mean occasionally vary what your cat gets, not just in terms of flavor, but in terms of brand (e.g. feed Wellness one week, Evo the next, etc.)...again, all talking canned, good foods, or raw frozen diets here.
On the one hand you could say if it ain't broke, don't fix it. If a cat is doing well on a current diet, what reason is there to change it?
But then you could argue that so-and-so cat has been doing "well" on Iams dry for years, until he gets some kind of liver problem/diabetes/what have you. Unless he's been getting a high-quality diet all his life, but even then, how would you know unless he were to get problems later?
You could also cite humans and this hypothetical Odwalla bar as an example. Say that even a high-quality diet is a hypothetical Odwalla bar--it has everything the cat needs to survive, balanced mineral ratios and everything. But there won't ever be enough research to say that it's good to feed only one type of food for the rest of an animal's (or human's) life even if it has everything needed for survival. Plus in the wild, cats would eat a variety of prey...rodents, birds, lizards, insects (my cat loves spiders).
So what do you think? Should I just keep feeding my cat wet Evo the rest of his life? Or shake it up with some other brands and whole foods, to make sure he's getting everything? (I don't think pickiness is an issue with my cat, I adopted him as a stray and he's extremely unpicky about food, tries to dig in the trash can and eats whatever he can find, gobbles up his meals.)
Oh, and in response to Inifinivet ("The Omnivore's Dilemma is the worst book ever written. I'm going to go buy a 1,000 copies just to burn them."). I can't say it's the worst I've ever read, but some of it is just ridiculous. I got really annoyed about the part where he drives his family to McDonald's in his convertible and sits around analyzing and criticizing it. I'm not supporting McD's, but some people (who can't afford, and don't have the time, to sit around in convertibles analyzing what they eat) are very busy and not very rich and get fast food because it's cheap and easy. I'm not saying that justifies eating junk, or feeding junk to your kids--but not everyone can sit around in their convertibles judging others for not having a personal chef/time to home-cook meals.
Several other things really bothered me about the book. I'm not a vegetarian, but Pollan writes up the worst, most self-indulgent arguments I've ever read in support of an omnivorous lifestyle. One is that being a vegetarian actually kills MORE animals because of all the little wild mice that get chopped up when harvesters and wheat-cutters drive over a field of grain or vegetables. Another of his arguments is that chickens "enjoy" and "benefit" from a feedlot relationship with humans because we protect them from natural predators, and that it's a natural relationship because we humans are part of nature (apparently). Only a few chapters before, he talks about how chickens and cows are frequently fed feces, feathers, and ground-up inedible carcasses (which according to his theory is also a part of nature). No one in my writing class seemed to agree in the least with me. Am I crazy here?
Do you guys (particularly with knowledge/experience with many cats) think it's a good idea to vary the types of diets your cats are fed? So long as they are all good brands? I mean occasionally vary what your cat gets, not just in terms of flavor, but in terms of brand (e.g. feed Wellness one week, Evo the next, etc.)...again, all talking canned, good foods, or raw frozen diets here.
On the one hand you could say if it ain't broke, don't fix it. If a cat is doing well on a current diet, what reason is there to change it?
But then you could argue that so-and-so cat has been doing "well" on Iams dry for years, until he gets some kind of liver problem/diabetes/what have you. Unless he's been getting a high-quality diet all his life, but even then, how would you know unless he were to get problems later?
You could also cite humans and this hypothetical Odwalla bar as an example. Say that even a high-quality diet is a hypothetical Odwalla bar--it has everything the cat needs to survive, balanced mineral ratios and everything. But there won't ever be enough research to say that it's good to feed only one type of food for the rest of an animal's (or human's) life even if it has everything needed for survival. Plus in the wild, cats would eat a variety of prey...rodents, birds, lizards, insects (my cat loves spiders).
So what do you think? Should I just keep feeding my cat wet Evo the rest of his life? Or shake it up with some other brands and whole foods, to make sure he's getting everything? (I don't think pickiness is an issue with my cat, I adopted him as a stray and he's extremely unpicky about food, tries to dig in the trash can and eats whatever he can find, gobbles up his meals.)
Oh, and in response to Inifinivet ("The Omnivore's Dilemma is the worst book ever written. I'm going to go buy a 1,000 copies just to burn them."). I can't say it's the worst I've ever read, but some of it is just ridiculous. I got really annoyed about the part where he drives his family to McDonald's in his convertible and sits around analyzing and criticizing it. I'm not supporting McD's, but some people (who can't afford, and don't have the time, to sit around in convertibles analyzing what they eat) are very busy and not very rich and get fast food because it's cheap and easy. I'm not saying that justifies eating junk, or feeding junk to your kids--but not everyone can sit around in their convertibles judging others for not having a personal chef/time to home-cook meals.
Several other things really bothered me about the book. I'm not a vegetarian, but Pollan writes up the worst, most self-indulgent arguments I've ever read in support of an omnivorous lifestyle. One is that being a vegetarian actually kills MORE animals because of all the little wild mice that get chopped up when harvesters and wheat-cutters drive over a field of grain or vegetables. Another of his arguments is that chickens "enjoy" and "benefit" from a feedlot relationship with humans because we protect them from natural predators, and that it's a natural relationship because we humans are part of nature (apparently). Only a few chapters before, he talks about how chickens and cows are frequently fed feces, feathers, and ground-up inedible carcasses (which according to his theory is also a part of nature). No one in my writing class seemed to agree in the least with me. Am I crazy here?
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
In terms of feeding a cat a "diverse" diet (of commercial foods), I had the thought that feeding different brands & different flavors would encourage a less picky eater. So, I don't know why I thought of that, nor do I have any proof... but personally, I don't think it hurts. Though I would hesitate to change the diet weekly due to the inability to transition between diets slowly.
For my two 3 year old cats, they were typically fed California Natural or Evo in varying flavors... and I usually changed the diet whenever I bought a new bag (every 3 months for the big bags I get). However, a few months ago I decided to try a diet trial on one of my cats due to alopecia (hair loss) on her abdomen. I fed Royal Canin green peas & rabbit... and my cat decided to develop some sort of dietary intolerance 😛 So there went my grand aspirations to have non-picky cats!
For my two 3 year old cats, they were typically fed California Natural or Evo in varying flavors... and I usually changed the diet whenever I bought a new bag (every 3 months for the big bags I get). However, a few months ago I decided to try a diet trial on one of my cats due to alopecia (hair loss) on her abdomen. I fed Royal Canin green peas & rabbit... and my cat decided to develop some sort of dietary intolerance 😛 So there went my grand aspirations to have non-picky cats!
Everything I've ever read on the topic of food rotation suggests it - my veterinarian suggested it and we got a second opinion from another and she also suggested it. Both had the same reasonings - over time feeding only one type of food will create some type of deficiency in the animal.
Eating the same food day in, day out, for years and years it will eventually leave a gap in nutrition that that particular food doesn't provide. By creating a rotating variety of foods it makes sense to assume it would provide the pet a more rounded diet. This makes sense to me - but not being a vet or pre-vet I can't tell you what those gaps might be.
Maybe a vet or pre-vet could weigh in?
Last edited:
I'm aware. I could have found the same definitions anywhere, I just felt that they were laid out the best there out of the many sites I found. Here's several more - a couple of which provide the same definitions as the one above.
If it makes any difference (Association of American Feed Control Officials):
Here they are as written by the AAFCO:
http://www.sniksnak.com/ac/petfooddefinitions.html
http://www.braypets.com/FRR/aafcodef.htm
Ooh, did your vet also suggest a rotation schedule? Like every week, every time you buy new food, every month...I don't want to give him an upset stomach or anything, although with his history as a stray (and trash-digging habits) he seems somewhat immune to a varied diet.
The first advised every 3 months to rotate their food and the second suggested every 4 months. We do it every three months.
The first time both dogs didn't transition well so we called our regular vet. He suggested putting plain yogurt in their food to help their digestive system. It's worked ever since.
Of course, you want to do it over a period of about 1-2 weeks. Start by mixing like 80% regular food 20% new food for a couple days, 75/25 a couple days, 50/50 a couple days, and so on.
If they have problems with diarrhea or upset stomach the yogurt works for us. Make sure it's plain yogurt - about half a container is what we give ours. I've read canned pumpkin works for others - fibrous and a stool hardener, I'm guessing.
Overall, our dogs have eaten a lot better since we started doing this, and they've not been as 'depressed' acting about their food. Sometimes I could just see the look in their face being, "man... we eat this crap every day! give us something new!"
Also, I'm not sure but have always wondered how important rotation is if you're supplementing with vitamins anyway. Regardless, no harm in doing it, imo.
one of the vets i worked for recommended canned pumpkin
Mine eat primarily Evo. I've found that any deviation from grain-free causes their urine pH to shoot up into the 7.5-8 range. It stays at 6.5-ish only if I am consistently feeding a grain free diet. They like it, and they look great.
When I switched to a primarily grain free diet for my animals all of them have better coats, no more bad dog breath, and they smell neutral all the time. It does have its advantages!
Haha, I don't know about that! I feed California Natural (dry ad libitum and canned once a day or so) and after my dog gets done with his canned meal of Salmon and Sweet Potato... whew you can smell him from across the room! 😛😉
BTW, regardless of where the info comes from on the whole Eukanuba thing, it is correct. I think most vets have quite a ways to go in the whole commercial dog food recommendation thing. I've also switched my horse to a much better food after learning the differences in commercial diets, and the difference is amazing. Luckily ISU (where I'll be attending vet school in the fall) has a Natura program in addition to the Hills program (vet students get dog food free or extremely cheap) so I can continue feeding CA Natural to my dog. I'm thrilled, because I was going to look into starting a Natura program if there wasn't one.
I learned about the difference on a dog forum I frequent and they have a great list of good commercial foods. Not to say that many animals don't live long lives on the crap... there's just better stuff out there. I'm glad I looked into it when I acquired my dog as a puppy.
They have this unbreakable relationship with Science Diet. Not to say that it doesn't work, because I've never had to use a special diet, but the fact that it costs $50 for a ten-pound bag of something like z/d (ingredients: Rice protein concentrate, brewers rice, hydrolyzed chicken liver, vegetable oil (preserved with BHA, propyl gallate and citric acid), hydrolyzed chicken, powdered cellulose, glyceryl monostearate, taurine, ethoxyquin (a preservative), minerals (calcium carbonate, potassium chloride, dicalcium phosphate, salt, calcium sulfate, ferrous sulfate, zinc oxide, copper sulfate, manganous oxide, calcium iodate, sodium selenite), vitamins (choline chloride, vitamin A supplement, vitamin D3 supplement, niacin, vitamin E supplement, thiamine mononitrate, calcium pantothenate, riboflavin, pyridoxine hydrochloride, folic acid, biotin, vitamin B12 supplement) just seems too funky to me.
Um, do you know the clinical indications for z/d?
For the right patient, it's a great food.
I don't agree with making scientific judgement calls based on what "seems too funky to me."
Ditto Nexx. 😉 😉
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
As much as I hate commercial dog food, I will say that I do like the I/D formula for one of our dogs when he needs it. He has some colon issues and often times it's about all he can muster to have.
The prescription line of Science Diet actually has a lot of respect in the 'natural foods' circle for pets.
However, just like breeders, vets get perks for pushing pet foods. Eukanuba or Science Diet's regular foods likely won't kill your pet. Eating at McDonald's likely won't kill you. However, it won't make your life that enjoyable, either!
Our vet sells Science Diet food in his office. His online re-order link is on every bag which includes his referral code. Pet health practitioners or not, a business is a business at the end of the day!
The prescription line of Science Diet actually has a lot of respect in the 'natural foods' circle for pets.
However, just like breeders, vets get perks for pushing pet foods. Eukanuba or Science Diet's regular foods likely won't kill your pet. Eating at McDonald's likely won't kill you. However, it won't make your life that enjoyable, either!
Our vet sells Science Diet food in his office. His online re-order link is on every bag which includes his referral code. Pet health practitioners or not, a business is a business at the end of the day!
Hahaha. Ours can't have canned food... for lack of a better analogy, if they do they could crap through a screen door.
Why don't we stop comparing commercial pet foods to McDonald's. No one in McDonald's has looked at the needs of a human being and manufactured foods to meet those needs.
This thread has gotten ridiculous. There are so many good commercial foods (and others, I am sure) that are getting beaten down by people who have limited knowledge of nutrition.
Are you aware of the major price increases Hills has levied over the past two years? That most veterinary offices mark up their food byt 5-10% these days, thus barely (or not even) covering the cost of ordering the food, taking up room on the shelves, facilitating the transaction at the receptionist end/carrying the food to your car?
This is because the prices Hills charges are outrageous. Many vet clinics are going the "order online" option because they lose less money than to order it/keep inventory/etc.
Perhaps some research into these supposed "kickbacks" would better inform you on what Hills, etc actually do for veterinarians.
I know many a vet who hates the Hills company. And still recommends their food when clinically appropriate.
Good lord.
Hear, hear!
Pet food is one thing that so many laypeople seem to have very strong opinions (and very little knowlege) about. They convince themselves that because they eat/feed themselves, they are able to basically dictate what animals shoul eat/be veterinary nutritionists on their own time. Which is like saying that because you know when to take [insert drug here] and you don't have [insert drug here] reps coming into your office with free samples, you are better able to advise someone on when to take [insert drug here] than a doctor. It's ridiculous.
This is true for Euk and and RC as well. I worked with vets that carried one or the other, and stocking it was a major headache, but the vets needed to be able to provide it when necessary. In parts of NJ I knew vets who wrote scripts for food out to PetSmarts that carried (under lock) veterinary diets.
I guess, after getting calcium from chicken legs (ie chicken by product, yes we ate the bones) and shrimp shells while in SE Asia, I am not quite so quick to dismiss these types of ingredients. Of course, I also know people who like pickled pigs feet, cracklings, offal, tripe, chitterlings, haggis, scrapple, chitlins, maw and a variety of other sweetmeats. People feeding 'whole raw' are feeding these things as well...just intact.
I also think there are some animals, just like there are some people, who are only able to survive/thrive on a very limited diet of the finest quality...and then there are others who can eat every greasy, fatty, sugar loaded, carb loaded, and bacteria laden foods and live for a century. If one objects to commercial foods, they need to learn a whole lot about the individual commercial foods (more than what a website says) and about designing and creating a food product. Every vet I have ever talked to cringes when I mention raw (which I only feed 2 out of 6 dogs) but when they hear the preparations, supplementation, reasons, and ingredients I use, and how much research and $ I have spent to develop the diets in conjunction with a vet nutritionist, they understand and support the task (while often admitting they wouldn't be willing to do it themselves.) I always wonder why the people who object the most to the readily available commercial foods aren't willing to make thier own diets, consult with vet nutritionists, and pay for the lab work that is part of responsibly developing a diet.
Last edited:
Do you know how much it costs to hydrolyze proteins to get them to the point where they won't cause an antigen response in allergic animals? I assume you don't from your post.
I agree that this thread is ridiculous. There are many good foods out there, and I am not talking just about the over-priced natura and wellness diets. Do you know how much research the large food companies do on their food? I am sure that many people are going to lambast AAFCO feeding trials as being too short, but that is not the only research that I am talking about. You can also find independent, peer-reviewed scientific data on those foods. You can't say the same for the other diets.
For those that feed raw diets (or are proponents for it), what do you do in a boarding situation? For instance, a dog usually fed a raw diet was transferred to my vet hospital from another hospital for vomiting, diarrhea and lethargy. At the referring (& our) hospital, they fed a commercial diet. Of course, some of the resulting diarrhea could be attributed to this but is feeding a raw diet setting up a pet for this kind of situation? What do you do about their food when you are gone for extended periods or the pet needs to be hospitalized (whether related to diet or not... like vestibular syndrome)?
Just curious. 🙂
Just curious. 🙂
It's amazing how internet anonymity always makes it okay to act like an ass to someone you don't know whose comment YOU misinterpreted. By the way, it's "judgment," not "judgement."
It's allergen-free food, hence the little meat. I ALREADY SAID I wasn't commenting on whether or not the diet WORKS. In fact for "the right patients" I'm sure it does, and we feed it at our hospital; no one would use or buy it otherwise. Foods low or absent in animal protein sources are recommended for pets with reactions to most foods, which I'm not arguing with. But there are still vegetarian foods that work for food allergies at reasonable prices, AND using whole rice (instead of brewer's) and/or barley, for example.
I'm saying that for FIFTY DOLLARS, a ten-pound bag of food that is basically just by-products and minerals (or starch in canned z/d) seems strange TO ME. This brand, which alliecat mentioned, is hardly even marked up when a customer buys it from a vet or pet store, which means the $90 people are paying for 40 pounds of whatever special diet goes pretty much straight back to Hill's to pay for ground corn and rice hulls (at least they got rid of the peanut shells from years ago). Hill's specifically sets their own retail prices, if that tells you anything (which I KNOW from working at a pet store, not just speculating).
I don't care how little you seem to think I know about nutrition. Maybe I'm crazy here, but I don't believe in making big money off of someone's concern for his beloved pets, and I don't believe in feeding my animals corn and rice by-products, except maybe as an absolute last resort, and even in that case there are honest alternatives. I'm not trying to be my own "veterinary nutritionist," either. All I know for sure is that grain-free canned keeps my cat happy and healthy, and he'd eat MEAT in nature. The pet food companies can manipulate your pet nutrition classes, but not natural biology.
hire a cat sitter!! duh!!! 😛
seriously, i've never boarded my cats, and don't plan to. my gf is taking care of them my first year in London, and then I'll bring them over. with that said, i do feed almost an exclusively raw diet, but it's a recent switch (1.5 years?), and my cats have long experience eating a variety of foods, from Purina to Iams to Wellness to Halo . . . so in a hospital setting, I'd provide whatever diet they needed (if medically appropriate), and if *my* cats won't eat a food, then they're seriously ill and probably need to be in ICU with an E-tube anyways.
I'm not blasting all commercial pet food and championing raw either, although many of you Hill's proponents seem to enjoy making all kinds of assumptions.
And the reason I don't make my own raw is because I don't want to fiddle with the mineral ratios. But you can buy already-prepared and balanced raw frozen diets, or make it yourself if you have the time/materials/knowledge.
And the reason I don't make my own raw is because I don't want to fiddle with the mineral ratios. But you can buy already-prepared and balanced raw frozen diets, or make it yourself if you have the time/materials/knowledge.
Haha, sorry I was thinking if pet sitter wouldn't go through the work of putting together the diet. Although, I assume the pet owner would prepare all the ingredients (if possible) ahead of time and the sitter would just combine..
That's all well and good, but in YOUR original post which I quoted, you specifically were critical of VETERINARIANS for the "relationship" with commercial diets. Here you indicate your knowledge of Hills own pricing scheme--knowledge which you did not seem to have in your cirticism of the relationship veterinarians have with food companies.
Until you go to veterinary school yourself and see how the pet food companies court veterinary students--or not--and can decide for yourself based on fact and not opinion, please don't paint veterinarians as blind robots repeating the Hills/Eukanuba/RC doctrine. Believe it or not, there are reasons these diets are recommended for certain pets.
But that's just me--and I'm an ass. 😉 Obviously. The extra "e" in "judgement" proves it! You win!
From Webster's Dictionary (though I am sure that it has nothing on your personal expertise.):
Main Entry:judg·ment Variant(s) judge·ment \ˈjəj-mənt\ Function:noun
e is a variation recognized in the English language, not a misspelling.
Working in a pet store makes you an expert? Supply/demand and microeconomics have no affect on food costs. Amazing. Glad I learned something new today.
Actually, my ANIMAL nutrition classes were not sponsored by food companies, it wasn't even at a vet school...or even in a state that has a vet school. Some of the seminars I attended were, but those were by raw diets producers and premium diet producers. So I guess my 'it all depends, lots of options, individual animal' attitude must have been swayed by all those premium/raw food seminars. I guess they manipulated me into..... not being an advocate. Interesting. Oh, I guess the zoo I worked for swayed my opinions by sending me to AZA sponsored courses as well. Good to know. Manipulated by the academic world, the pet food producers from major names to small raw producers, the hobby farm and organic stock producers, and the zoo world.
Maybe your knowledge of natural biology will surpass all the knowledge you might learn in vet school. Why bother going? Obviously you already know more than a veterinary nutritionist. I am sure, from other comments, that you know more than other specialists. Surely you can set off on your own and be fine! 😀
Just a note, I am actually not a major proponent for it. Raw diets are a lot of work and money, especially to develop an appropriate diet. My SAR dogs are on raw due to breeder's history with raw (hard to argue with a breeder who has 15 yo working shepherds that look to be 8 years at most), my experience with decreased distractions from 'meat' (rotting carcasses) while searching, and a need to be able to quickly adjust supplements and carb/protein/fat ratios. I might be able to do this with food, but it is generally easier for me to do with raw. I do use a dehydrated raw diet when actually searching (packable for multiday, in-field searches.) I discourage anyone who doesn't want to spend time/energy/money on taking classes, participating in research, and such from going raw. At the same time, I have seen food allergy dogs that were rough started (not nutritionally sound, switched to single ingredient raw, then have their diets expanded, and do very well....but not overly comfortable with this.)
Anyways, the simple quesiton about boarding. I actually pre-make standard low energy meals and freeze them (dry ice system.) I can actually insert supplements into the product right before freezing. Then individually wrap and label. When I did board my dogs I have never had a problem with the boarding kennels feeding the diet. I did generally use slighly higher priced kennels that were family owned/operated. I always reminded them when scheduling boarding. Now we have a pet sitter (actually, our pet sitter now rents a suite of rooms at our house) and it is easy enough for her to manage. If I absolutly have to leave my SAR dogs anywhere else (unfortunatly they learned some bad habits at boarding kennels) I leave them with other SAR handlers. In worst case scenarios (when my primary SAR dog developed severe allergies following our Katrina tour) and I had to relocate, my parents took care of him, and the diet was altered to deal with potential food allergies (actually, he is allergic to molds of all sorts and yeasts and pollens, and gets contact dermatitis to a lot of things...potentially genetic though nothing in his lines, so the vets I have dealt with believe it was just the sheer exposure during Katrina searches.)
I confess to never having had to hospitalize any of my pets. Part of that might be due to my mother being a vet tech, then my work in zoos and vet clinics (the zoo vet did all my pet's treatments as well, at work, in my office.) The vet clinic I use now (former employer) would be fine with feeding raw as long as I brought in a couple day's supply at a time. I am not sure what will happen now that I have relocated and will need to figure out vetting locally for one of my SAR dogs (other will live with hubby.)
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
With Z/D, it's not just that the protein isn't from meat - it's hydrolyzed. You can read more about hydrolyzed protein diets here: http://www.marvistavet.com/html/body_food_allergies.html
I'll admit that I'm not very knowledgeable about nutrition. I do know that Z/D has helped a lot of dogs with food allergies and that it IS expensive, but it's sure better than having a dog covered in sores and pus.
Also, I think a lot of people on this board are falling prey to the "a little knowledge is a bad thing" problem. You know enough to think you're pretty knowledgeable, but not enough to question your own assumptions in any real depth.
I'll admit that I'm not very knowledgeable about nutrition. I do know that Z/D has helped a lot of dogs with food allergies and that it IS expensive, but it's sure better than having a dog covered in sores and pus.
Also, I think a lot of people on this board are falling prey to the "a little knowledge is a bad thing" problem. You know enough to think you're pretty knowledgeable, but not enough to question your own assumptions in any real depth.
My dog eats C/D - she has both a urolith and renalith problem. I'm mostly positive I spelled the latter incorrectly. 🙄
I just use what I'm told... I don't really read packages, for my pets or for myself. But at least I don't feed Meow Mix and Ol' Roy! Eheheh... :worried:
I just use what I'm told... I don't really read packages, for my pets or for myself. But at least I don't feed Meow Mix and Ol' Roy! Eheheh... :worried:
This is right on. There's a whole lot of ignorance on display in this thread, disguised as informed opinions. Not knowing what Z/D is or how it actually works is pretty telling.
Vegetarian diets are good and fine but I certainly wouldn't give one to a cat but I would feed z/d. In addition as someone mentioned above, it isn't cheap to hydrolyze proteins to such a small molecule.
+ (another) 1
Funny how silent it got in here after a few well-thought out posts. Hmmm. 😉
I'm going to give my opinion on the whole food thing and like I said it is only my opinion.
There are tons of books and research out there on nutrition and plenty of "experts". You can go to any library and find books from veterinarians recommending raw diets and saying "I did the research and this is the best thing for dogs." They expect you to believe them since they are after all experts.
Than you have top researchers and some board certified veterinary nutritionists who will say that really the difference between the top holistic foods and an Iams are mostly marketing and appealing to human senses. That really nutrition not about what the protein is on a macro level (lungs, livers, muscle, etc) but just that the amino acid requirements are met on the micro level. That fillers are ok in a dog food of a normal animal. They of course have done all the research, they have the fancy letters next to their name and they tell you to believe them.
So what do you do? You have equally qualified proponents of both sides and you have to believe one. I think you have to try to read as much as you can, look at all the facts, and make your own decisions on what you believe. I happen to feed my two healthy dogs California Natural and my one ailing dog Science Diet k/d. I don't think their is any problem with the Science Diets, Eukanubas, and what not in diseased animals or your everyday couch potato.They have done the research on disease processes and minimum necessary requirements of nutrients. Dogs will live long healthy lives on these foods. If you have a performance dog though, a sled dog, a sport dog etc, than the extra fat and protein in one of the higher quality/raw foods would probably serve you better.
There are tons of books and research out there on nutrition and plenty of "experts". You can go to any library and find books from veterinarians recommending raw diets and saying "I did the research and this is the best thing for dogs." They expect you to believe them since they are after all experts.
Than you have top researchers and some board certified veterinary nutritionists who will say that really the difference between the top holistic foods and an Iams are mostly marketing and appealing to human senses. That really nutrition not about what the protein is on a macro level (lungs, livers, muscle, etc) but just that the amino acid requirements are met on the micro level. That fillers are ok in a dog food of a normal animal. They of course have done all the research, they have the fancy letters next to their name and they tell you to believe them.
So what do you do? You have equally qualified proponents of both sides and you have to believe one. I think you have to try to read as much as you can, look at all the facts, and make your own decisions on what you believe. I happen to feed my two healthy dogs California Natural and my one ailing dog Science Diet k/d. I don't think their is any problem with the Science Diets, Eukanubas, and what not in diseased animals or your everyday couch potato.They have done the research on disease processes and minimum necessary requirements of nutrients. Dogs will live long healthy lives on these foods. If you have a performance dog though, a sled dog, a sport dog etc, than the extra fat and protein in one of the higher quality/raw foods would probably serve you better.
Thank you for putting it so succinctly!
I agree with the gist of your post, but I think the part that I singled out above is incorrect. One group is much more qualified than the other, and you even made it clear in your post which one that is. The "research" that holistic (i hate that word) vets claim they've done is nothing publishable, nothing peer-reviewable, nothing that really even contains any non-anecdotal data, it's just an opinion they've formed that happens to be particularly appealing to them and to some consumers.
All I want to see is one board certified veterinary nutritionist that says that advises feeding raw to the average client and disapproves of Science Diet or Eukanuba. Just one. They might be out there, I've just never met one. I'd also love to see one published and peer-reviewed study that suggests either one of those things. Until I do, it's just stuff someone wrote on the internet.
Can't be any worse than Caesar Milan's Dog Whisperer™ Fortified Water for Dogs...
At work the other day I had a woman come in and tell me that she had switched from Hill's to Rachel Ray's dog food because it was more natural and therefore better.
When I was researching conservation in the UK, one of the people I met was running a permaculture farm. Each week, they had packages of frozen chicks arrive. That is what thier cats ate (plus whatever they caught.) They would just dump a package of a dozen out in the sunshine, and as the cats wanted them...and they had defrosted to a particular cat's tastes. Why? because it was more natural. At times, I wondered about bacteria load....then again, I would love to have real clotted cream again...which isn't really available in the US due to hygeine regulations.
This post is hilarious. It's funny how internet anonymity makes it alright to post opinions without having real knowledge on the subject.
Let's talk about food allergies for a minute, because you brought up Z/D. I mentioned in my earlier post, which you failed to respond to, that the price is due to HYDROLYZING the proteins. For a dog that is food allergic to a protein source, you must break apart the proteins so they are small enough that they won't be recognized as antigens. In the pet food manufacturing process this involves first cleaning the machinery extremely thoroughly, so that it won't be contaminated by any protein. This allows the dog to get a quality protein source that is non-antigenic. Granted, every animal is not protein-allergic, some are grain allergic (the minority).
From your post you seem to think that you are limiting the protein source in these diets. This is not true. A food allergic animal must have the source of the allergy completely eliminated. That's why if you put your dog on a food trial, it can't even have a beef flavored heartgard tablet.
Just a random rant after reading these threads:
It's disturbing how people follow trends, or "buzz words" when choosing food for their pets. People hear natural, holisitic, raw, organic, and no by-products and think that automatically makes the food better. Where is the research? Do people really think that taking out by-products make a food better?
The AAFCO definition of a by-product is the following:
The non-rendered, clean parts, other than meat, derived from slaughtered mammals. It includes, but is not limited to, lungs, spleen, kidneys, brain, livers, blood, bone, partially defatted low temperature fatty tissue, and stomach and intestines freed of their contents. It does not include hair, horns, teeth, and hoofs.
When wild animals kill prey what do they eat first? The muscle? No. They eat the organ meat. So by taking away by-products, you are essentially taking away the most nutritious protein source. The fact is that companies do this because of consumer demand as a result of a misguided education. I think it's sad that it comes down to that.
I commend the large food companies for all of the research that they have done to advance pet healthcare. They spend billions on their research to make the most advanced diets to enhance the quality of life of the pets. I haven't seen, and maybe I'm just unaware of it, the same level of commitment from the holistic food sources.
In the end, is the pet food industry a business? Of course it is, and I certainly don't fault them for making a profit on their food. I'm sure I'll get the comments about being "bought" by the big pet food companies - but Natura gives out free food too, so I hope that people will finally realize that in the end most students can think for themselves.
End Rant.
Aaaaagh, Ditto to the MAX!!!
It's frustrating for me to continue reading this thread. But it's like a train wreck, I can't stop watching... 🙂
Just to correct, only Hill's and Purina conduct clinical trials with their foods meeting AAFCO standards. All other companies are "formulated" according to AAFCO.
So, I wouldn't necessarilly say that Eukanuba does research, although most of the information has been established previously for them.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
WoW. You clearly have no idea of the difference in these ingredients, or what they mean to the pet or how they are used in these commercial pet foods, otherwise you wouldn't be saying these things.
What's the difference between WHOLE rice, or ground or brewer's rice? How are these processed by the animal?
And barley? Hmm,... compared to corn, wheat, and rice, wayyy less digestible. (Sorry I don't have the time to search around for the study on that one, but maybe later)
Food that is "basically just by-products and minerals"? Seriously?!?!?!?
You obviously have no idea that you probably eat/consume in some form by-products all the time, and these "by-products" of the meat industry are consumed by hmans as well all the time.
In addition, someone said something about pet food meats/meals being "human inedible" or something like that. FYI: ALL meats/meat by-products/meat meals used in pet foods do not qualify for human consumption. It's governed by the USDA that the second a meat product (and maybe vegetables or other produce as well, I would think) enters the pet nutrition/food processing facility, it is deemed NO longer suitable for human consumption. End of story.
So, if company X decides to reject a shipment of chicken from Tyson, it cannot be sold to Grocery Store Z and be chopped up into cutlets. It can only be used in the manufacturing of pet foods.
Thus, it is illegal and false advertising to say that any pet food is "human grade" or "human edible" or any of that junk.
And, REALLY, this FIFTY DOLLAR bag, (which, apparently you love your dog/cat SO much you want to buy it the best Friskies you can get for your $10.00, when you'd probably go out to dinner at a fancy restaurant and spend that much in one night) THIS bag IS HARDLY even marked up when you buy it at a Pet Store or the Vet, eh???
Is THAT what they told you when you worked at PetCo? 😉
Well, since you know so much I won't even BOTHER telling you that,... well, yeah, I will. 🙂 It is marked up, A LOT. (SHOCKER!) It HAS to be marked up, significantly enough to pay their rent, electricity, and your salary to press the button on that register. Since you CLEARLY know more than all of us here about what it costs to run a business though, and why the prices for a given bag of X food are completely different between different stores in different areas and veterinary offices around the country, I'm sure you already knew that... 🙂
Ground corn and rice hulls,... again, you just indicated to me that you know absolutely nothing about these ingredients, and the NUTRIENTS they provide.
Someone else on here made the allegation against corn as an allergen. Again- Really? Do people still believe that??? Even though 98% of the reported food allergens for dogs and cats indicate things OTHER than corn? (Primarily Beef, Wheat, and Dairy for dogs- I forgot for cats. 🙂) (Again, sorry about my source- I think you could probably find most of the stuff in the S.A. Clinical Nutrition book though)
This is my whole point- obviously you have fallen into the group of people who believe certain ingredients are the key, and it's the ingredients list to look for in a food bla bla bla, when what you really should be looking at is what NURIENTS your pet is going to get from these ingredients, and how well the balance of nutrients is in that food.
I personally think the only way you can trust that the proper nutrient balance is in your pet food is with a company that has conducted clinical trials with that given food on other pets before it is released onto the market.
<sigh>, k. glad I got that out of my system. I have some wedding planning to do now... 😀
The source you used for these definitions is not AAFCO, but someone who added their own personal opinions onto the AAFCO definitions. I deleted all the objective facts from the definitions above, and left only the "Author's additions" (read- opinions).
The preservative you may have been referring to under "Fish oil" sounds to me like mixed Tocopherols. AAFCO has defined these as a natural antioxidant, and therefore they qualify as a natural preservative. Whereas Vitamin E, which is classified as a by-product, because it is created in the process of making something else, is not classified as a natural antioxidant/preservative, and cannot be used in "Natural" foods meeting AAFCO standards unless the phrase is added "With added Vitamins and Minerals" after advertising as a Natural pet food.
Actually, they do their own research. However, AAFCO standards for clinical trials are different than the feeding trials they do, so they don't qualify as AAFCO clinical trials.
In addition, there are plenty of other foods that do actual AAFCO trials.
Those are the only ones I've seen that conduct trials that qualify to be written in their AAFCO statement. Plus, a Veterinary Nutritionist confirmed the same info. to us about a week ago, so I'd be interested in which other brands/manufacturers you're speaking of.
