Royal Canine?

[Canella]

What is everyones take on this food? I just got some for canella to try and she LOVES it is it good quality?

[Tobie22]

My vet recommends Royal Canine so that is what I feed to Tobie.

[LilMissy]

It's not that great. I wouldn't feed it. Dog Food Reviews - Royal Canin Mini Yorkshire 28 - Powered by ReviewPost

[Shelby&Seymour]

Shelby & Seymour ate RC for a long time. There is corn in it which can cause allergy problems if your dog is sensitive. We had no problem with that. Shelby was gaining a bit too much weight on it (which was also the corn that was doing that) but she didn't start getting a bit chubby until she got a few years old. I don't think it is the very best, but it is much better than some of the stuff out there.
Everyone has different opinions..... You need to get what works best for your dog. I do know it was wonderful for their coats.

[C C Kent]

I've been feeding Royal Canin for years and I have never had a problem with it. Everyone loves it and I can feed small amounts which in turn means...small poops.

[Wylie's Mom]

Royal Canin does contain fillers and allergens, so if your dog is sensitive to those, it wouldn't be a good food to give. Also, since acquired allergies can happen to dogs, I personally wouldn't feed a food that has known allergens in it - esp. corn - but that's just my personal belief. Also, just bc vets recommend it (and they receive kickbacks on RC and Science Diet, btw) does not mean at all that it's a good food. In my opinion, there are far better options out there.

[Wylie's Mom]

Btw, if you want an opinion from a VET who really advocates for our dog's best health - and not her bottom line - you should check out this Vet's (Dr. Terifaj) blog:

DOG-Breath — “An outspoken commentary of ideas, healthy insights, and occasional rants that will bust your dogma!”

She will tell you the the truth about nutrition, vaccines, and highlight some of the common mistruths found in the vetrinary field. She is WONDERFUL.

[veggienut]

I tried so many foods with my Yorkie when I switched him from Diamond when I got him a puppy. He literally sniffed and walked away. Now he enjoys eating this brand so much, he makes sure I watch him eat....and he jumps with joy when I compliment him on eating so much~! I've never noticed any sensitivties (sp) with him eating it. Even the Vet told me that this is a high quality of food. The only place I can get this at is "Petsmart", which I was told that the breeders have special ordered it and that is why sometimes it is unavailable. Is that true~? What other brands are high quality~? This is like really expensive too, and the most I have spent on all 8+ foods I have tried on him. Supposily this was made by a Vet for dogs (of all kinds) whom are picky eaters. Is that true, as well~?

[Sunny95]

Currently, that is what Ginger is eating and she LOVES it! I had a hard time finding some of the higher end foods that were mentioned on here by other YT members. RC was readily available and Ginger seems happy for now. I'm not against trying others either if I could just find them.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom

Royal Canin does contain fillers and allergens, so if your dog is sensitive to those, it wouldn't be a good food to give. Also, since acquired allergies can happen to dogs, I personally wouldn't feed a food that has known allergens in it - esp. corn - but that's just my personal belief. Also, just bc vets recommend it (and they receive kickbacks on RC and Science Diet, btw) does not mean at all that it's a good food. In my opinion, there are far better options out there.

I don't believe that vets recommend a food because they get a kickback from the company. If by kickback, you mean they purchase the foods wholesale and sell them retail, than yes, anybody who sells anything gets a "kickback". If vets truly believed that these alternative diets were better, they could sell those, and get a kickback from those companies. In fact, the profit ratio of the small companies is much larger than that of the large companies. Meaning the person selling the food gets a much higher profit. Vets who sell food do it more as a service to their customers instead of a way to generate income. How about the vet who sells no food, is he still getting the kickback when he recommends a certain food? Or is the kickback in the form of grants to veterinary schools, and vets are forever grateful? Just using the word kickback implies the vets are doing something unethical, that they know better, but that dollar they make from selling the food, is more important than your dogs health. I would never see a vet that I felt this way about. Look at all the other ways they could earn money from your dog, if they were unethical.

This kickback theory is repeated often, and I believe it started by the alternative food companies who wanted a good reason why vets weren't recommending their foods. I do believe that vets are very interested in your dog's health, and they have NOT been convinced that these alternative foods, and diets are indeed better, and more importantly, safer. Remember, a physician's rule of "first do no harm?" This is a rule doctor's take very seriously. Doctors are scientists and they need scientific proof. While popular writing constantly comes up with new theories that are discussed as facts, science doesn't change that rapidly. It's better to go along with an outdated notion, then push for a new idea that later turns out to be deadly. How many times have we seen new medicines come out and even some that have been thoroughly tested, but with more information, found that these things weren't such a good idea after all. Following your vet's advice on diet, may not give your dog the "best" diet, but it will be a relatively safe diet.

To the OP, regarding Royal Canine, Joey's been eating it for several years, and did very well on it, he was extremely fussy, and it was one of the only foods he would eat. He doesn't suffer from allergies, and he never had any tummy upsets or gas. We recently decided to try another food because he seemed hungry all the time, and I thought this might have something to do with the corn, and the way it was metabolized. We are switching to Blue Wilderness, and yay he loves it, and so far no tummy upsets. It rated higher the RC in various dog-rating guides, and you can still purchase it at a major pet store like Petsmart, or Petco, and this for me, is an important factor, in choosing a food.


Here's the ingredients and rating of RC, Dog Food Reviews - Royal Canin Mini Yorkshire 28 - Powered by ReviewPost, and here is Blue Wilderness Dog Food Reviews - Blue Wilderness - Powered by ReviewPost. As far as I've learned, the ratings aren't done by anyone with special training, but most of what I've read makes sense.

[veggienut]

I read the review on Royal Canine, as well as others. A lot of them say it is for "large breed dogs", like Call of the Wild.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by veggienut

I read the review on Royal Canine, as well as others. A lot of them say it is for "large breed dogs", like Call of the Wild.

I'm not familar with Call of the Wild, but for Blue Wilderness it says,

The only caution we would make on this food is that the high protein content may make it suitable for adult dogs only, particularly in the case of large breeds.

So this means that it shouldn't be used for puppies, especially large breed puppies.

I really prefer a food that is recommended for a specific breed. I think that different breeds do better on different diets. For example, some active breeds might do better with more protein than a more sedimentary dog. Giving the same diet to an extreme athlete, and a couch potato doesn't make sense to me. This was the primary reservation I had with Blue Wilderness. I also take into account the "snacks" I give Joey, and I use to give him more liver treats, and occasionally chicken, which upped his total protein, I now give him more green beans and no supplemental protein, so I thought this would be OK. However, I don't really know the "ideal' protein count for Yorkies.

[Wylie's Mom]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

Just using the word kickback implies the vets are doing something unethical, that they know better, but that dollar they make from selling the food, is more important than your dogs health. I would never see a vet that I felt this way about. Look at all the other ways they could earn money from your dog, if they were unethical.

Remember, a physician's rule of "first do no harm?" This is a rule doctor's take very seriously. Doctors are scientists and they need scientific proof.

Following your vet's advice on diet, may not give your dog the "best" diet, but it will be a relatively safe diet.

Speaking of the majority of vets with whom I've had experience ....if they followed the Hippocratic Oath of do no harm, not to mention following published studies PROVING, scientifically, that they should change protocols -- then overvaccination would have been a thing of the past years ago.

Instead, we hear of vet practices sending memos to their vets instructing them not to teach clients about Core vaccines and not to teach them about the 2003 AAHA findings or the 2006 AAHA findings. Why? Revenue, period. Vets who continue to overvaccinate, for years now, are not following the Hippocratic Oath, nor are they operating from science-based protocols. They are operating from a revenue-based protocol. That, to me , IS unethical.

They have foods on their shelves that contain (and clearly list) ethoxyquin and menadione, among other things. That, to me, IS unethical. With very little knowledge about nutrition (vast majority of vets), they are selling nutrition to their clients - clients who might have blind faith in the Vet's authority and knowledge of what they are selling. Sorry, but that bothers me greatly.

I'm just not looking for "relatively safe" vet care - which is why I will advocate to my last breath for my own dogs' health and others -- which may be in direct opposition to what is the current "norm" in many vet practices. Because it is the norm, it does not mean we should accept it or assume it is in our dogs' best health.

I don't mean to go off here, but I'm especially sensitive to this issue today - my vet made a massive mistake with Marcel today (and I also learned of one which she made a year ago). While I try to be diligent and attentive and knowledgeable - I failed. I trusted my vet too much and I should've trusted my gut.

And btw, I also think much of this applies to human doctors - a person should never just blindly trust a human doctor either. We should always inform ourselves about health, whether it be our own or that of a pet.

[C C Kent]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

I'm not familar with Call of the Wild, but for Blue Wilderness it says,

The only caution we would make on this food is that the high protein content may make it suitable for adult dogs only, particularly in the case of large breeds.

So this means that it shouldn't be used for puppies, especially large breed puppies.

Science has given us the ability to produce a puppy food so high in available nutrients as to increase the growth rate of the bone in a puppy. The muscles, tendons, and ligaments that keep these bones, and joints, in proper alignment do not respond in the same way to the same nutrition. When the bones grow too fast, the misaligned growth becomes permanent if it's not corrected before the growth plates close. Some examples of this are extreme and others are less so. The large breed puppy is more susceptible because the growth rate is incredible, even without the super food. The ideal growth rate is the slowest growth possible given that all basic nutrition is afforded. This gives the DNA time to fulfill it's potential without a growth plate closing, making a nutritionally forced imbalance permanent.

[Woogie Man]

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom

I don't mean to go off here, but I'm especially sensitive to this issue today - my vet made a massive mistake with Marcel today (and I also learned of one which she made a year ago). While I try to be diligent and attentive and knowledgeable - I failed. I trusted my vet too much and I should've trusted my gut.

Ann, I hope it wasn't anything that put Marcel at risk. With the itty-bitty guys, we have to be so careful. Even though it was the vet doing it, I know what you mean about the sense of failure. Best wishes for Marcel.