Originally Posted by Ellie May (Post 3619648)

"Protein
Free amino acids (i.e. phenylalanine, tryptophan, and valine) in the duodenum are a strong stimulus for pancreatic secretion, in fact, more so than fat. 49 Therefore, excess dietary protein should be avoided, while providing adequate protein for recovery and tissue repair. Protein levels (DMB) of 15 to 30% for dogs and 30 to 45% for cats are appropriate."

49 Go VLW. Hofmann AF, Summerskill WFJ. Pancreozymin assay in man based on pancreatic enzyme secretion. Potency of specific amino acids and other digestive products. Journal of Clinical Investigation 1970; 49: 1558-1564.

"Feeding a high-fat (>20% DMB) food, treat or table food has often been associated with the onset of acute pancreatitis. Experimentally, feeding high-fat, low-protein foods was associated with the development of pancreatitis and hepatic lipidosis changes in dogs. 43, 44"

43 Lindsay S, Entenman C, Chaikoff IL. Pancreatitis accompanying hepatic disease in dogs fed a high fat, low protein diet. Archives of Pathology 1948; 45: 635-638.

44 Goodhead B. Importance of nutrition in the pathogenesis of experimental pancreatitis in the dog. Archives of Surgery 1971; 103: 724-728.

And a note from the chapter about digestibility:
"Carbohydrates make up the largest nonwater fraction of foods formulated for managing GI diseases. Carbohydrate digestibility of pet foods is influenced by source and processing. Dogs digest most properly cooked starches very well, including starch components in corn, rice, barley, and wheat. Other starches, including potato and tapioca, are less digestible, particularly when inadequately cooked."

All taken from:
Small Animal Clinical Nutrition 4th Edition
Hand, Thatcher, Remillard, Roudebush

Hope this helps some.
The second excerpt is just showing where the WDJ got some info from about low protein diets triggering pancreatitis. Those diets appear to have also been high in fat...

The last one is just something about digestibility. I have NO IDEA what ingredients Jackson will do best on. He may do fine on everything that is low fat. That'd be great. But it's just an example of what your vet might be talking about when expressing concern over ingredient found in tons of the newer holistic food. I also have no idea if he will need a highly digestible food. Maybe not. But your vet may feel the major brands are more digestible because most include grain. Sooo, all that to say that may be what your vet meant by ingredient differences.

Originally Posted by Britster (Post 3620293)

I take him tomorrow at 3pm for the bloodwork to be sent out to the lab. I'll give him his last meal tonight around 8pm or so...

Originally Posted by 107barney (Post 3620632)

Since the topic of bully sticks came up recently and especially here, some here expressed concern about bully sticks being fed. I took it upon myself to inquire with a board certified vet nutritionist for my own curiosity and I just got a reply. Here is my question, followed by her answers:

Q: In general, what is your opinion of bully sticks as chews for dogs?
A: High protein and sometimes high in fat ....

Q: And specificially, if a dog has a history of acute pancreatitis, can he have bully sticks such as the ones made by the Merrick company? They are low in fat at 1.5% but protein is high.
A: That 1.5% is a minimum not the actual content. Both high fat, and sometimes more so, high protein tips off a pancreatitis. I would not feed it to dog with a history of pancreatitis that required hospitalization.

Originally Posted by Nancy1999 (Post 3620670)

Oh great, what a crazy way of labeling why would someone want to know the minimum level of fat? I want to know the maximum level. Thanks for taking the time to do this.

Originally Posted by Ellie May (Post 3620674)

This is how most dog foods are labeled. So a food that reads 18% minimum fat, it can be much higher (like 22%).

Originally Posted by Ellie May (Post 3620778)

While we're on the bully topic, I found this interesting:
http://www.royalcanin.us/adx/aspx/ad...roceedings.pdf

Might have to cut and paste to Google.

Clostridium has been found (which is old news), but now MRSA has been found. Very interesting.

Originally Posted by Ellie May (Post 3620362)

Brit, I don't know. If they were just monitoring lipase/amylase, then maybe they didn't feel a cPL was needed. But then after it came back high last time, yes, they should have done it then in theory.

This test is what we use to monitor E's pancreas. If she is having issues, this is right where I go. Not wrong to go to lipase and amylase (seeing the CBC and such is important in pancreatitis patients), but for us this is how we know there is a problem. He lipase has been high while having a normal cPL (but she also has intestinal problems).

It's not wrong of them to keep doing blood. I wonder if they ahve a lack of direction though. I'd be interesting in seeing what the plan is if the cPL is abnormal. They might have an idea yet.

Why drawing out of the leg? Why not jugular?