YorkieTalk.com Forums - Yorkshire Terrier Community - View Single Post

ladyjane · 11-17-2013, 09:41 PM

A good read from PetDiets - VNC putting your pet's health first .. for more than 20 yrs!

This is written by Dr. Remillard and here is her resume: http://petdiets.com/userfiles/files/...bbrev%20CV.pdf

Question:

I have really enjoyed your website; I think you've done an excellent job of debunking a lot of the misconceptions about commercial pet foods, raw feeding, etc. However, I am having an extremely difficult time coming to grips with some of the things that you have said. I realize that your expertise in this area is far greater than mine, but there are some things that just don't make sense to me. For example, why do you place so much emphasis on AAFCO testing? There are some truly horrible foods on the market that have been AAFCO tested. Kibbles 'n' Bits come to mind. As I understand it, AAFCO tests are only conducted for six months and not all the animals that began the trial need to survive in order for the food to "pass." We don't know the breed or age of the animals tested, so how can I determine if a food is good for my dog based on the AAFCO statement?

You state that ingredients do not matter, and that the nutritional profile is what counts. I can understand that - sort of. There is nothing that makes lamb inherently superior to chicken or beef as a protein source. All can be good protein sources for a dog or a cat. However, isn't a meat-based protein superior to a plant-based protein like soybean? Isn't the real reason that soybean is used in pet foods is not because it is a great protein source but because it is cheap? Soy is a lot less digestible than most meat sources of protein, is it not?

Is it your position that it does not matter whatsoever if a dog is fed a grocery store brand like Pedigree or Purina Dog Chow, or if a premium brand like Science Diet or Eukanuba? Which would you typically recommend for a healthy adult dog - Dog Chow or Science Diet? And why? Both have been AAFCO tested and are supposedly nutritionally complete. What's the difference between these foods, other than price?

When I look at the ingredients labels of foods like Innova or Canidae, I know exactly what is in those foods. When I look at the ingredients label of Science Diet, I see a lot of grains, soy, meat by-products, and chemical preservatives. Yet I am sure you would recommend Science Diet over either Innova or Canidae. And with all due respect, that just seems to defy common sense. How can you say that ingredients do not matter? Don't higher-quality ingredients result in a better-quality food?

I suppose you must think that I am being duped by marketing hype, but I honestly feel more comfortable feeding my dogs foods made by smaller companies who are committed to using higher-quality ingredients, and I don't mind paying a bit more for that. I don't care about AAFCO testing, as long as MY dogs are doing well on a food. I don't feel comfortable feeding anything made by Hill's, Purina, Waltham, or Iams. What am I missing?

I am not trying to be argumentative; I truly do respect your opinions. But I am really confused. Were you general practitioner veterinarians, I would probably dismiss some of what you say as the result of inadequate education about nutrition in vet school. But clearly that is not the case. But there is something fundamental in your philosophy that I just don't get. Could you please explain it to me? Thank you in advance for your time.

--------------------- Answer :

Yes, many but not all foods have passed AAFCO feeding trials. Yes the test is 6 months long (which is longer than most of my client feed any one product), and yes we only know they are adults and any breed can be used. But I'll take that over a product that has not been tested and has some melodious sounding ingredients concocted by some marketing guru. It may interest you to know that there are foods that fail the AAFCO feeding tests. My point is simply, "any product having passed an AAFCO feeding trial is worthy of being tested on your dog if you are looking for another product." Not all foods that have passed are the same. If you choose to feed a dog food that has not been AAFCO tested, then you are doing the testing which is fine as long as you realize that the company has taken to "cheaper" route.

Sorry. The ingredients list cannot and should not be used to assess the quality of a dog food. Please disregard the self proclaiming pundits who say you can. It simply cannot be done. In fact AAFCO and FDA guard against it. Soybean happens to be an excellent protein source for dogs. The amino acid profile is similar to that required by the dog, it carries with it some fats, starches and minerals. It is one of the few plant sources that actually contribute calcium to the diet. In general, egg is better than red meat is better than white meat is better than plant material in their amino acid profile for dogs. But there are exceptions to the rule. No, soybean is not necessarily the cheapest. Check out the price of grains and compare it to corn or wheat or rice.

Common sense and simple math indicate that a grain should be the first in the ingredient list, not meat. The dog only requires ~25% protein, 10% fat and all the vitamins and minerals easily fit into another 10%. So what is there left to make up the last 55%? There are only 5 nutrients (protein, fat, carbohydrates, vitamins and minerals) ????

There are some dogs that can do very well on garbage and then there are dogs that need particular ingredients in order to have a well functioning GI tract. They are all individuals. Thank god there are thousands of pet food products from which to choose.

I do have to disagree with your love of the small company. I do believe you have fallen to their very slick marketing. Small companies from a common business sense simply cannot compete with a large company on several levels of production in providing a consistently sound nutritionally complete diet. I'll give just one example.

Thank you for your compliments. There are only about 50 such veterinarians in the world that have a combined expertise of veterinary medicine and animal nutrition (about half have expertise in dogs and cats) (see American College of Veterinary Nutrition). Would it surprise you to know that only 4 pet food companies, out of several hundred, employ veterinary nutritionists? Four very large companies employ at least one and in some cases more than one. These are not people who can be bought. These are people I know very well and they would not stay where they are unless they were convinced they were making a good product. These are people who are very disturbed by the misinformation peddled to pet owners in the game of gaining market share. Not one of your “small” companies has hired a veterinary nutritionist. Why not?

11-17-2013, 09:41 PM	#49
ladyjane Resident Yorkie Nut Donating YT 20K Club Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Texas Posts: 27,490	A good read from PetDiets - VNC putting your pet's health first .. for more than 20 yrs! This is written by Dr. Remillard and here is her resume: http://petdiets.com/userfiles/files/...bbrev%20CV.pdf Question: I have really enjoyed your website; I think you've done an excellent job of debunking a lot of the misconceptions about commercial pet foods, raw feeding, etc. However, I am having an extremely difficult time coming to grips with some of the things that you have said. I realize that your expertise in this area is far greater than mine, but there are some things that just don't make sense to me. For example, why do you place so much emphasis on AAFCO testing? There are some truly horrible foods on the market that have been AAFCO tested. Kibbles 'n' Bits come to mind. As I understand it, AAFCO tests are only conducted for six months and not all the animals that began the trial need to survive in order for the food to "pass." We don't know the breed or age of the animals tested, so how can I determine if a food is good for my dog based on the AAFCO statement? You state that ingredients do not matter, and that the nutritional profile is what counts. I can understand that - sort of. There is nothing that makes lamb inherently superior to chicken or beef as a protein source. All can be good protein sources for a dog or a cat. However, isn't a meat-based protein superior to a plant-based protein like soybean? Isn't the real reason that soybean is used in pet foods is not because it is a great protein source but because it is cheap? Soy is a lot less digestible than most meat sources of protein, is it not? Is it your position that it does not matter whatsoever if a dog is fed a grocery store brand like Pedigree or Purina Dog Chow, or if a premium brand like Science Diet or Eukanuba? Which would you typically recommend for a healthy adult dog - Dog Chow or Science Diet? And why? Both have been AAFCO tested and are supposedly nutritionally complete. What's the difference between these foods, other than price? When I look at the ingredients labels of foods like Innova or Canidae, I know exactly what is in those foods. When I look at the ingredients label of Science Diet, I see a lot of grains, soy, meat by-products, and chemical preservatives. Yet I am sure you would recommend Science Diet over either Innova or Canidae. And with all due respect, that just seems to defy common sense. How can you say that ingredients do not matter? Don't higher-quality ingredients result in a better-quality food? I suppose you must think that I am being duped by marketing hype, but I honestly feel more comfortable feeding my dogs foods made by smaller companies who are committed to using higher-quality ingredients, and I don't mind paying a bit more for that. I don't care about AAFCO testing, as long as MY dogs are doing well on a food. I don't feel comfortable feeding anything made by Hill's, Purina, Waltham, or Iams. What am I missing? I am not trying to be argumentative; I truly do respect your opinions. But I am really confused. Were you general practitioner veterinarians, I would probably dismiss some of what you say as the result of inadequate education about nutrition in vet school. But clearly that is not the case. But there is something fundamental in your philosophy that I just don't get. Could you please explain it to me? Thank you in advance for your time. --------------------- Answer : Yes, many but not all foods have passed AAFCO feeding trials. Yes the test is 6 months long (which is longer than most of my client feed any one product), and yes we only know they are adults and any breed can be used. But I'll take that over a product that has not been tested and has some melodious sounding ingredients concocted by some marketing guru. It may interest you to know that there are foods that fail the AAFCO feeding tests. My point is simply, "any product having passed an AAFCO feeding trial is worthy of being tested on your dog if you are looking for another product." Not all foods that have passed are the same. If you choose to feed a dog food that has not been AAFCO tested, then you are doing the testing which is fine as long as you realize that the company has taken to "cheaper" route. Sorry. The ingredients list cannot and should not be used to assess the quality of a dog food. Please disregard the self proclaiming pundits who say you can. It simply cannot be done. In fact AAFCO and FDA guard against it. Soybean happens to be an excellent protein source for dogs. The amino acid profile is similar to that required by the dog, it carries with it some fats, starches and minerals. It is one of the few plant sources that actually contribute calcium to the diet. In general, egg is better than red meat is better than white meat is better than plant material in their amino acid profile for dogs. But there are exceptions to the rule. No, soybean is not necessarily the cheapest. Check out the price of grains and compare it to corn or wheat or rice. Common sense and simple math indicate that a grain should be the first in the ingredient list, not meat. The dog only requires ~25% protein, 10% fat and all the vitamins and minerals easily fit into another 10%. So what is there left to make up the last 55%? There are only 5 nutrients (protein, fat, carbohydrates, vitamins and minerals) ???? There are some dogs that can do very well on garbage and then there are dogs that need particular ingredients in order to have a well functioning GI tract. They are all individuals. Thank god there are thousands of pet food products from which to choose. I do have to disagree with your love of the small company. I do believe you have fallen to their very slick marketing. Small companies from a common business sense simply cannot compete with a large company on several levels of production in providing a consistently sound nutritionally complete diet. I'll give just one example. Thank you for your compliments. There are only about 50 such veterinarians in the world that have a combined expertise of veterinary medicine and animal nutrition (about half have expertise in dogs and cats) (see American College of Veterinary Nutrition). Would it surprise you to know that only 4 pet food companies, out of several hundred, employ veterinary nutritionists? Four very large companies employ at least one and in some cases more than one. These are not people who can be bought. These are people I know very well and they would not stay where they are unless they were convinced they were making a good product. These are people who are very disturbed by the misinformation peddled to pet owners in the game of gaining market share. Not one of your “small” companies has hired a veterinary nutritionist. Why not? __________________ CLOUD NINE BEDS--YORKIE HAVEN RESCUE MY ETSY SHOP Last edited by ladyjane; 11-17-2013 at 09:44 PM.