# Dog food spinoff



## Veronica (Jan 23, 2009)

I feed my dog Science Diet dog food.  I'm not a health-nut on behalf of my dog.  In fact, I've always used Purina Dog Chow and my dogs have been very healthy and lived very long lives.  But now that I am in an apartment and have to pick up after my dog--ahem--I wanted a dog food that has as little filler as possible.

I've been using Science Diet for several years, but noticed the last time I picked some up that there are other "premium" dog foods that are just a little bit cheaper than Science Diet.  And then I was reading the other thread on dog food, and found that apparently Science Diet doesn't have the greatest reputation.

So--what dog food do you prefer?  If I can find something a bit cheaper than Science Diet, maybe a bit healthier, and without any more filler, I'm all over it!


----------



## Buttercup (Oct 28, 2008)

I have a fairly short list of foods I'll consider feeding my dogs.

Anything by Natura Pet: Innova, California Natural, Healthwise
Merrick
Natural Balance
Wellness 
Orijen

I'm sure there are some others but I haven't researched dog food for a while.


----------



## pomlover2586 (Feb 14, 2009)

My DH works in pet food retail and he's a dog trainer. Our top choices are Nutro, and Royal Cannin


----------



## Buttercup (Oct 28, 2008)

Basically I look for a food without corn, wheat or soy as they are common allergens and corn is used as a cheap filler.  I want my protein source to be specific and if not at the top of the ingredients list it should be in the top 3, I also don't want to see the words by-products which could be anything from feet to beaks to feathers etc..  Fat should also specify source and not just say 'animal fat' or something similar.  There are some other things I use to rate my dog food but I'll just give you a quick comparison.

Here are the first 10 ingredients of Innova:
Turkey
Chicken    
Chicken Meal 
Barley    
Brown Rice    
Potatoes    
Rice    
Chicken Fat
Flaxseed  
Herring    

and the first 10 ingredients of Purina Dog Chow:
Whole grain corn
poultry by-product meal
animal fat preserved with mixed-tocopherols (form of Vitamin E)
corn gluten meal
meat and bone meal
brewers rice
soybean meal
barley
whole grain wheat
animal digest

I don't think I even want to know what "animal digest" is but I do know I don't want my dogs eating it.


----------



## Veronica (Jan 23, 2009)

Buttercup said:


> I don't think I even want to know what "animal digest" is but I do know I don't want my dogs eating it.


ugh. I had to look.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_digest


----------



## Buttercup (Oct 28, 2008)

OMG, that is disgusting!!  

Things like that are exactly why I carefully choose my dogs food.  Blech


----------



## Pawz4me (Feb 14, 2009)

Buttercup said:


> I have a fairly short list of foods I'll consider feeding my dogs.
> 
> Anything by Natura Pet: Innova, California Natural, Healthwise
> Merrick
> ...


Ditto, except for Merrick. Their ingredients look nice, but I don't trust the company. They've had way too many recalls in the past for my comfort.


----------



## Buttercup (Oct 28, 2008)

I'm only aware of one Merrick recall of one variety of canned food, what others have there been?  One of my dogs eats Merrick so I'd like to research them if possible but can't find anything on an internet search but the one.


----------



## kim (Nov 20, 2008)

Veronica said:


> ugh. I had to look.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_digest


I really wish I hadn't followed that link 

I'm glad this topic was brought up. I always wonder if I could give my doggie something better, but I don't know that much about the dog food. Thanks to everyone for your input.


----------



## MonaSW (Nov 16, 2008)

I don't currently have a dog, but the cat foods I prefer are Natural Balance (my favorite) and Wysong.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Buttercup said:


> I have a fairly short list of foods I'll consider feeding my dogs.
> 
> Anything by Natura Pet: Innova, California Natural, Healthwise
> Merrick
> ...


This is a good list.

Science Diet is a scam. Vets are brainwashed into recommending it and essentially get kickbacks. The majority of pet foods on the market should leave their makers unable to sleep at night, and this makes most of the claims in commercials just laughable. The whole thing about pets living longer and healthier on Purina makes me wonder if this is compared to feeding them broken glass and rusty nails. The worst food is Ol' Roy -- Walmart's house brand.

Pet foods are easily researched and it's worth the time to do so!


----------



## Pawz4me (Feb 14, 2009)

Buttercup said:


> I'm only aware of one Merrick recall of one variety of canned food, what others have there been? One of my dogs eats Merrick so I'd like to research them if possible but can't find anything on an internet search but the one.


The first recall I'm aware of involved a food called Go Natural (Merrick produced it for Petcurean) back in the 1990s. IIRC, the food was contaminated with salmonella and there were some dog deaths as a result. They've also more recently been involved in recalls due to pieces of plastic and shipping staples being found in some of their canned foods. That's more than enough for me to seriously question their quality control procedures.

And FWIW, Merrick also owns the largest rendering plant in Texas. A couple of years ago the CEO of that plant wrote a letter to the FDA advocating for the use of "downed" cattle in pet food. There used to be a copy of that letter available at the USDA.gov site, but now it's no longer there. I know many people who are really into pet nutrition. Some say the use of downed cattle wouldn't stop them from using Merrick, as they produce many different lines of food, from the very cheap to premium, that they likely aren't interested in using downed cattle in their premium foods, etc., etc. Others believe that if they'll use suspect ingredients in cheap food, they'll use it in premium food. I tend to believe the latter.

Since the big dog food recall, I'm as much or more concerned with a company's reputation for quality control than I am about the ingredients in the food. I simply don't see the need to use a food from a questionable company when there are other dog food companies who are known for having stellar quality control (Natura Pet comes immediately to mind).


----------



## Mollyb52 (Jan 4, 2009)

We are using Dick Van Patten's Natural Balance Duck and Potato.  Molly has eaten it before and she and we were happy with it.  We tried the Wellness Fish and Sweetpotato but she did not like it and I was disturbed by the visible hard bones in the kibbles.  Trixie is still on Wellness Senior but I think we will try to change her over to Natural Balance when she finishes what is left.  They were both on Hills Science Diet Rx foods from our Ex-vet and neither one of them did well on it.  I looked at the ingredients in Science Diet and I don't want to feed that to my girls.  That said, my son and daughter-in-law have always fed their dog Science Diet and she the the happiest healthiest little thing you would ever want to see.


----------



## Veronica (Jan 23, 2009)

Thanks for all the ideas.  I think I'm going to try the Natural Balance.


----------



## hazeldazel (Oct 30, 2008)

I like the Wellness and Innova brands.  I believe both brands use human-grade meats, so no "3-D" meat:  down, dead, diseased.


----------



## krissynae (Feb 21, 2009)

My two eat wellness. It seems to agree with their tummies.


----------



## raccemup (Feb 19, 2009)

Natural Balance was recalled with the contaminated rice gluten so I don't trust them either.  My top choices would be:

California Natural
Innova (these are both made the same great company)
Wellness (the cat eats wellness)
Canidae - although they've changed some things lately, I think it's probably a pretty good food. 
Organix
Newman's Own

I actually cook my own homemade dog food using a premix and they only get dry food left out as an extra treat if they want it.  Yes, I'm insane. lol


----------



## webhill (Feb 12, 2009)

MichelleR said:


> Science Diet is a scam. Vets are brainwashed into recommending it and essentially get kickbacks.


I am a veterinarian, graduated in 2000 from a well-respected American school of veterinary medicine. I have not received one dime of kickbacks from any pet-food company, Hills included. I have never been subjected to any form of brainwashing. I am HIGHLY offended by your remarks. (edited to correct typo - left out the word NOT in the second sentence!)


----------



## raccemup (Feb 19, 2009)

I'm not the one who made that comment but I'm just wondering....  Why do most (if not all vets) only ever recommend Science Diet when it is a nutritionally sub-par food that is loaded with corn and by-products and can basically CAUSE health problems in some pets.  Every vet I have ever gone to, insisted that I feed Science Diet and basically scoffs at the fact my dogs eat a carefully prepared, balanced whole food diet (NOT raw btw... I don't believe in the raw diet) and/or holistic food with better ingredients.  My dogs are 7 years old have NEVER been sick, are wonderfully active, and their coats are gleaming (thanks to omega 3 EFA supplements).  My first dog, when I didn't know better, was fed Purina and was dead of kidney failure in 2 years after I adopted her.  I'm not saying it was the Purina but that is when I learned the importance of a proper diet the hard way.  

This is not to put you on the spot or accuse you of doing this or anything.  This has always just been my experience and I'm just really curious as to why that is.  If you are one of the few vets that is aware of the benefits of holistic feeding and/or treatments, I commend you for that!  I'm sure you are wonderful vet!


----------



## kim (Nov 20, 2008)

Webhill - it's great to have a veterinarian here.  I'm hoping you can get past the one comment that offended you and join the discussion.

I love my vet and think he is great but he seems non-committal when I ask him about food.  I get the impression from him that much of the food is about the same and I can use any (science diet, iams, etc).  Would you be willing to share your opinion?


----------



## Pawz4me (Feb 14, 2009)

I know a couple of current vet students.  Each gets a certain amount (dollar value) of free food per month.  They have a variety of manufacturers to choose from.  Science Diet used to be the only one in this "game" (and thus it's the brand of food many, many vets still recommend above all others), but now even some of the premium manufacturers are in on it.  The Natura foods (Innova, Cal. Natural) are among the free foods offered to the students I know.


----------



## kim (Nov 20, 2008)

slightly off topic -

My vet recommended Welactin (omega-3 fatty acid supplement) for my cat and it has really helped with kitty's dry skin and shedding, etc. But Figaro *hates *the taste. Does anybody know other brands or other ways to increase the omega-3 fatty acid?


----------



## raccemup (Feb 19, 2009)

Yeah... cats.... finnicky little buggers, aren't they?  You could try Grizzly Salmon Oil.  I seem to recall my cat tasting it a few times and not protesting terribly but not eating it consistently either.  I switched her to Wellness Salmon and Turkey with Omega 3's added and it made a big difference in her shedding and skin!  She LOVES it and is pretty much the only food she'll eat so that works for both of us.


----------



## webhill (Feb 12, 2009)

raccemup said:


> Why do most (if not all vets) only ever recommend Science Diet when it is a nutritionally sub-par food that is loaded with corn and by-products and can basically CAUSE health problems in some pets.


Well, first of all let me say that I am not the mouthpiece of all veterinarians worldwide. I am just me and I can not speak for what "most" vets do. I can speak from my experiences, and I agree that many veterinarians do recommend Hills products (Hills makes Science Diet among other foods) in many situations. I just put someone on R/d (a Hills manufactured calorie-restricted food) today. Certainly I don't think I, personally, have ever met a colleague who has "only ever recommend[ed]" Science Diet.

That out of the way.... I don't believe Science diet is "nutritionally sub-par." Certainly it is true that some animals do not do well on Science Diet. Those animals should absolutely not eat it! Other animals do, in fact, do very well on Science Diet. If the food is in the owner's budget, and the pet is doing well on it, I'm all for it.

Any food can cause health problems in any individual animal. A dog with an allergy to lamb can get very sick being fed very high-quality "human grade" organic foods that contain lamb, for example. Certainly if there were one particular food which, in my experience, caused a lot of problems, I would not recommend it and would in fact tell people to avoid it. Oh, let's go out on a limb and say, like, Ol' Roy  But Science Diet? Not a common denominator among my patients with problems of any kind, really.

Someone asked (and I don't recall if it was you) why his or her vet seemed noncommittal about food. Each veterinary school has a different curriculum. At mine, we did have a nutrition course - which I happened to place out of based on my undergraduate coursework! We also had "nutrition rounds" with the hospital veterinary nutritionist during our time on the internal medicine service. You get out of it what you put into it. I was interested in it and read up on it and still do. Others - maybe not so much.

Good luck everyone with their pets and their pet food!

-h.


----------



## kevindorsey (Mar 4, 2009)

I'm going to feed my dog mostly natural foods, as that's what a healthy dog really needs.


----------



## Kind (Jan 28, 2009)

I don't own a dog but I was just overseas and they feed their dogs human food. Just left overs from breakfast, lunch, and dinner. The dogs are pretty happy because it ends up being stuff like lamb, chicken, beef, pita bread, rice, veggies.


----------



## raccemup (Feb 19, 2009)

Kind said:


> I don't own a dog but I was just overseas and they feed their dogs human food. Just left overs from breakfast, lunch, and dinner. The dogs are pretty happy because it ends up being stuff like lamb, chicken, beef, pita bread, rice, veggies.


That's what everyone did before dog food kibble was "invented" and I use that term lightly. The major food corporations (you'll find that most commercial brands of food are owned by one of these) figured out a way to recycle foods that were taken from the human food chain because they were not fit for human consumption for one reason or another. They simply rendered/processed it, sprayed fat on it to make it smell good to your pet, and then put it in a pretty package marked "pet food" and they now make a profit on what once was their garbage.


----------



## kim (Nov 20, 2008)

Webhill - Thanks for your input.  It's always good to hear from an expert.


----------



## Kind (Jan 28, 2009)

raccemup said:


> That's what everyone did before dog food kibble was "invented" and I use that term lightly. The major food corporations (you'll find that most commercial brands of food are owned by one of these) figured out a way to recycle foods that were taken from the human food chain because they were not fit for human consumption for one reason or another. They simply rendered/processed it, sprayed fat on it to make it smell good to your pet, and then put it in a pretty package marked "pet food" and they now make a profit on what once was their garbage.


I did not know that. Thanks.


----------



## webhill (Feb 12, 2009)

Kind said:


> I don't own a dog but I was just overseas and they feed their dogs human food. Just left overs from breakfast, lunch, and dinner. The dogs are pretty happy because it ends up being stuff like lamb, chicken, beef, pita bread, rice, veggies.


I don't know where you are, and I don't know where overseas you were, but FWIW many of my instructors at my american veterinary school came from "overseas" relative to the USA - specifically Israel, the UK, and Sweden were represented among my internal medicine professors, and they all recommended dog or cat food as opposed to "human food." Similarly the few colleagues I have visited in Spain, Italy, and Israel also showed me their locally recommended food products, and they were not human foods, they were manufactured pet foods. It does seem a lot more common for people to feed their pets supplemental foods in the form of leftovers in Europe than here, in my totally non-scientific general impression


----------



## webhill (Feb 12, 2009)

raccemup said:


> Every vet I have ever gone to, insisted that I feed Science Diet and basically scoffs at the fact my dogs eat a carefully prepared, balanced whole food diet (NOT raw btw... I don't believe in the raw diet) and/or holistic food with better ingredients.


BTW I realized I forgot to specifically address this. I am so sorry to hear that my colleagues have let you down in this way. I have some clients who do offer their pets carefully prepared, balanced whole food diets - in fact, I have helped them to submit samples to veterinary nutritionists for testing to ensure batches are remaining balanced over time, and I have helped them obtain appropriate recipes (of course, these things do cost them some money, because I haven't personally developed my own recipes to share or anything, and I am not a boarded nutritionist, and I do not own a testing lab!). I would not "scoff" at anyone who did anything out of love and caring. I would certainly feel obligated to re-educate someone whose practice seemed inappropriate to me - for example, feeding raw turkey necks, I take issue with! Also, if a pet is not doing well on a home-cooked meal, or the owner is not interested in ensuring the ration is balanced but instead decides to feed their cat solely on canned tunafish and the occasional bowl of milk, I will take issue with that. But feeding a balanced diet? That is the point of dog food! To feed a balanced diet to those who cannot be bothered to go to the trouble of cooking it, preparing it, and storing it themselves!! So why a colleague would scoff at that I really can't say.


----------



## raccemup (Feb 19, 2009)

webhill said:


> BTW I realized I forgot to specifically address this. I am so sorry to hear that my colleagues have let you down in this way. I have some clients who do offer their pets carefully prepared, balanced whole food diets - in fact, I have helped them to submit samples to veterinary nutritionists for testing to ensure batches are remaining balanced over time, and I have helped them obtain appropriate recipes (of course, these things do cost them some money, because I haven't personally developed my own recipes to share or anything, and I am not a boarded nutritionist, and I do not own a testing lab!). I would not "scoff" at anyone who did anything out of love and caring. I would certainly feel obligated to re-educate someone whose practice seemed inappropriate to me - for example, feeding raw turkey necks, I take issue with! Also, if a pet is not doing well on a home-cooked meal, or the owner is not interested in ensuring the ration is balanced but instead decides to feed their cat solely on canned tunafish and the occasional bowl of milk, I will take issue with that. But feeding a balanced diet? That is the point of dog food! To feed a balanced diet to those who cannot be bothered to go to the trouble of cooking it, preparing it, and storing it themselves!! So why a colleague would scoff at that I really can't say.


Thank you soooo much for taking the time to address this and for your open-mindedness about it!  I had a vet who didn't care one way or another what I fed my dog as I long I NEVER changed it. (long story short on that, my one dog had colitis when I first adopted her, his solution was to never feed her anything other than purina when in fact, that's what was making her sick. My first instinct was to take her off kibble and I started cooking for her and she was CURED after one meal! lol) I had another vet who strongly recommended I switch to a run-of-the-mill commercial brand instead of homecooked/holistic. Which I still didn't get because a good quality holistic kibble is typically going to be better than that depending on what it is. What's even stranger is, the suggestion comes for no reason because my dogs have no problems at all, diet related or otherwise! That one just asked what I fed out of the blue and advised I changed for no apparent reason. lol

My current vet... different story altogether. He's all about SD and nothing else!!! He has very rudely told me to switch and doesn't care one iota to listen to what my feeding preferences are, how much care I take or why. It's really annoying and frankly, I can't stand it. However, he's GREAT at what he does so I put up with him. I don't have to like him, he just has to take great care of my babies. At least that's they way I see it. 

I also do rescue/foster so I come into to contact with various vets for different rescue groups and such. I'd say almost all of them were very SD oriented and ALWAYS recommended that food and nothing else. I also agree that no one food is right for all pets so I find that to be a little disturbing. SD may be great for some pets and terrible for others. Each pet is different that way.

BTW... I spent 3 years studying pet food and pet nutrition and owned a holistic pet food business so I am very interested in the subject in general and that's why I get a little frustrated with vets who are so close-minded about different feeding options when there's A LOT of great foods out there.


Christine


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

webhill said:


> I am a veterinarian, graduated in 2000 from a well-respected American school of veterinary medicine. I have not received one dime of kickbacks from any pet-food company, Hills included. I have never been subjected to any form of brainwashing. I am HIGHLY offended by your remarks. (edited to correct typo - left out the word NOT in the second sentence!)


I was speaking of the practice of giving vet students discounts and that veterinary nutrition courses, which are sadly not required, tend to use textbooks put out by Hill's, and that a ridiculous amount of vets have Science diet posters and displays as well as want to pimp out one of the specialty diets whenever the animal hiccups. If you're not touting the stuff, I didn't mean any offense, and the initial comment was not targeted at you specifically. If you ARE touting the stuff, then we would have to do one of those agree to disagree things.

And if you were brainwashed, how would you know it? 

Just because a dog does okay on SD does not mean it's a good diet. Some pets, like some people, will thrive on anything. Greyhounds at the track are routinely feed 4-D meat and some race well on it, but it doesn't make it something I would recommend. Of course, if the choice was 4-D or Science Diet, I would then pick Science Diet. My dogs would choose the 4-D, but they're gross like that.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

webhill said:


> I would certainly feel obligated to re-educate someone whose practice seemed inappropriate to me - for example, feeding raw turkey necks, I take issue with!


Re-educate? Most people who do the whole BARF thing (Bones And Raw Food) have done a lot of reading and research and there are certainly a number of experts and vets who are on board with it. Re-educate seems to imply that their current stance is a matter of ignorance or being undeniably wrong rather than a difference of philosophy.


----------



## webhill (Feb 12, 2009)

MichelleR said:


> I was speaking of the practice of giving vet students discounts and that veterinary nutrition courses, which are sadly not required, tend to use textbooks put out by Hill's, and that a ridiculous amount of vets have Science diet posters and displays as well as want to pimp out one of the specialty diets whenever the animal hiccups. If you're not touting the stuff, I didn't mean any offense, and the initial comment was not targeted at you specifically. If you ARE touting the stuff, then we would have to do one of those agree to disagree things.
> And if you were brainwashed, how would you know it?
> Just because a dog does okay on SD does not mean it's a good diet. Some pets, like some people, will thrive on anything. Greyhounds at the track are routinely feed 4-D meat and some race well on it, but it doesn't make it something I would recommend. Of course, if the choice was 4-D or Science Diet, I would then pick Science Diet. My dogs would choose the 4-D, but they're gross like that.


Let me try to address this point by point.

Vet students get discounts on Science Diet. Yes. Also on Purina, Waltham, Innova, Eukanuba, and a ton of other products. When I was a student I got free Iams for my cat and a free Waltham product for my dog, but I forget which food it was and hardly think it has any bearing on anything. I do not personally believe that receiving a discount on a product obligates me to pimp that product the rest of my life, nor do I think it makes me more likely to do so - and the implication that it does is offensive. Have you never received a discount on anything? If you have - do you feel like you should recommend it over a more suitable product next time someone asks you for a recommendation??

Regarding nutrition education - I only know about my school. Nutrition was required. I placed out of it as far as the lecture went, not as far as the clinical instruction went. Our textbook, which I purchased despite not needing to take the class.... let's see. It was http://www.amazon.com/Small-Animal-Clinical-Nutrition-Michael/dp/0945837054 Rebecca Remillard's textbook. It's the same one my friends from Tufts and Cornell used. I am unaware of a nutrition textbook "put out by Hills."

I can't comment on the number of vets having Science Diet posters. I think I have an R/d display in one of my exam rooms. I don't "pimp out" anything, though, and certainly not for the hiccups.

Regarding the brainwashing - point taken, but the suggestion that I, a person who sought out and completed a doctoral program in veterinary medicine, would simply sit back and listen and believe, as opposed to analyzing data and curiously researching topics of interest, is offensive, and I believe that one can not be "brainwashed" if one does not engage in that type of behavior.

Regarding the idea of someone thriving on anything, I would submit that if the patient - human or otherwise - is truly thriving, then the diet is actually fine. I mean, I do not believe any human CAN thrive on coca-cola, big macs, and fries with that three times a day... but, if a person is of normal physique, good energy, good general health, normal biochemical markers, normal blood counts, etc, then perhaps that person is obtaining what he needs from that diet and it's not a problem.

I don't suggest Science Diet over any other type of well-balanced canine or feline maintenance diet. As far as I am concerned, it is one reasonably-priced and convenient option for the majority of owners who do not choose to purchase specialty diets or to home-cook well-balanced meals. If a patient is doing well on it, I'm fine with it. That's all I really have to say on the subject.

Regarding BARF, all I can say is, I have treated several dogs who were severely ill from salmonellosis and other types of food poisoning, and all of them were either dogs who got into the garbage or who ate BARF diets. Yes, the owners had done a lot of research, but they hadn't drawn the appropriate conclusion according to me, which is that the potential risks of salmonellosis or other illness outweigh the potential benefit of such a diet. Yes, I feel BARF is undeniably wrong. I recommend strongly against it.

-h.


----------



## Buttercup (Oct 28, 2008)

Webhill, I really appreciate having a vet that's open minded and I'm sure your clients do too.

I have a 6 yr old Basset with Chronic Active Hepatitis.  It was first discovered about 3 yrs ago during a pre-anesthetic blood panel for a dental, at the time his ALT was 4731!  When the diagnosis came down I researched the heck out of the topic and mentioned some of the recommended supplements to my vet.  At first she was a bit resistant as she's a scientist and had never seen hard cold evidence that they'd work.  Even though she wasn't sure they'd be helpful she said they certainly couldn't hurt and to go for it.  When she saw that his test results kept getting better she told me to keep on doing what I was doing since it was working.  That's one of the things I love about her, even though she is not a holistic vet she is more than supportive of me trying holistic remedies.  I trust her opinion and had her look over a liver friendly home cooked diet that I found (Dr. Jean Dodds) she thought it looked good and gave me the go ahead to try it.  I honestly think she appreciates all of the research I do to try and help my boy.  Heck, she's even been doing some research on her own and has suggested a few new herbal supplements that I can try. 

Her clinic does sell SD and a few other prescription diets but but never once have I been pressured into switching my hounds off of their diet in favor of SD or anything else.


----------



## webhill (Feb 12, 2009)

Since people are clearly interested in the subject of pet food and pet nutrition, here are some sites I recommend for the interested owner:
http://www.veterinarypartner.com/Content.plx?P=SRC&S=1&SourceID=30
http://www.petdiets.com/
http://www.thepetcenter.com/imtop/nutrition.html
http://www.vet.ohio-state.edu/nssvet.htm
https://secure.balanceit.com/_clients2/index.php?dl=1


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

webhill said:


> Let me try to address this point by point.
> 
> Vet students get discounts on Science Diet. Yes. Also on Purina, Waltham, Innova, Eukanuba, and a ton of other products. When I was a student I got free Iams for my cat and a free Waltham product for my dog, but I forget which food it was and hardly think it has any bearing on anything. I do not personally believe that receiving a discount on a product obligates me to pimp that product the rest of my life, nor do I think it makes me more likely to do so - and the implication that it does is offensive. Have you never received a discount on anything? If you have - do you feel like you should recommend it over a more suitable product next time someone asks you for a recommendation??


I think I might feel warm and fuzzy about any company that helped me feed my pets while I was a struggling student, not enough to recommend it if I hated the product, but enough to plant the brand name in my head. Any of the above brands could fit that bill, sure. Would you agree that these discounts are quite possibly given with that in mind?



webhill said:


> Regarding nutrition education - I only know about my school. Nutrition was required. I placed out of it as far as the lecture went, not as far as the clinical instruction went. Our textbook, which I purchased despite not needing to take the class.... let's see. It was http://www.amazon.com/Small-Animal-Clinical-Nutrition-Michael/dp/0945837054 Rebecca Remillard's textbook. It's the same one my friends from Tufts and Cornell used. I am unaware of a nutrition textbook "put out by Hills."


According to the Hill's website the creator of Science Diet, Dr. Mark Morris Jr, had a co-author credit on the textbook you mentioned:

1968 - Dr. Mark Morris Jr., creates the Science Diet® line of pet foods for healthy pets. The first Science Diet® pet food, Adult Maintenance, is marketed. 
<snip>
1983 - First publication of the Small Animal Clinical Nutrition textbook, co-authored by Dr. Morris Jr., which would become the definitive text on nutrition for dogs and cats and used in veterinary colleges worldwide.

From another site which seems to state that a number of people from the company worked on the book:

_In fact, Hill's scientists authored the most widely used textbook about small animal nutrition, Small Animal Clinical Nutrition, the fourth edition of which was published in 1998._

When I research the co-authors, this does seem to be the case. P. Roudebush lists an affiliation with Hill's Pet Nutrition Inc, Topeka Kansas. and has spoken at Hill's sponsored symposiums. Another of of the writers, Craig D. Thatcher, also seems to have associations with the company, as evidenced by this paper he co-wrote on Manipulation of Dietary (n-6) and (n-3) Fatty Acids Alters Platelet Function in Cats1,2 where "Experimental diets were formulated by Hill's Science and Technology Center, Topeka, KS" and Hill's research is listed in the footnotes. An editor, Lon D. Lewis is a vet in Topeka, which is, again, where Hill's is located.

To me, this counts as a textbook put out by Hill's.

That doesn't mean that the textbook was a commercial for Science Diet and, not having seen the book, I don't know if the product or the company was mentioned or footnoted. It would seem to me that the philosophy that went into making the Science Diet line would be reflected in the textbook though and taught as appropriate small animal nutrition. People tend to see the information in a textbook as authoritative, read it in a receptive state of mind, and might give a extra level of trust because they're offered by a trusted institution. I don't know that that's the case with you.



webhill said:


> I can't comment on the number of vets having Science Diet posters. I think I have an R/d display in one of my exam rooms. I don't "pimp out" anything, though, and certainly not for the hiccups.


It needs to be said right now that I didn't intend to offend you and if it sounds like I was talking about all vets, instead of many vets, I should be thwacked on the nose with a rolled up newspaper. Unless you get e-versions of the papers -- please do not pelt me with your Kindle. 

I think a lot of people can relate to the Science Diet posters and displays, but I realize not all vets do this, of course. The hiccups comment was hyperbole in order to make a little with the funny. I know I've had vets that really did recommend a Hill's product for every ailment, and others pet owners have told me the same. I honestly cannot think of another brand that comes up more as the one likely to be recommended by vets.

When a vet does have a brand on display or posters, even if they don't tout the food in any other way, I believe that pet owners see it as a tacit endorsement, just as a student might give extra trust to a textbook, because it's endorsed or used by a school they respect. "I like my vet, my vet has this food in the lobby, my vet must really thinks this is good stuff." I believe Hill's knows this and strives to create that association, perhaps more than any other brand.



webhill said:


> Regarding the brainwashing - point taken, but the suggestion that I, a person who sought out and completed a doctoral program in veterinary medicine, would simply sit back and listen and believe, as opposed to analyzing data and curiously researching topics of interest, is offensive, and I believe that one can not be "brainwashed" if one does not engage in that type of behavior.


The "How Do You Know If You're Brainwashed..." was also meant to me humorous. Technically, we're all persuaded by the things we read and see and tend to trust the educational materials given to us, but I acknowledge that doesn't mean that you lack critical thinking.



webhill said:


> Regarding the idea of someone thriving on anything, I would submit that if the patient - human or otherwise - is truly thriving, then the diet is actually fine. I mean, I do not believe any human CAN thrive on coca-cola, big macs, and fries with that three times a day... but, if a person is of normal physique, good energy, good general health, normal biochemical markers, normal blood counts, etc, then perhaps that person is obtaining what he needs from that diet and it's not a problem.


I think when we discuss nutrition there has to be an eye for the long term and the short term. Deficient nutrition in the short term might not be readily apparent. Over the long term might be when the issues present. When we're talking about small animal nutrition in terms of a prepared commercial food, we're usually talking about a fairly static diet of the same kibble year after year, and any inadequacies in the food wouldn't be really remedied, but would continue to exist. The term thrive, in this sense, could be seen as "by all outwardly appearances and at this moment" and it might be better to say "seemingly thriving." A dog or cat could conceivably seem to be doing fine, while deficiencies might exist, and might be creating less immediately seen issues.

I believe that the ideal, and I'm sure you would agree, is a diet that is most likely to provide optimal nutrition that benefits the pet immediately and in the future.

When someone does well on Big Macs three times a day, their doctor doesn't start recommending it to all his patients, but instead acknowledges it as a fluke and cautions the patient that there could be long-term complications. He sees patient X as an aberration. In the example of 4-D meat fed on race tracks, this is usually a short term diet in the sense that often -- not always, so lurking racetrack owners don't holler on me -- they are looking for the dogs that can do well Right Now and are easy keepers, but aren't necessarily interested in if this is working for the dog over the long haul. Dog fails to be fast on the flesh of diseased animals, there are always more puppies. But a lot of people and animals can at least eat junk for a little while.

When someone asks what's the best food, I think we interpret the question as the food with the best chance of a pet reaching a ripe old age in good health. I don't see the answer as being a diet heavy on fillers, and SD foods tend to have a whole lot of corn and other ingredients that are not really of the best use to animals.



webhill said:


> I don't suggest Science Diet over any other type of well-balanced canine or feline maintenance diet. As far as I am concerned, it is one reasonably-priced and convenient option for the majority of owners who do not choose to purchase specialty diets or to home-cook well-balanced meals. If a patient is doing well on it, I'm fine with it. That's all I really have to say on the subject.


Okay. 



webhill said:


> Regarding BARF, all I can say is, I have treated several dogs who were severely ill from salmonellosis and other types of food poisoning, and all of them were either dogs who got into the garbage or who ate BARF diets. Yes, the owners had done a lot of research, but they hadn't drawn the appropriate conclusion according to me, which is that the potential risks of salmonellosis or other illness outweigh the potential benefit of such a diet. Yes, I feel BARF is undeniably wrong. I recommend strongly against it.


My understanding is that the stomach acids of dogs are more, er, intense than those of humans, thus having a greater chance of destroying bacteria, as well as a shorter digestive tract meaning that food does not stick around too long. Why do you think so many vets, although certainly not the majority of them, like the BARF diet? For the record, I'm not comfortable with it either, but I do acknowledge the proponents make interesting points, and many have excellent credentials. I will say that commercially prepared foods are not at all immune to contaminants as anyone who follows the topic can attest.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

I think concern for animal nutrition is really coming into its own. I would love to see more stores like this:

http://www.thecalifornian.com/article/20090320/OFFSIXTYEIGHT01/903200304


----------



## sharyn (Oct 30, 2008)

I have been feeding my 8yo female Golden a prey model raw diet since I brought her home at 7wo.  She is incredibly healthy, never been sick a day in her life.  She's never had a steroid or antibiotic, and the only vaccinations she's had are the rabies mandated by law.

No one processes or cooks the wolves' food in the wild.  And dogs are 99.8% the same DNA as a wolf, whether they are Chihuahuas or Newfoundlands.

Since this is my particular soapbox, I'll get off it now.  I just wanted to add this suggestion to the mix.  If you can feed yourselves and your families real food without a degree in nutrition, you can certainly feed your dogs real food also.  Feeding them kibble is like feeding your kids Total cereal every meal of every day of their lives.

/rant

Sharyn


----------



## Rhiathame (Mar 12, 2009)

I feed Jasper Fromms which he likes quite well. Before that he had been on Canidade which seemed to do well for him.

There is a company in Milwaukee called Stella and Chewy's that does all organic etc. food but that is way more expensive than I can afford. I did some work for them and they sent me home with samples which Jasper adored.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

I do believe in vaccinating animals, but the annual schedule as absurd and overload.


----------



## webhill (Feb 12, 2009)

MichelleR said:


> I do believe in vaccinating animals, but the annual schedule as absurd and overload.


What's "the annual schedule?"

For "Joe Average Dog," recommended vaccines are typically:

DHPP q 3 years
Rabies q 3 years
Leptospirosis q 6 mos or 1 year, or never, depending on risk factors and geography
Bordetella q 6 mos or 1 year or never, depending on risk factors
Lyme q 1 year depending on risk factors, geography, and personal opinion
various other things depending on risk factors but not for your typical patient

For "Joe Average Cat," it would be:

FVRCP q 3 years
Rabies q 3 years
FeLV q 1 year or never, depending on risk factors
FIV q 1 year or never, depending on risk factors
a couple of other possibilities depending on risk factors but not for your typical patient

FWIW.

There are still some DHPP and FVRCP vaccines labelled for use every year instead of every 3 years, but even so those are quite often used extralabel on a q 3 year basis.

I've been out of veterinary school for almost 9 years. The "official" changeover at my place of employment to every 3 year vaccine protocols in both dogs and cats came about 2 years into my working as a veterinarian, but it had been in discussion among experts while I was still in school.

Of course there are still some practicioners who will recommend more than is necessary. There are also auto mechanics who will try to sell you a transmission flush, and dentists who will try to sell you a filling you don't need (there's one in my area who has done this to three friends of mine who subsequently went to see my dentist and turned out to NOT have a cavity at all!). Also of course sometimes there are specific reasons a particular pet needs more frequent vaccination.


----------



## kim (Nov 20, 2008)

Thanks for the info Webhill!

I trust my vet but I do think he oversells a bit, it's good to hear from another professional.  Thanks


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

I think most vets are fine with the schedule you mention, Webhill, although I've known some who had the rabies on a 3 year schedule and everything else on an annual schedule. I don't think the issue is so much vets as it is adoption groups and shelters. When I worked at the humane society, the annual vaccinations were technically what we advocated -- there was also an attached clinic. When I went to adopt out to people and wanted to check past/current pet history, I merely asked if the animals were kept up to date, and allowed that to be interpreted however that clinic or vet's office would like to define it. 

In my experience, there being a thought out reason is good enough when going to adoption groups and I've always been personally up-front about my philosophy of vaccinations. As long as they know that you're choosing it in the best interests of your pet and not out of negligence, but I've heard of groups that have rejected people. 

I do know I saw a whole lot of sadness brought about by people not vaccinating at all, particularly in the Parvo outbreaks we'd see in puppies turned in to us at the shelter. I only saw distemper a handful of times, but it was memorable. 

Anyhow, I think the best approach is an educated pet owner coming together with his or her vet to figure out what works best, as you say depending on geography and risk-factors.


----------



## pomlover2586 (Feb 14, 2009)

Any questions you can also call your local vet


----------



## Veronica (Jan 23, 2009)

webhill said:


> For "Joe Average Dog," recommended vaccines are typically:
> 
> DHPP q 3 years
> Rabies q 3 years
> ...


That's very interesting. Thanks for the info, webhill. My dog is due for his "annual" vaccinations soon, and I didn't know that some of them may not be necessary.

However, I do have to maintain a city license for my dog--and I believe they require an annual rabies certification--but I'll need to check into that.

Thank you!!


----------



## webhill (Feb 12, 2009)

Veronica said:


> However, I do have to maintain a city license for my dog--and I believe they require an annual rabies certification--but I'll need to check into that.


Oh yeah - there are some jurisdictions which require annual rabies -- these are mostly on the USA-Mexican border, but there are others scattered throughout the states. This is not a medical issue but a political one. Some jurisdictions allow these requirements to be overridden by a veterinarian whose clinical judgement is that the vaccine is contraindicated, and some do not. So for legal issues, consult an attorney or local government official -- I can barely keep track of the ever-changing regulations in my own county (which last time I checked, had ZERO rabies vaccination requirement for a cat "living at least part-time in the owner's primary residence, regardless of whether or not it also lives part-time outdoors," while it did have a rabies vaccination requirement for outdoor-only cats. Gee, THAT makes a lot of public health sense to me. Vaccinate ONLY the cats that are LESS LIKELY to be in contact with humans. Sheesh.

Sorry. Um, you know, I saved the latest AAFP (American Ass'n of Feline Practicioners) vaccine guidelines as well as the latest guidelines from my (local) veterinary school alma mater (which cover dogs and cats) as a PDF and I keep them on my Kindle, just to bring this whole thing back to the true topic of the boards....  I also have a Kindle-ized article on the use of nerve blocks in feline dental procedures (complete with beautiful images) and the use of probiotics in companion animals


----------

