Quote:
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 It's better to go along with an outdated notion, then push for a new idea that later turns out to be deadly.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.
