Nutrition Course in Vet School?

[Artery]

Hi all,
I've been accepted at Tufts, and am most likely going to be going there this fall. I just had concerns about the nutritional side of the curriculum... I know most of the vet schools (and most of the vets I've ever worked with) teach the idea of feeding big company dog/cat food like Purina or Science Diet, and I, for one, have been against that since day 1. It just doesn't make sense to be feeding a dog food that is primarily corn to a carnivorous animal, and so I've always fed my animals food that is higher in protein and lower in grain (brands like Innova, Orijen, and other "holistic" diets) My sisters are both animal lovers who have done extensive research (although they are not vets) on nutrition, and all of their animals are either on a raw diet or high-protein kibble. The vets they take their animals to seem to always be against the idea (and my sisters tell me that the vets primarily just say they were taught that in school, but do not have the ability to back up their statements with factual evidence). When my sister asked the vet what was wrong with the food she was feeding her dog, he simply just said he hadn't heard of it, and so therefore trusted Purina more. All of her animals are completely healthy and have never had a problem on the raw diet. I suspect that most vets who do not have a specialty in nutrition will just advise whatever food they were taught to feed in vet school (not necessarily the BEST for your pet though...). On the other hand, some veterinary nutritionists are okay with the idea of the raw diet. I also know that a lot of the big pet food companies sponsor the courses on nutrition, and thus the vet schools tell their students to feed the sponsor's pet food.
Anyway, my question is, how much emphasis does vet school place on nutrition? How truly different is their approach to nutrition as compared to those who specialize in it? I'm just a bit concerned because I want to be able to make the best unbiased decision, regardless of what vet school teaches, and keep a critical perspective.
Sorry this post's so long ! And thanks for any help!!!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[ImNotThatGirl]

I can't really speak for how much vet schools teach about nutrition, since I haven't started vet school yet, but I for one am against raw diets that promote raw meat. If you wouldn't eat raw meat, why should your dog? Don't need research for that, that's just common sense. They can get sick from the same contaminations that give us food poisoning. Dogs have been domesticated for thousands of years, so they have become more accustomed to our diets and are not obligate carnivores. Plus, it's not like the dogs are killing their own meat, then eating it straight away. It's killed at a slaughterhouse, goes through other processing, transport, sitting in a grocery store, etc before it ends up in your dog's dish. Plenty of points for potential contamination.

Anyhow, I don't mean to go off on a tangent, I just don't always agree with raw diets.

Personally, I think that if your dog's healthy and has the right nutrient profiles, then obviously you're doing something right, whether you're feeding him Purina or Ol' Roy lol.

 

[libster06]

Hi all,
I've been accepted at Tufts, and am most likely going to be going there this fall. I just had concerns about the nutritional side of the curriculum... I know most of the vet schools (and most of the vets I've ever worked with) teach the idea of feeding big company dog/cat food like Purina or Science Diet, and I, for one, have been against that since day 1. It just doesn't make sense to be feeding a dog food that is primarily corn to a carnivorous animal, and so I've always fed my animals food that is higher in protein and lower in grain (brands like Innova, Orijen, and other "holistic" diets) My sisters are both animal lovers who have done extensive research (although they are not vets) on nutrition, and all of their animals are either on a raw diet or high-protein kibble. The vets they take their animals to seem to always be against the idea (and my sisters tell me that the vets primarily just say they were taught that in school, but do not have the ability to back up their statements with factual evidence). When my sister asked the vet what was wrong with the food she was feeding her dog, he simply just said he hadn't heard of it, and so therefore trusted Purina more. All of her animals are completely healthy and have never had a problem on the raw diet. I suspect that most vets who do not have a specialty in nutrition will just advise whatever food they were taught to feed in vet school (not necessarily the BEST for your pet though...). On the other hand, some veterinary nutritionists are okay with the idea of the raw diet. I also know that a lot of the big pet food companies sponsor the courses on nutrition, and thus the vet schools tell their students to feed the sponsor's pet food.
Anyway, my question is, how much emphasis does vet school place on nutrition? How truly different is their approach to nutrition as compared to those who specialize in it? I'm just a bit concerned because I want to be able to make the best unbiased decision, regardless of what vet school teaches, and keep a critical perspective.
Sorry this post's so long ! And thanks for any help!!!

I encourage you to go over to the Vegan Diet thread right now... same type of discussion.... they could use your viewpoint for some spice in the conversation

Dogs are not carnivores, they're omnivores. Cats are the ones who are carnivorous and physiologically require meat in their diet. Dogs can sustain without meat, so a high corn diet is not really a problem unless it is related to allergies or enteritis. At our school we have the option to take either large or small animal nutrition in your 3rd year, and we have physiology courses that deal somewhat with nutrition (how foods will work in the body, etc., but not necessarily on the foods themselves.). Vet schools usually have the big pet food companies come to give lunch lectures about their products, and if you were so inclined you could attend a meeting or two to talk about the products with them.

 

[Minnerbelle]

I'm taking nutrition right now, and NEVER have I heard the professor say what brands of foods we should be feeding our animals. We learn about what types of health issues animals can run into because they are lacking/have excessive _____ in their diets. And what it means to have high amounts of protein vs. high biological value proteins, etc...

Even at a lunch lecture sponsored by Hills last week, we were NOT told what brands of foods to feed pets. We just learned that labels on the bag don't mean much most of the time. We were told to do the research ourselves and be wary of companies that don't have veterinary nutritionists formulating the food, companies that aren't open to answering questions/won't let you visit, etc... We were also told that sometimes you just have to go with what you and people you know have had animals do well on. I don't think that's anti- "fancy holistic brand" at all.

 

[libster06]

I'm taking nutrition right now, and NEVER have I heard the professor say what brands of foods we should be feeding our animals. We learn about what types of health issues animals can run into because they are lacking/have excessive _____ in their diets. And what it means to have high amounts of protein vs. high biological value proteins, etc...

Even at a lunch lecture sponsored by Hills last week, we were NOT told what brands of foods to feed pets. We just learned that labels on the bag don't mean much most of the time. We were told to do the research ourselves and be wary of companies that don't have veterinary nutritionists formulating the food, companies that aren't open to answering questions/won't let you visit, etc... We were also told that sometimes you just have to go with what you and people you know have had animals do well on. I don't think that's anti- "fancy holistic brand" at all.

I was going to add that I think that vet schools leave it up to you to decide. They give you the facts and companies can give you free food and try to educate/sell you on their product lines, but no one can tell you what you prefer. I can't speak for every vet, but all the veterinarians I know aren't just endorsing products without knowing information about them... just as vets don't endorse flea and heartworm products just because they heard about them in vet school.

I agree that you should look at the companies with veterinary nutritionists doing the formulating. I really do feel like companies such as Hills and Purina have good products that are worth sharing with owners

 

[alliecat44]

Ditto to Minnerbelle.

and it really, really gets on my nerves when the whole "big pet food companies sponsor nutrition education at veterinary schools" myth is perpetuated. THIS IS NOT TRUE!!!! To be honest, 90% of our nutrition class was actually about large animal nutrition. The small animal lectures were given by a double-board certified internist and nutritionist who was paid BY THE SCHOOL and who, yes, happens to work for one of the big companies. This is only because there literally are not enough veterinary nutritionists to go around--we do not have one at our school. They teach us more how to critically evaluate a diet and explain how things are formulated and what labels on pet food really mean--and how little pet food is regulated by the government. It's actually pretty scary stuff.

Anyways, Tufts has a WONDERFUL nutritionist who is a fantastic teacher and lecturer. You will love her and I am sure she would be happy to discuss her views on raw diets with you.

 

[sumstorm]

I'd suggest relaxing, not judge a course and a profession before you have gotten there, adn bring your questions (in a non accusatory fashion) to the vet nutritionists at Tufts. I think you are assuming you will be brain washed and have no ability to question, discuss, and learn. You might be really suprised at how much you learn if you stay open to it. I have attended seminars on raw, on branded foods, and a couple of nutrition courses. Raw proponents put just as much of a spin out as branded lectures, but so far my nutrition courses have been very neutral.

 

[rugbychick16]

This is the ingredient list on that horrible awful Hill's food my parents dogs eat......I'm still looking for the corn? Now I'm just confused. We must be totally brainwashed in vet school.. All we want to go when we graduate is work for Banfield and sell Science Diet



Chicken, Brown Rice, Whole Grain Wheat, Cracked Pearled Barley, Soybean Meal, Chicken Meal, Pork Fat (preserved with mixed tocopherols and citric acid), Dried Egg Product, Natural Flavor, Whole Grain Oats, Apples, Lactic Acid, Cranberries, Soybean Oil, Peas, Carrots, Dried Beet Pulp, Iodized Salt, Flaxseed, Broccoli, vitamins (L-Ascorbyl-2-Polyphosphate (source of vitamin C), Vitamin E Supplement, Niacin, Thiamine Mononitrate, Vitamin A Supplement, Calcium Pantothenate, Biotin, Vitamin B12 Supplement, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride, Riboflavin, Folic Acid, Vitamin D3 Supplement), Vitamin E Supplement, Choline Chloride, Taurine, minerals (Ferrous Sulfate, Zinc Oxide, Copper Sulfate, Manganous Oxide, Calcium Iodate, Sodium Selenite), preserved with Mixed Tocopherols and Citric Acid, Calcium Carbonate, Phosphoric Acid, Beta-Carotene, Rosemary Extract.

 

[Artery]

I'd suggest relaxing, not judge a course and a profession before you have gotten there, adn bring your questions (in a non accusatory fashion) to the vet nutritionists at Tufts. I think you are assuming you will be brain washed and have no ability to question, discuss, and learn. You might be really suprised at how much you learn if you stay open to it. I have attended seminars on raw, on branded foods, and a couple of nutrition courses. Raw proponents put just as much of a spin out as branded lectures, but so far my nutrition courses have been very neutral.

I was really just curious about what people thought--I didn't mean to sound judgmental, or like I knew everything there is to know. And thanks for your input-- it is nice to know that both sides are represented. I just didn't really understand the huge discrepancy between some veterinary nutritionists who are proponents for the raw diet, and some vets that are staunchly against it. I mean, there's gotta be some scientific evidence out there for and against it. I didn't say I thought that I would be "brainwashed"--rather, I am just interested in knowing what the different view points are, and the evidence that supports them.

 

[nyanko]

In any field about anything you are going to find differences in opinions and interpretation among experts in said field. If that weren't the case, scientific progress would never be made.

The one thing I damn well know is that I would trust a veterinarian's viewpoint on animal food over somebody with an internet connection who "really loves animals!!!"

edit: We're just finishing up our Nutrition course - definitely don't recall any brand of food having been pitched to us in any lecture of the course. More just all the macronutrients and micronutrients and such and where they come from, what they do, and what you see with deficiency or excess of them, with a little bit of "how to figure out energy requirements" and "how to read pet food labels" thrown in.

 

[sumstorm]

I was really just curious about what people thought--I didn't mean to sound judgmental, or like I knew everything there is to know. And thanks for your input-- it is nice to know that both sides are represented. I just didn't really understand the huge discrepancy between some veterinary nutritionists who are proponents for the raw diet, and some vets that are staunchly against it. I mean, there's gotta be some scientific evidence out there for and against it. I didn't say I thought that I would be "brainwashed"--rather, I am just interested in knowing what the different view points are, and the evidence that supports them.

My apologies, my first post was much longer, then I cut it down, but cut out a lot of the other stuff I said which was probably a bit softer.

I'd suggest not going in and saying 'I've been against X since day 1'....rather take the time to understand the development of pet food, that is what I meant. There are vet nutritionists strongly opposed to raw food as well, and often the argument has little to do with the nutiritional value of the food as the risks surrounding the food (not necessarily to the dogs.) There is science, but science is generaly neither for or against. There are reasons to feed homemade diets and there are reasons to avoid them. I do homemade diets when I'm not in vet school, here I feed kibble. Its the best way to ensure my dogs get adequate nutrition in my schedule. Some of your comments about feeding brands and such lumps all vets into one category. I'm sorry if the brainwashed comment bothered you, but the idea that these vets haven't actually thought about what they are recommending to your sisters is troubling; I doubt they are recommending a food just because someone said 'hey, sale this food' in vet school....they've had good experiences with it, they trust the adequacy of the nutrition, its efficient. They can't know every brand of food, if they spent all their time chasing that info (since foods change all the time) they wouldn't have time to keep up with pharm changes, best practice changes, etc. So they've settled onto ones that they can easily point to some evidence of safety and nutrition (AAFCO statement.)

 

[Artery]

My apologies, my first post was much longer, then I cut it down, but cut out a lot of the other stuff I said which was probably a bit softer.

I'd suggest not going in and saying 'I've been against X since day 1'....rather take the time to understand the development of pet food, that is what I meant. There are vet nutritionists strongly opposed to raw food as well, and often the argument has little to do with the nutiritional value of the food as the risks surrounding the food (not necessarily to the dogs.) There is science, but science is generaly neither for or against. There are reasons to feed homemade diets and there are reasons to avoid them. I do homemade diets when I'm not in vet school, here I feed kibble. Its the best way to ensure my dogs get adequate nutrition in my schedule. Some of your comments about feeding brands and such lumps all vets into one category. I'm sorry if the brainwashed comment bothered you, but the idea that these vets haven't actually thought about what they are recommending to your sisters is troubling; I doubt they are recommending a food just because someone said 'hey, sale this food' in vet school....they've had good experiences with it, they trust the adequacy of the nutrition, its efficient. They can't know every brand of food, if they spent all their time chasing that info (since foods change all the time) they wouldn't have time to keep up with pharm changes, best practice changes, etc. So they've settled onto ones that they can easily point to some evidence of safety and nutrition (AAFCO statement.)

No, it's cool We are all here for a discussion on the topic, so no offense taken. I'm sorry if I said anything that came off as arrogant or a know-it-all. As nyanko said, in every field there will be experts for and against any notion. Also, I, too, was bothered by the fact that the vets my sister had couldn't quite offer any good reason for the food that they were advising...I'm not saying that they are trying to sell a specific food, but more like... they are taking it at face value, without considering some of the other brands that are considered "holistic", purely because they are not as popular. As you said, they probably don't keep up with all the brands of food, but at the same time I think it's misleading to say something like "your food is inadequate, you should feed him X" just because you have never heard of a specific food before or have had any experience with it. Even if you have had good experiences with a specific brand, it doesn't necessarily rule out all the others. I was just bothered by the fact that the vets I have worked with have straight up said that Science Diet is the best thing you can feed your dog...and I doubt that, considering many other foods are fed that have kept dogs healthy and thriving! Again, not pointing fingers, just discussing

 

[badcats]

Just wanted to throw in my agreement with other vet students on here saying we are not taught to prefer a certain diet/brand in vet school.
What we have heard in nutrition is that the reason that vets so often recommend a commercial diet from a large corpration, be it Purina (who owns Hill's the manufacturer of Science Diet) or Iams or whoever is because these companies have done a significant amount of research and have formulated their foods in order to provide the most complete diet possible. This is related to the issue your sister may have run into with vets generally being opposed to raw or home-cooked diets because it is extremely difficult to make sure that your dog or cat is receiving the optimal levels of nutrients in its diet when you are making it yourself. Yes it can be done, but it is generally out of the scope of most owners in terms of understanding and execution.

As an aside, alliecat mentioning that nutritionists are hard to come by really makes me appreciate our nutrition department and what a valuable resource they are.

ETA: It may also be a generational thing. Not sure how much nutrition instruction vets who have been out of school for a while received since it seems like it is still a very young/growing field, so that is something else to consider next time you run into that issue.

 

[Artery]

Just wanted to throw in my agreement with other vet students on here saying we are not taught to prefer a certain diet/brand in vet school.
What we have heard in nutrition is that the reason that vets so often recommend a commercial diet from a large corpration, be it Purina (who owns Hill's the manufacturer of Science Diet) or Iams or whoever is because these companies have done a significant amount of research and have formulated their foods in order to provide the most complete diet possible. This is related to the issue your sister may have run into with vets generally being opposed to raw or home-cooked diets because it is extremely difficult to make sure that your dog or cat is receiving the optimal levels of nutrients in its diet when you are making it yourself. Yes it can be done, but it is generally out of the scope of most owners in terms of understanding and execution.

As an aside, alliecat mentioning that nutritionists are hard to come by really makes me appreciate our nutrition department and what a valuable resource they are.

Thanks badcats As you said, an alternative diet is out of the scope of your average pet owner, which is why foods from large corporations are generally recommended. But I just wanted to throw out there that just because a certain food is recommended by a vet doesn't rule out all other options, especially if you've read up on it, and have kept up with the health of the animal.

 

[libster06]

As you said, they probably don't keep up with all the brands of food, but at the same time I think it's misleading to say something like "your food is inadequate, you should feed him X" just because you have never heard of a specific food before or have had any experience with it. Even if you have had good experiences with a specific brand, it doesn't necessarily rule out all the others. I was just bothered by the fact that the vets I have worked with have straight up said that Science Diet is the best thing you can feed your dog...and I doubt that, considering many other foods are fed that have kept dogs healthy and thriving!

Some of those "never heard of" brands are that way because they are the ones without the veterinary nutritionists forumulating their feeds. That's what I think I am trying to say... the reason that vets know about the talked about brands is because they are the ones with prescription diets, that are prescribed by veterinarians. I don't know that any one big-name brand of food (Hills vs Purina vs Eukanuba vs Royal Canin) is superior than another (because they all have a lot of the same types of prescription diets) but I do know that the results they produce for the dogs shows that they are legit brands. Also, a vet has to pick something to feed in their clinic and so they will likely go for the feed they have the most experience with and can back up.

If your dog is doing fine on a lesser known brand, that's great. That's unfortunate that the vet you are referring to was so judgemental about a food without investigating, but all the vets I know aren't that way. They basically conceed that if your animal is healthy and getting proper nutrition, go ahead and keep doing what your doing. BUT I do want to leave with the comment that honestly not every pet food is created equal and there are some foods with less research and expert knowledge put into creating them... and you can extend that to both off-brands or popular ones.. I mean, Ol Roy is probably not the *optimum* diet for a dog.

 

[badcats]

Some of those "never heard of" brands are that way because they are the ones without the veterinary nutritionists forumulating their feeds. That's what I think I am trying to say... the reason that vets know about the talked about brands is because they are the ones with prescription diets, that are prescribed by veterinarians. I don't know that any one big-name brand of food (Hills vs Purina vs Eukanuba vs Royal Canin) is superior than another (because they all have a lot of the same types of prescription diets) but I do know that the results they produce for the dogs shows that they are legit brands. Also, a vet has to pick something to feed in their clinic and so they will likely go for the feed they have the most experience with and can back up.

If your dog is doing fine on a lesser known brand, that's great. That's unfortunate that the vet you are referring to was so judgemental about a food without investigating, but all the vets I know aren't that way. They basically conceed that if your animal is healthy and getting proper nutrition, go ahead and keep doing what your doing. BUT I do want to leave with the comment that honestly not every pet food is created equal and there are some foods with less research and expert knowledge put into creating them... and you can extend that to both off-brands or popular ones.. I mean, Ol Roy is probably not the *optimum* diet for a dog.

+1

(can you tell we have finals next week )

 

[NStarz]

Some of those "never heard of" brands are that way because they are the ones without the veterinary nutritionists forumulating their feeds. That's what I think I am trying to say... the reason that vets know about the talked about brands is because they are the ones with prescription diets, that are prescribed by veterinarians. I don't know that any one big-name brand of food (Hills vs Purina vs Eukanuba vs Royal Canin) is superior than another (because they all have a lot of the same types of prescription diets) but I do know that the results they produce for the dogs shows that they are legit brands. Also, a vet has to pick something to feed in their clinic and so they will likely go for the feed they have the most experience with and can back up.

If your dog is doing fine on a lesser known brand, that's great. That's unfortunate that the vet you are referring to was so judgemental about a food without investigating, but all the vets I know aren't that way. They basically conceed that if your animal is healthy and getting proper nutrition, go ahead and keep doing what your doing. BUT I do want to leave with the comment that honestly not every pet food is created equal and there are some foods with less research and expert knowledge put into creating them... and you can extend that to both off-brands or popular ones.. I mean, Ol Roy is probably not the *optimum* diet for a dog.

Good post, libster

I think as future vets, we need to be critical about everything, and when in doubt, to consult the literature ourselves. Knowledge is changing so rapidly and it's really important that we keep out a critical eye to new information as well as old.

As a sidebar, I started my new dog/cat food, and then a month later my well-known vet hospital started carrying it (so I feel really good about making the switch!).

 

[Artery]

BUT I do want to leave with the comment that honestly not every pet food is created equal and there are some foods with less research and expert knowledge put into creating them... and you can extend that to both off-brands or popular ones.. I mean, Ol Roy is probably not the *optimum* diet for a dog.

I agree. How about brands like Innova (by Natura Pet)? Their website has a veterinarian backing the food quality, safety, and security, as well as third party auditing developed for human food production facilities, so I would assume that is pretty legitimate. The point I'm trying to make is that perhaps there *are* better foods out there than Purina and the other big name companies, and I think there should be more emphasis on that fact. My experiences have just been crappy, with vets generally looking down on the "unknown" food even though the health of the animal is just fine on the diet its on. I don't know. It's a big debate, but I think as long as the animal has a good quality of life, there shouldn't be any problems with the diet it's on!

 

[Artery]

Good post, libster

I think as future vets, we need to be critical about everything, and when in doubt, to consult the literature ourselves. Knowledge is changing so rapidly and it's really important that we keep out a critical eye to new information as well as old.

As a sidebar, I started my new dog/cat food, and then a month later my well-known vet hospital started carrying it (so I feel really good about making the switch!).

Most definitely. The reason I started this thread to begin with is because I have a habit of being critical of everything (even things that professionals tell me), but I can agree with this post 100%. Thanks NStarz.

 

[twelvetigers]

Lots of people have heard of Innova, Wellness, Blue, Nutro, Evo. I would think that most vets would have, and most (if not all) of these foods are probably fine.

This is a food I would probably skip, though (lol):

 

[sumstorm]

Just thought I'd mention part of why vets sometimes can't give a great easy answer on their recomendations.

We get a lot of info in vet school, and I can't always condence that down into a 15 or even 30 minute conversation, so I give the barest outline (ie rabies vaccines are necessary and worth the very small risk of deadly reactions because rabies is a deadly disease transmittable to humans) which is good enough for a large portion of the population, but isn't going to be good enough for someone already set against the idea (rabies vaccines shouldn't be mandatory, or previous experience with a bad reaction, or complete lack of comprehension of how serious a disease rabies is, or lack of understanding that the fact that cases are rare is due to vaccination and doens't make it safe to not vaccinate now) which can make it seem like I have less information than the guy on the internet or at petsmart.

A few days ago I read an article (I really wish I could remember where, but I was really sick and just flipping through things) that talked about why Dr. google or other folks opinions are often heard 'clearer' than a vets opinion. the author suggested that vets have to be conservative or cautious in their advice, and it may come off as uncertainty or when questioned, they may not have a ready list of 30 'absolutes' to back their suggestion because their education includes splitting out the different aspects, considering differentials, then making choices that may not be accurate. IE if you bring a pup into me that has diarrhea of a particular odor, I might feel 95% certain it is parvo, but unlike your neighbor, I can be held accountable if I say 'yes, that is parvo (without a diagnostic test) here are your options' and in the end it isn't parvo and the treatment doesn't save the pet, or does harm to the pet, or we elect to euthanize it. That can be a med boad complaint...but if your neighbor, groomer, brother in law, etc said 'that's parvo' there isn't any conseuqence to them if they are wrong. And this sometimes comes off as 'vets don't know what they are doing' or 'my dog showing friend knows more about science than vets do.'

I used non-food examples because these kinds of issues are across vet med.

 

[libster06]

I agree. How about brands like Innova (by Natura Pet)? Their website has a veterinarian backing the food quality, safety, and security, as well as third party auditing developed for human food production facilities, so I would assume that is pretty legitimate. The point I'm trying to make is that perhaps there *are* better foods out there than Purina and the other big name companies, and I think there should be more emphasis on that fact. My experiences have just been crappy, with vets generally looking down on the "unknown" food even though the health of the animal is just fine on the diet its on. I don't know. It's a big debate, but I think as long as the animal has a good quality of life, there shouldn't be any problems with the diet it's on!

I actually HAVE heard of Innova (in a clinical setting) and I think it's a great brand, as is Natura Pet. We fed California Naturals at a clinic I worked for. The vet at the time said it was a great brand for a "natural" pet food. Perhaps vets should be more widely educated about food brands and diets, and I will take that into consideration as I go through vet school. I also worked for a vet who sold the meats for a raw diet (he fed his dog raw rabbit medallions). That would be something I would tell anyone to go ahead and buy- it's from the vet and packaged properly to even further decrease the bacteria issue.

In the mean time, I don't think you'll find any vets selling holistic diets, simply because they don't have room due to the large inventory taken up by prescription diets... doesn't mean they can't keep a good holistic diet recommendation on hand!

 

[Artery]

I actually HAVE heard of Innova (in a clinical setting) and I think it's a great brand, as is Natura Pet. We fed California Naturals at a clinic I worked for. The vet at the time said it was a great brand for a "natural" pet food. Perhaps vets should be more widely educated about food brands and diets, and I will take that into consideration as I go through vet school. I also worked for a vet who sold the meats for a raw diet (he fed his dog raw rabbit medallions). That would be something I would tell anyone to go ahead and buy- it's from the vet and packaged properly to even further decrease the bacteria issue.

In the mean time, I don't think you'll find any vets selling holistic diets, simply because they don't have room due to the large inventory taken up by prescription diets... doesn't mean they can't keep a good holistic diet recommendation on hand!

Very good point, libster. I appreciate your opinions One more thing though...as far as the "prescription diets" I feel that the ingredients listed are...well, far from prescription. They have lower/higher levels of some nutrients, but all in all, the ingredients are pretty run-of-the-mill. Consider Science Diet's Adult large breed formula:

Whole Grain Corn, Chicken By-Product Meal, Soybean Meal, Animal Fat (preserved with mixed tocopherols and citric acid), Soybean Oil, Chicken Liver Flavor, Flaxseed, Iodized Salt, Dried Chicken Cartilage, Choline Chloride, Vitamin E Supplement, vitamins (L-Ascorbyl-2-Polyphosphate (source of vitamin C), Vitamin E Supplement, Niacin, Thiamine Mononitrate, Vitamin A Supplement, Calcium Pantothenate, Biotin, Vitamin B12 Supplement, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride, Riboflavin, Folic Acid, Vitamin D3 Supplement), Taurine, Potassium Chloride, minerals (Ferrous Sulfate, Zinc Oxide, Copper Sulfate, Manganous Oxide, Calcium Iodate, Sodium Selenite), L-Carnitine, preserved with Mixed Tocopherols and Citric Acid, Phosphoric Acid, Beta-Carotene, Rosemary Extract.

They've added supplements for bones and joints, but at the same time they also just have your regular corn, chicken by products, and animal fat mixed in.

Thoughts?? Once again, I'm not pointing fingers, I just seriously am interested in listening to people's opinions!

 

[libster06]

Very good point, libster. I appreciate your opinions One more thing though...as far as the "prescription diets" I feel that the ingredients listed are...well, far from prescription. They have lower/higher levels of some nutrients, but all in all, the ingredients are pretty run-of-the-mill. Consider Science Diet's Adult large breed formula:

Whole Grain Corn, Chicken By-Product Meal, Soybean Meal, Animal Fat (preserved with mixed tocopherols and citric acid), Soybean Oil, Chicken Liver Flavor, Flaxseed, Iodized Salt, Dried Chicken Cartilage, Choline Chloride, Vitamin E Supplement, vitamins (L-Ascorbyl-2-Polyphosphate (source of vitamin C), Vitamin E Supplement, Niacin, Thiamine Mononitrate, Vitamin A Supplement, Calcium Pantothenate, Biotin, Vitamin B12 Supplement, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride, Riboflavin, Folic Acid, Vitamin D3 Supplement), Taurine, Potassium Chloride, minerals (Ferrous Sulfate, Zinc Oxide, Copper Sulfate, Manganous Oxide, Calcium Iodate, Sodium Selenite), L-Carnitine, preserved with Mixed Tocopherols and Citric Acid, Phosphoric Acid, Beta-Carotene, Rosemary Extract.

They've added supplements for bones and joints, but at the same time they also just have your regular corn, chicken by products, and animal fat mixed in.

Thoughts?? Once again, I'm not pointing fingers, I just seriously am interested in listening to people's opinions!

When I say presciption diet I mean something you can't get at Petsmart (you can get SD maintenance there)... so like, J/D (for arthritic patients and joint issues), I/D (bland for sick patients), C/D (for blocked/stone-proned patients) (all Hill's)... Purina has a stomach issue called EN that I used when my dog had 3-day diarrhea and it worked well. Those diets are specially formulated for a certain physiological problem and can only be prescribed by vets

 

[twelvetigers]

My dog is on C/D because she is prone to both uroliths and renaliths (sp) so that's an example of a prescription diet. You need a prescription from a vet to buy it in the first place.

 

[Artery]

When I say presciption diet I mean something you can't get at Petsmart (you can get SD maintenance there)... so like, J/D (for arthritic patients and joint issues), I/D (bland for sick patients), C/D (for blocked/stone-proned patients) (all Hill's)... Purina has a stomach issue called EN that I used when my dog had 3-day diarrhea and it worked well. Those diets are specially formulated for a certain physiological problem and can only be prescribed by vets

That's what I'm talking about though! These are the ingredients for C/D:

Whole Grain Corn, Pork Fat (preserved with mixed tocopherols and citric acid), Chicken By-Product Meal, Soybean Meal, Corn Gluten Meal, Soybean Mill Run, Chicken Liver Flavor, Calcium Sulfate, Soybean Oil, Flaxseed, Iodized Salt, L-Lysine, Choline Chloride, Dicalcium Phosphate, vitamins (L-Ascorbyl-2-Polyphosphate (source of vitamin C), Vitamin E Supplement, Niacin, Thiamine Mononitrate, Vitamin A Supplement, Calcium Pantothenate, Biotin, Vitamin B12 Supplement, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride, Riboflavin, Folic Acid, Vitamin D3 Supplement), Vitamin E Supplement, Taurine, Potassium Chloride, minerals (Ferrous Sulfate, Zinc Oxide, Copper Sulfate, Manganous Oxide, Calcium Iodate, Sodium Selenite), preserved with Mixed Tocopherols & Citric Acid, Phosphoric Acid, Beta-Carotene, Rosemary Extract.

I know you say they're targeted for certain physiological problems, but where does that come in as far as the ingredients are concerned? My point is that that are far better foods that should be available, and we should all keep that in mind and stay critical of these labels.

 

[libster06]

Now I'm just confused. We must be totally brainwashed in vet school.. All we want to go when we graduate is work for Banfield and sell Science Diet

hey hey hey! not all Banfields are bad.... some are, but not all... I have a job lined up with them this summer and when I interviewed they all seemed like competent people. Course, its a charter one so we're not held to the same rules as other Banfields

 

[twelvetigers]

Artery - I can't even pretend to know what does what in the food, but something about the ingredients specifically acidifies the urine and prevents stone formation while still providing the nutrition the dog or cat needs.

And there are no holistic foods that offer (or, better yet, guarantee) to do this - only SD, Royal Canin, etc. offer these types of specifically formulated foods.

 

[libster06]

I know you say they're targeted for certain physiological problems, but where does that come in as far as the ingredients are concerned? My point is that that are far better foods that should be available, and we should all keep that in mind and stay critical of these labels.

Well, I haven't taken the actual nutrition course yet, so I don't know the active ingredients. You would have to talk to a vet about that. I just have to ask though, you keep mentioning "there are far better foods" but I'm not sure what you think makes these vet prescription diets (or maintenance diets) so much "worse" for an animal, compared to these said far better foods.

If you don't know that these diets (C/d, for ex.) and the ingredients in them DON'T actually work, because you (like me) don't know how each ingredient actively contributes to the overall advertised goal, how can you say that another food is "far better"? No, I don't know the schematics of eac hdiet (I'm inclined to find out though) but I DO know they work. Just because it's made by a large company doesn't make it some placebo feed that they're scamming you out of money on. I've just been wondering that through out this thread.

 

[alliecat44]

1. Ingredients are just that--ingredients.
2. Ingredients can contain as many awesome wonderful things as the company wants to put in there, but if they are not in a bioavailable form--meaning the animal that eats it cannot digest the whole and absorb the beneficial compoenents--then they just get excreted.
3. Many, many things go into making a nutrient bioavailable (or not). This is not really predictable either--hence AAFCO feeding trials and such. You can have many, many diets out there with a nutrient profile that is acceptable for an animal to maintain their body weight, but if those nutrients are not bioavailable in the correct ratios then the animal will have some form of deficiency. These deficiencies are most often not able to be seen on routine bloodwork unless they are tremendously huge and specifically relate to protein, Ca/Phos, etc. (Routine bloodwork tells you very little about an animal's nutrition status in that if bloodwork is normal, you can still have a marked nutritional deficiency.)
4. There is a difference between opinion and fact. Most of what is presented on an online forum is usually the former and not the latter.

Nutritional discussions on here just make me want to beat my head against the wall...ugh!!! It's a difficult thing because it seems like everyone (not anyone in particular on this thread, necessarily) believes that they are an expert on nutrition. "Hey, I eat, I know about food." However, there is a reason why nutrition is a science and people study it for years. Just because I've driven a car for years does not make me a mechanic. There is SO MUCH misinformation about pet nutrition out there it is extremely, extremely frustrating...to me...and that's saying something, because I HATE nutrition and think it's really really boring!!!

btw, I totally agree with what the other vet students are saying. (I will point out, though, that "Prescription Diets" are not legally prescriptions--but Hill's named them brilliantly and most veterinarians are under the impression that you do need to write a prescription to feed one of them. However, most of those diets would not be the most balanced (!!!) to feed an animal who was not actually in need of that specific therapeutic diet.)

 

[eventualeventer]

I agree with the people that the nebulous, theoretical benefits of feeding raw food are not worth the risk of infectious disease from raw meat. I'm not attacking people like sumstorm who choose to feed raw, just putting it out there so that people who may be on the fence have the facts about risks. While risks to healthy dogs and people are low, they are not non-existent, and the very young, the old, and the immunocompromised are at greater risk of both infection and complications from gastrointestinal pathogens. I've posted this before, but I'm a bit of an infectious disease nerd.

Re: raw: there is a paucity of evidence WRT purported nutritional benefits.
What there IS empirical evidence on is that feeding raw diets to dogs increases the rate of carriage of several zoonotic pathogens, such as Salmonella.

Commercial raw diets contain lots of good stuff, too.

Dr. Scott Weese, an infectious disease specialist from U of O Guelph vet school has written numerous times about this topic. Here's one post with links to multiple recent studies finding much higher rates of shedding Salmonella, multi-drug resistant E. coli, and Campylobacter.
Q and A on Salmonella and raw food (hint - intestinal bacteria get on your dog's coat, so you don't have to touch his poop directly to be exposed)
This kind of sums it up:

Finding Salmonella in commercial raw diets is expected and I'm surprised about the recalls that have happened. If you buy raw meat, you need to assume that it's contaminated with Salmonella and various other potential pathogens. Salmonella in kibble diets is more surprising, and is a concern because people do not tend to handle kibble as potentially contaminated.

BTW, I've seen it written that getting nutritional advice from someone at a pet store is like getting nutritional advice at McDonald's. Getting nutritional or veterinary advice from Internet strangers is no better, which is why I try to support my positions with empirical studies and/or statements from true experts - academic veterinarians with postgraduate training in their field.

 

[variegata]

Just thought that I'd reiterate that our nutrition course here at Wisconsin doesn't recommend certain brands either, it's more about nutritional analyses and nutrient calculations and a lot of it is for large animals. Our small animal example foods are "Grocery Store Brand" and "Specialty Brand," which are pretty general categories, with the "Specialty" one tending to use higher quality ingredients (i.e. more digestible protein rather than unusable bound proteins). The idea is that, as vets, we're asked to be authorities on nutrition, even if all we've ever taken is a 1 unit class on it, so the basis of our teaching here is to learn how to evaluate a diet from the label.

 

[l2vet]

That's what I'm talking about though! These are the ingredients for C/D:

Whole Grain Corn, Pork Fat (preserved with mixed tocopherols and citric acid), Chicken By-Product Meal, Soybean Meal, Corn Gluten Meal, Soybean Mill Run, Chicken Liver Flavor, Calcium Sulfate, Soybean Oil, Flaxseed, Iodized Salt, L-Lysine, Choline Chloride, Dicalcium Phosphate, vitamins (L-Ascorbyl-2-Polyphosphate (source of vitamin C), Vitamin E Supplement, Niacin, Thiamine Mononitrate, Vitamin A Supplement, Calcium Pantothenate, Biotin, Vitamin B12 Supplement, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride, Riboflavin, Folic Acid, Vitamin D3 Supplement), Vitamin E Supplement, Taurine, Potassium Chloride, minerals (Ferrous Sulfate, Zinc Oxide, Copper Sulfate, Manganous Oxide, Calcium Iodate, Sodium Selenite), preserved with Mixed Tocopherols & Citric Acid, Phosphoric Acid, Beta-Carotene, Rosemary Extract.

I know you say they're targeted for certain physiological problems, but where does that come in as far as the ingredients are concerned? My point is that that are far better foods that should be available, and we should all keep that in mind and stay critical of these labels.

I think a lot of people read the word "meal" and think that's low quality. It's not necessarily. To use a different example, meals such as fish, corn gluten or soybean are some of the higher quality ration ingredients that can be fed to a dairy cow (intensively managed). Soybean meal for instance is a great source of protein. That said, it is a PLANT source of protein. Do I think, given the choice between a dairy cow-esque ration or meat/bone/potato ration with approximately equal protein contents, that the dog would preferentially choose the grain ration? I doubt it. But "meals" are not necessarily low in quality. It's not like feeding sawdust, say. And yes, the fact that the first ingredient is whole grain corn does give me pause (I feed grain free commercial kibble myself). I've also seen Hill's prescription diets at work for several years, and I have to say I've seen some pretty darn good results. I don't know how much anecdotal evidence counts, but there it is.

 

[Artery]

Well, I haven't taken the actual nutrition course yet, so I don't know the active ingredients. You would have to talk to a vet about that. I just have to ask though, you keep mentioning "there are far better foods" but I'm not sure what you think makes these vet prescription diets (or maintenance diets) so much "worse" for an animal, compared to these said far better foods.

If you don't know that these diets (C/d, for ex.) and the ingredients in them DON'T actually work, because you (like me) don't know how each ingredient actively contributes to the overall advertised goal, how can you say that another food is "far better"? No, I don't know the schematics of eac hdiet (I'm inclined to find out though) but I DO know they work. Just because it's made by a large company doesn't make it some placebo feed that they're scamming you out of money on. I've just been wondering that through out this thread.

I'm not contending to know HOW they work or even if they work at all. I've heard good things from people saying that the problems go away. I'm just irked by the purity of the food--presence of animal fat (animal??), chicken bi products (why not real chicken?), and the fact that it is primarily corn (when dogs are supposed to eat a primarily meat diet). I'm not saying the product doesn't work, I'm simply saying that the QUALITY of the food (as in the purity of the ingredients used) is questionable. Someone earlier said you wouldn't eat raw meat...why would you feed that to your dog? Well, you wouldn't want to eat half the ingredients in there either. I think we can all agree that a "natural" diet is the best kind of food for humans (as opposed to highly processed)...why isn't it the best kind of food for dogs? There are more "naturaler" ingredients to use out there than the ones listed.

 

[twelvetigers]

(I will point out, though, that "Prescription Diets" are not legally prescriptions--but Hill's named them brilliantly and most veterinarians are under the impression that you do need to write a prescription to feed one of them. However, most of those diets would not be the most balanced (!!!) to feed an animal who was not actually in need of that specific therapeutic diet.)

Really? I thought you really did need a prescription to buy them, since they are mostly only sold by clinics and most clinics won't sell willy-nilly to someone without getting some sort of proof that the pet would need to be on the diet. Maybe I am misled, though - it's news to me, anyway.

 

[l2vet]

I I'm just irked by the purity of the food--presence of animal fat (animal??), chicken bi products (why not real chicken?), and the fact that it is primarily corn (when dogs are supposed to eat a primarily meat diet).

Chicken by-products ARE real chicken. And they're processed in the same plants to the same USDA standards for the "real" chicken that goes into dog food. They're just not giving your dog the full breasts and legs, they're taking the trimmings and otherwise unusable meat and making use of it. It's not "fake" chicken, that's for sure.

 

[Artery]

Chicken by-products ARE real chicken. And they're processed in the same plants to the same USDA standards for the "real" chicken that goes into dog food. They're just not giving your dog the full breasts and legs, they're taking the trimmings and otherwise unusable meat and making use of it. It's not "fake" chicken, that's for sure.

I know this. By "real" I meant purer. As in human grade, as many smaller food companies use. Wrong usage of the word

 

[l2vet]

Why do they need "human grade" chicken? I'm not sure how chicken is processed specifically, but in beef (for sure) and pork/lamb (pretty sure), it's a matter of marbling and carcass age, not of pathogens or relative "purity." Marbling is a product of diet and carcass age, and different "cuts" lay down different amounts of marbling. The "cuts" in by-product meat are not of high enough quality for human consumption. It's not like it's "dirty" or something.

 

[libster06]

Nutritional discussions on here just make me want to beat my head against the wall...ugh!!! It's a difficult thing because it seems like everyone (not anyone in particular on this thread, necessarily) believes that they are an expert on nutrition. "Hey, I eat, I know about food." However, there is a reason why nutrition is a science and people study it for years. Just because I've driven a car for years does not make me a mechanic. There is SO MUCH misinformation about pet nutrition out there it is extremely, extremely frustrating...to me...and that's saying something, because I HATE nutrition and think it's really really boring!!!

I thought this debate was going rather nicely (esp. given recent threads)...

I will point out, though, that "Prescription Diets" are not legally prescriptions--but Hill's named them brilliantly and most veterinarians are under the impression that you do need to write a prescription to feed one of them.

That may be true but you'd be hard pressed to find a vet who will give you that without seeing the animal first.

I'm not contending to know HOW they work or even if they work at all. I've heard good things from people saying that the problems go away. I'm just irked by the purity of the food--presence of animal fat (animal??), chicken bi products (why not real chicken?), and the fact that it is primarily corn (when dogs are supposed to eat a primarily meat diet). I'm not saying the product doesn't work, I'm simply saying that the QUALITY of the food (as in the purity of the ingredients used) is questionable. Someone earlier said you wouldn't eat raw meat...why would you feed that to your dog? Well, you wouldn't want to eat half the ingredients in there either. I think we can all agree that a "natural" diet is the best kind of food for humans (as opposed to highly processed)...why isn't it the best kind of food for dogs? There are more "naturaler" ingredients to use out there than the ones listed.

Ehh, I eat Chef Boyardee so I'm not exactly eating filet mignon either... fat has to come from somewhere, and I guess some could think it was morbid to feed animals fat fro mother animals, but humans eat animal fat as well. Also chicken by products are perfectly good... it's wasteful to not use all of the chicken... dogs are just less picky than us.

 

[Artery]

Why do they need "human grade" chicken? I'm not sure how chicken is processed specifically, but in beef (for sure) and pork/lamb (pretty sure), it's a matter of marbling and carcass age, not of pathogens or relative "purity." Marbling is a product of diet and carcass age, and different "cuts" lay down different amounts of marbling. The "cuts" in by-product meat are not of high enough quality for human consumption. It's not like it's "dirty" or something.

I was simply using that as an example because someone had said before...well you wouldn't eat a raw piece of meat, why would you feed that to your dog? And so I was just posing the question...would you want to eat the dog food given the ingredients? I don't think there's anything wrong with wondering why there aren't higher quality (as in lower in corn meal, etc) foods that treat specific problems.

 

[twelvetigers]

Taco Bell is doing really well despite it coming out that their beef is something like 40% filler. So, eh... it doesn't seem like a huge deal to some people. Haha.

I don't think that using 'lower-grade' meat with some filler is a huge deal, overall... but if it is, there ARE other options, and most vets should mention those if you ask.

 

[Artery]

Ehh, I eat Chef Boyardee so I'm not exactly eating filet mignon either... fat has to come from somewhere, and I guess some could think it was morbid to feed animals fat fro mother animals, but humans eat animal fat as well. Also chicken by products are perfectly good... it's wasteful to not use all of the chicken... dogs are just less picky than us.

Well then I stand corrected. I don't eat Chef Boyardee, and am very picky about what I eat, and I guess I just want the same quality for my dog? Idk

 

[l2vet]

I eat corn meal I also eat Chicken Nuggets, lol.

There is no difference in "quality," there is simply a difference in what humans perceive as "palatability"--and a dog's versus and human's idea of palatability are not at all comparable. That's a big distinction.

 

[twelvetigers]

You can definitely feed your dog whatever you like, just:

A: Make certain that it is absolutely nutritionally balanced, which can be difficult with BARF diets (and REALLY difficult with vegan diets, to the point where one would question if it was a good idea to try that anyway)

and B: Don't assume that holistic or BARF > normal formulated dog foods just by looking at the ingredients on the label and deciding if they sound palatable to you or not, because that's not really what's relevant.

 

[AngSchmange]

Well then I stand corrected. I don't eat Chef Boyardee, and am very picky about what I eat, and I guess I just want the same quality for my dog? Idk

I was buying the huge bags of cheap food from the grocery store for a while, when I was living with roommates and anywhere from 3 to 5 cats at one time, and my male siamese (around 15 pounds at the time...) developed a UTI and it scared me how awful of a condition he was in. He didn't come home one night and I went out searching for him, he was hiding under the neighbors porch. He didn't move for a couple days until I could get him to the vet (damn short weekend hours!). Even when I started the meds he didn't eat anything but hand fed tuna and wet food for a couple more days. It scared the crap out of me, so now I buy much better food. The big bags from grocery store are 'dusty', in the words of my vet, and better brands like Purina or Hills or even Iams are so much better than this ****. I mean it seems obvious now, but I never thought about it. I was a poor college student. But now he's up to par with me, he gets the expensive stuff while I'm eating cheap mac and cheese and pasta hahaha. So I'm on the same page as you artery. I'm only sorry for my cat that he went through a year and a half of dry dusty food

 

[libster06]

Well then I stand corrected. I don't eat Chef Boyardee, and am very picky about what I eat, and I guess I just want the same quality for my dog? Idk

And thus you belong in the world of crazy pet owners I can't help it though I love the processed meat pasty goodness that is ChefBoyardee...

I eat corn meal I also eat Chicken Nuggets, lol.

There is no difference in "quality," there is simply a difference in what humans perceive as "palatability"--and a dog's versus and human's idea of palatability are not at all comparable. That's a big distinction.

Exactly. It's even proven that animals (humans included) all have different levels of taste reception... cats cant detect sweet, and humans have the most developed sense of taste, thus we are more aware of food quality. Although, cows are aware of palatability of different grasses as well.. all very intersting

 

[Artery]

Okay, lol. I was just simply using the comparison that someone brought up before about not wanting to feed raw because they themselves would not want to eat raw. So, going along those lines, I myself would prefer a more natural diet (with human grade ingredients), and so therefore I would prefer to feed my dog that as well. Some people don't care as much about the quality of food they eat (seeing the number of people who eat fast food), so along those lines, they don't care as much about the quality of their dog's dog food.
End of story

 

[Cautionary Tail]

I agree with the people that the nebulous, theoretical benefits of feeding raw food are not worth the risk of infectious disease from raw meat. I'm not attacking people like sumstorm who choose to feed raw, just putting it out there so that people who may be on the fence have the facts about risks. While risks to healthy dogs and people are low, they are not non-existent, and the very young, the old, and the immunocompromised are at greater risk of both infection and complications from gastrointestinal pathogens. I've posted this before, but I'm a bit of an infectious disease nerd.

As someone whose FIV+, diabetic cat became severely ill after stealing a few bites of leftover commercial raw from his healthy housemates, it makes me want to tear my hair out when I see DVMs being overly dismissive about the risks of feeding raw to potentially immunocompromised animals.

(I fed the healthy cats raw for a few months for safety reasons during the rolling recalls of '07.)

 

[NStarz]

cats cant detect sweet

Really?!?!?! MIND BLOWN

 

[Cautionary Tail]

Really?!?!?! MIND BLOWN

Dear Tyler: even more reason for you to stop attempting to pilfer my Ben & Jerry's. Bad kitty. Bad bad.