Orijen Regional Red

[Wylie's Mom]

Originally Posted by Lovetodream88

Techs and Vets have to have a certain amount of hours logged each year for continued education like going to seminars and stuff and Hills has many of these so its easier to find and do it with them then with others. But my instructor said you would be extremely surprised with how awesome their facilities are in fact she will be out of town this week at one of those conference seminar things and we are having our lab instructor fill in for the lecture part. I also have noticed a lot of vets are switching to Royal Canin over hills because it more palatable, my vet only has Royal Canin. The amount of research that Royal Canin, Hills and even Purina put into their foods is amazing. I trust them over other company's any day. Their is a certain amount of nutrition they do go over in school its just not to the extent of say an animal nutritionist.

Yes, I do know about CEUs since my bachelors degree is in nursing. And I also know about "facilities" of companies like Hills, big pharma, and big bio-tech - as I worked in the medical side for 7 years and we hosted physicians at our "facilities". That they're "nice" just means they spent a TON of money in order to cater to / sell to their clients (vets, nurses, doctors whatever).

Just bc a company does more research than another company, it doesn't equate to meaning it's a better food. Royal Canin may do a lot of research...um, and...? I still don't think their food makes sense for dogs, and never will. Dog food trials/research are not uncommon....not sure why you have that idea.

The very fact you're so focused, always (to the exclusion of all else, it seems), on Hills/SD/RC makes me wonder how much they're sponsoring at the school you're attending. Which is exactly their goal with schools!

[Lovetodream88]

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom

Yes, I do know about CEUs since my bachelors degree is in nursing. And I also know about "facilities" of companies like Hills, big pharma, and big bio-tech - as I worked in the medical side for 7 years and we hosted physicians at our "facilities". That they're "nice" just means they spent a TON of money in order to cater to / sell to their clients (vets, nurses, doctors whatever).

Just bc a company does more research than another company, it doesn't equate to meaning it's a better food. Royal Canin may do a lot of research...um, and...? I still don't think their food makes sense for dogs, and never will. Dog food trials/research are not uncommon....not sure why you have that idea.

The very fact you're so focused, always (to the exclusion of all else, it seems), on Hills/SD/RC makes me wonder how much they're sponsoring at the school you're attending. Which is exactly their goal with schools!

I am going to the community college and doing a program created by a 20+ year vet tech no sponsoring done by anyone. Sorry to let you down on that. What I am saying is what I have learned and fully believe. There are A LOT of dog food company's many just get a recipe that the AAFCO says is ok and throw it together and slap it in stores with no care for if it actually works and no research behind it two things that are extremely important. We could use Blue Buffalo as a huge example they lied about what is in there food and they spend more money on marketing then their food. To much of one part of their food has made dogs sick so if they took the time to look at their food and really work on it then it might not have and they might not have been sued. Let's also keep in mind Callie has IBD before it was diagnosed I tried every food minus Nutro, Merrick and Purina do to distrust of those company's and some may have lessened or worsened the issues but none fixed the issues and yes even freeze dried raw was tried and she had the worst reaction to that. When I took her to the vet the third time for liquid diarrhea and the need of fluids my vet said I really feel that with her allergie issues that this is IBD and she explained it to me for a long time and said we like and use Royal Canin prescription foods and there are three that can really help two of which were limited ingredient with a meat source that normally doesn't have allergic reactions to and then the hypoallergenic. Knowing my girl I asked lots of questions exspecially piece size and found out they had a small breed. We ordered it and kept her on a bland diet until it came in and it worked amazingly with no issues! She was no longer needing fluids and was thriving. I owe a lot to RC. I'm not being brain washed by Hills or Royal Canin I am taking what I have been taught and using that in my experience to make my own conclusions and decisions. I am simply trying to help others see there is more to it then ingredients.

[Wylie's Mom]

Originally Posted by Lovetodream88

I am going to the community college and doing a program created by a 20+ year vet tech no sponsoring done by anyone. Sorry to let you down on that. What I am saying is what I have learned and fully believe. There are A LOT of dog food company's many just get a recipe that the AAFCO says is ok and throw it together and slap it in stores with no care for if it actually works and no research behind it two things that are extremely important. We could use Blue Buffalo as a huge example they lied about what is in there food and they spend more money on marketing then their food. To much of one part of their food has made dogs sick so if they took the time to look at their food and really work on it then it might not have and they might not have been sued. Let's also keep in mind Callie has IBD before it was diagnosed I tried every food minus Nutro, Merrick and Purina do to distrust of those company's and some may have lessened or worsened the issues but none fixed the issues and yes even freeze dried raw was tried and she had the worst reaction to that. When I took her to the vet the third time for liquid diarrhea and the need of fluids my vet said I really feel that with her allergie issues that this is IBD and she explained it to me for a long time and said we like and use Royal Canin prescription foods and there are three that can really help two of which were limited ingredient with a meat source that normally doesn't have allergic reactions to and then the hypoallergenic. Knowing my girl I asked lots of questions exspecially piece size and found out they had a small breed. We ordered it and kept her on a bland diet until it came in and it worked amazingly with no issues! She was no longer needing fluids and was thriving. I owe a lot to RC. I'm not being brain washed by Hills or Royal Canin I am taking what I have been taught and using that in my experience to make my own conclusions and decisions. I am simply trying to help others see there is more to it then ingredients.

I feel like what I said made you angry/upset - not my intention .

I think my point may have been lost though; I'm not referring to your personal experience with Callie - which has been positive (that's wonderful).

I'm referring to your black and white thinking in reference to dog foods / research / companies etcetera - and the utterly *massive* amounts of marketing money these companies spend in order to get you to say exactly what you're always saying. I think it would sound/be more credible if you opened your mind and saw the industry within a bigger picture...do you know what I mean?

Also, I think it's very important to really look at food trials / research and their necessity bc I think you have a misguided impression there. It seems as if you think that for a food to be deemed "worthy or good", it must have all this research done prior to release. And that's simply just not true. Sometimes it's really helpful to think of this subject in human terms...let's look at a human grocery stores and allllll the food it contains in there. How much of it was researched before being released to market....??!!!?? How many "human food trials" were done... ..? Is it still worthy and safe, within what we already know as "defined as safe"...?

Food trials / research / science can indeed be important when trying to evaluate actual prescription and targeted diets - no argument there. But as far as regular food ingredients that are already known as safe and nutritional - it makes no sense to spent copious amounts of money/time on unnecessary food trials that really offer no value whatsoever to the consumer or to the dogs.

There are countless *great* dog foods out on the market - and they really do not need food trials and research to be a great dog food.

[Lovetodream88]

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom

I feel like what I said made you angry/upset - not my intention .

I think my point may have been lost though; I'm not referring to your personal experience with Callie - which has been positive (that's wonderful).

I'm referring to your black and white thinking in reference to dog foods / research / companies etcetera - and the utterly *massive* amounts of marketing money these companies spend in order to get you to say exactly what you're always saying. I think it would sound/be more credible if you opened your mind and saw the industry within a bigger picture...do you know what I mean?

Also, I think it's very important to really look at food trials / research and their necessity bc I think you have a misguided impression there. It seems as if you think that for a food to be deemed "worthy or good", it must have all this research done prior to release. And that's simply just not true. Sometimes it's really helpful to think of this subject in human terms...let's look at a human grocery stores and allllll the food it contains in there. How much of it was researched before being released to market....??!!!?? How many "human food trials" were done... ..? Is it still worthy and safe, within what we already know as "defined as safe"...?

Food trials / research / science can indeed be important when trying to evaluate actual prescription and targeted diets - no argument there. But as far as regular food ingredients that are already known as safe and nutritional - it makes no sense to spent copious amounts of money/time on unnecessary food trials that really offer no value whatsoever to the consumer or to the dogs.

There are countless *great* dog foods out on the market - and they really do not need food trials and research to be a great dog food.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree, I will never believe that it's all just about ingredients. I do think openly bashing ingredients is bad because you are going to get people who think oh such and such ingredients are just terrible and then if their dog gets seriously sick and would benefit from a prescription diet they look at the ingredients and see some they have been told are bad and then refuse to give it to their dog and the poor dog is left suffering.

[yorkiemini]

Frankly is a vet thinks a dog needs a medical diet that is a whole different issue. It is the illness that they are treating the main issue is not ingredients.

I am into wholesome ingredients for my dog just as I am for myself. I look at the ingredients to determine fat, carbs, and protein for my dog and what I eat.

Currently we are driven by all those things as well as kibble size because she is so small the big kibbles without causing sores in her mouth.

But she is very healthy so I just watch for the best ingredient and manufacturer reputation. Recalls are not a good sign!

We can't feed raw because she is in the hospital almost every day and because many of the patients are so ill the hospitals won't risk raw diet issues.

Many prescription diets are not the kind of food I would ordinarypily care to feed my dog, but if her health demanded it I would, without reservation, go that direction!

[cellanjie]

To say a dog food is "not all about ingredients" is just silly, imo. For some supposed "scientists" to mix trash to make magic food is beyond ridiculous. Garbage in. Garbage out. It's common sense.

Granted the mix of wholesome ingredients could be fine-tuned to be better than others, but to mix garbage ingredients such as corn hulls that are indigestible to dogs, chicken beaks swept off the slaughterhouse floor, and carmel coloring that is known to cause cancer and claim it is wholesome and charge big dollars for trash should be criminal imo.

Both Hills and Royal Canin use these disgusting ingredients and more. Those listed above are just the tip of the iceberg.

Just my two cents.

[yorkiemini]

Originally Posted by cellanjie

To say a dog food is "not all about ingredients" is just silly, imo. For some supposed "scientists" to mix trash to make magic food is beyond ridiculous. Garbage in. Garbage out. It's common sense.

Granted the mix of wholesome ingredients could be fine-tuned to be better than others, but to mix garbage ingredients such as corn hulls that are indigestible to dogs, chicken beaks swept off the slaughterhouse floor, and carmel coloring that is known to cause cancer and claim it is wholesome and charge big dollars for trash should be criminal imo.

Both Hills and Royal Canin use these disgusting ingredients and more. Those listed above are just the tip of the iceberg.

Just my two cents.

Nothing wholesome about questionable sources. That is why most of us don't go for foods from china etc. in our pups dog food. Also, the food preparation sites are often of interest.


All that being said, I have seen dogs put on prescription food that I ordinarily would have considered crap and seen them do very well on it and improve.

[sandy simpson]

I agree with the fact that if a dog develops an illness like my Spud did, pancreatitis, I had to go special diet from vet. I will not feed royal canin or science diet. I still can't understand why a reputable company would sell food that has questionable ingredients in it. I admire the Yorkie lovers who spend time searching for the best nutritious foods out there. Then sharing the results with others. Thanks for sharing.

[Wylie's Mom]

Originally Posted by Lovetodream88

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree, I will never believe that it's all just about ingredients. I do think openly bashing ingredients is bad because you are going to get people who think oh such and such ingredients are just terrible and then if their dog gets seriously sick and would benefit from a prescription diet they look at the ingredients and see some they have been told are bad and then refuse to give it to their dog and the poor dog is left suffering.

*Sigh*.

Taylor, I wonder if you realize what you're really saying / admitting to above...?

You're saying: "it's wrong to just blindly believe that this or that ingredient is bad bc they have been told it's bad".

My point has been that this is exactly how you're thinking about dog food as well: you seem blinded by this belief that everything that goes into a dog's mouth must be preceded by a randomized double-blind study, bc someone told you that's what's 'good'...! Do you realize that's just an opinion...? And not a factual one, at that...?

In other words, you're using your black-and-white thinking about dog foods to basically accuse others of black-and-white thinking about dog foods!

The way you're talking about research makes me think you haven't really read these dog-food trials. If you'd read them, I think you'd have a WAY different understanding of their *actual* value toward any outcome or claim. Do you understand why/how they're so flimsy in value...?

[Lovetodream88]

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom

*Sigh*.

Taylor, I wonder if you realize what you're really saying / admitting to above...?

You're saying: "it's wrong to just blindly believe that this or that ingredient is bad bc they have been told it's bad".

My point has been that this is exactly how you're thinking about dog food as well: you seem blinded by this belief that everything that goes into a dog's mouth must be preceded by a randomized double-blind study, bc someone told you that's what's 'good'...! Do you realize that's just an opinion...? And not a factual one, at that...?

In other words, you're using your black-and-white thinking about dog foods to basically accuse others of black-and-white thinking about dog foods!

The way you're talking about research makes me think you haven't really read these dog-food trials. If you'd read them, I think you'd have a WAY different understanding of their *actual* value toward any outcome or claim. Do you understand why/how they're so flimsy in value...?

I'm sorry you think that, I'm useing my sources of my education and then my experiences. Hills feeds dogs their certain amount of food and then continue to weigh them and do lab work on them through out the trial. I'm not sure how other places do them. Hills was the one we were talking about in class because my instructor has toured a few of their facilities. Ingredients isn't everything. Look at blue buffalo it looked like a great food but the company was sued and lost because they lied about there ingredients. They also put more money into advertising then their food and the issues with their food like when they get to many life source bits and that makes dogs sick. They are rated a top food only based on their ingredients but if you look deeper they shouldn't be. I just personally don't think it ALL about ingredients but also about the company.

[Lovetodream88]

Originally Posted by cellanjie

To say a dog food is "not all about ingredients" is just silly, imo. For some supposed "scientists" to mix trash to make magic food is beyond ridiculous. Garbage in. Garbage out. It's common sense.

Granted the mix of wholesome ingredients could be fine-tuned to be better than others, but to mix garbage ingredients such as corn hulls that are indigestible to dogs, chicken beaks swept off the slaughterhouse floor, and carmel coloring that is known to cause cancer and claim it is wholesome and charge big dollars for trash should be criminal imo.

Both Hills and Royal Canin use these disgusting ingredients and more. Those listed above are just the tip of the iceberg.

Just my two cents.

That's your opinion...... although if your dog ever gets sick and needs a prescription diet you might feel differently........

[Lovetodream88]

Originally Posted by sandy simpson

I agree with the fact that if a dog develops an illness like my Spud did, pancreatitis, I had to go special diet from vet. I will not feed royal canin or science diet. I still can't understand why a reputable company would sell food that has questionable ingredients in it. I admire the Yorkie lovers who spend time searching for the best nutritious foods out there. Then sharing the results with others. Thanks for sharing.

The ingredients aren't questionable that's the thing. They actually try these foods to see if they actually work and keep the dog healthy. Go ahead and feed blue buffalo which is rated so high because of its ingredients and watch your dog get sick. It's not solely based on ingredients. Not to mention half of what you think is awesome ingredients might not be simply because dog food is not heavily regulated so they can get away most of the time by saying they use a certain ingredient that you think is good but it could just be one part of that ingredient and probably the bad part.

[Lovetodream88]

Food is a very controversial topic. You can very easily offend someone by saying oh your feeding that crap, so you really need to be careful with that. Just because someone is not feeding what you like doesn't mean they haven't put their time and research into it, it just means they came to a different conclusion then you did and that is ok. It does not mean they love their dog any less. What your dog thrives on is what they thrive on. My girl is on prescription food due to IBD and allergies and when we got Joey I tried every puppy food I could and he would not eat any of it but he would eat her food so I let him because it's better then him starving and he has the shiniest softest hair and is doing great so I will just continue to feed it. He came to me on beniful diet food at 9 weeks old after a few days on a different food his big ears started standing and his eyes stopped leaking so bad so their obviously isn't anything terrible about Royal Canin. Dogs are like people what works for some won't work for others. Just please don't call food crap food and make it seem like because someone chose a certain food that they are bad dog owners. I would chose Royal Canin as my go to food over any others whether it is prescription or not but that doesn't make me a bad dog owner. My yorkies are my babies I spend all my money and my time on them and would never do anything to hurt them ever.

[Britster]

I'm somewhere in the middle with this a lot more now than I used to be.

Do I think RC, Hills and Purina are the devil that I used to think they were? No. Hell, I even grab a few cans of Purina Beyond occasionally to feed because the dogs do well on it, it's cheaper than most cans but still decent quality and it is easy to find.

And honestly at this point, I don't put 100% trust or faith in ANY food company -- human or dog. Just because a food can pass many food trials and tests doesn't make it great per say... it just means that it's "working". And I GET why vets promote some of these foods. They're more than likely not going to kill your dog. And if vets kept going around promoting all of these foods that they know nothing about, and a clients dog gets sick, that client is going to then blame the vet for the recommendation. So they stick with what "works" (glad my vet is not like this though....)

But to flat out say ingredients don't matter just seems a bit far fetched to me. Why else would companies like Purina and SD be promoting "grain-free" diets and everything else to cater to other customers? I think ingredients matter to a point. You can technically make a dog food with old leather boots and throw in some other nutrients and make it nutritionally complete. Doesn't mean I want my dog eating that.

These companies with all this research also have a bottom line: money. They are a business. Just as every other food company out there. They sponsor big dog shows, they have big commercials... it just so happens they have the most money to do these things with. And there is nothing wrong with that. Vets have to make a living, the people who work for these companies have to make a living. And not to mention I know plenty of dogs who do great on some of these foods.

I do think there are a ton of well-meaning dog foods out there and companies who just buy ingredient lists formulated and turn it into a "holistic" brand. Dog food, and dog products in general, have turned into a booming business and every one wants a piece. There are many many many foods out there I would choose NOT to feed due to one reason or another (lack of quality control, etc). Just because an ingredient list sounds good doesn't mean it's a good food, just as a food with 'tons of research and trials' doesn't automatically make a food good either. I think there are too many factors involved.

I mean humans can eat those pre-packaged meals which are technically 'healthy' 'okay for consumption' and 'nutritionally complete'. But eating them day after day will take it's toll.

If we are being real here, dogs are scavenger animals. They domesticated on corn mush and scraps and it wasn't that long ago. You think people who were starving were giving their dogs the best money could buy when they could hardly feed themselves? Now, we have come a long way, but I still don't see how having potato and peas in a food is much better than corn and oatmeal. It's all just used as a binder anyway to make kibble into ... kibble. Now the thing is, of course some of these dogs likely weren't thriving, and many modern advances have been made in today's world and what we are willing to do for our pets and how they are treated in today's society vs. back then. But it's always questionable how much of it was diet or simply lifestyle.

Real food is likely always going to best but let's be honest -- most people don't have the time or $$$ for that. So we work with what we got.

I am rambling, I'm tired, and there's simply too many things to factor in to really know for sure what's better or worse at this point. But I think there's room for all views and we all obviously just want the best for our pets. I personally see the best results in my own dog with lower carb, (not necessarily grain-free, but low grains), simpler formulas, moderate protein/fat. Acana just happens to work and fit the bill. Jackson got chubby on RC just as he did on Fromm and I did not like his poops LOL...

[Wylie's Mom]

Brit - you're not rambling, I totally get what you're saying and agree. And like you, I used to feel much more opposed to certain brands/foods - and I no longer feel that black and white about it. Every dog is different and can react differently to whichever food.

I'm not against Hills/SD/RC/Purina etc foods - - however, I really do not like their big-pharma methods of marketing, the results of which we see here at times. It's almost impossible to have a real discussion with someone who believes marketing messages as facts - that's what I really hate seeing. That, and the marketing those companies do with vet students, that's just a disaster in terms of a vet's nutritional education, which is already practically nil.

One thing I really don't like hearing, though, is when people call the Rx diets "crap" etcetera. They can truly, truly be a miracle solution for so many dogs. And honestly, that's where those companies should focus on shining bright. Wish they would.

I could say so many boring things about ingredients ...but I'll refrain. My main concern with ingredients comes from the *fact* that allergies in all canines is rampant (yorkies even more rampant, by far!). Talk to a Vet Derm about the astounding increase in dog allergies over the last 20 years - so interesting! So, I actually do think it's very important to try to feed our dogs in such a way that avoids the higher-potential allergen ingredients like corn / high grains etcetera - it could mean the difference btwn triggering an allergy in your dog, or not. Also btw, the huge increase in dog allergies over the last few decades coincides remarkably with our decades of SO over-vaccinating multiple generations of dogs, which some say is the likely cause of all the allergies we now see today.....making proper vaccinating even more important.

Save