Quote:
Originally Posted by Yorkiemom1  I love the facts provided in this article....clear, precise, easily understood, even has a little diagram of an "ingredients" label and what portion of that list contains the information that should be looked at, what should be contained in that list, and why that section is important. Those "dastardly villians" corn, fillers and by-products, as well as a clear explanation of exactly WHAT by law is contained in by products, are explained clearly as well as why these items are NOT toxic to our pets but really are essential and desirable in their diets.
If people choose not to feed a dog food that contains these ingredients (corn, fillers, by-products) to their pet, that is their choice and fine for them. My problem is when any dog food is "bashed" or called "crap", by people with no complete knowledge or understanding of pet nutrition, simply because it contains these items. Respected vet nutritionists who have no financial interest, no agenda, nor outcome in "promoting" these ingredients in any dog food, try to clarify the importance/use of these ingredients in any dog food, and try to educate us on details of ingredients, even something as simple as how to PROPERLY read and assess an ingredients label on a bag of dog food!!
If people choose to follow opinion rather than the reality of science based, evidenced based clinical trials/outcomes, that is their decision and best of luck with that.... I just hate to see people that come looking for accurate recommendations on what to consider in a dog food, blindly led to believe that another individual's choice and/or opinion, especially about "fillers, corn, and by-products" negates or debunks the value of knowledgable vet nutritionists, and the science behind formulations of dog food products.
This article should be required reading by every pet owner....it may help clarify what is actual truth versus opinion about ingredients and how to properly read a label. |
I do believe Dr. Remillard article may be helpful for some, I don't see how her article conflicts with this one though. He doesn't say "corn is bad." He believes meat should be first. If you know of any studies that speak of the optimum level or protein for dogs, I would love to read them, but our knowledge of nutrition is evolving and there is a lot of evidence to suggest dogs do well on 30 or more percent protein compared to the 24% found in many dog foods. I'm not sure how Dr. Remillards article helps anyone pick a good dog food, basically she's saying that any dog food that has AFFCO's statement of feeding tests and says it's “complete and balanced nutrition” is a good choice. I think this is a starting place, not an ending place.
I'm kind of confused why you are saying, If people choose to follow
opinion rather than the
reality of science based, evidenced based clinical trials/outcomes, that is their decision and best of luck with that...." what makes you say this? What in the article makes you think this?