Purina Ingredients Issue

[mimimomo]

This video is obviously old (2008), but hey it's the (Ex) President of AAFCO!
Video - AAFCO President admits what's in pet food - National American Pit Bull | Examiner.com

[DewiWihardja]

Why would many companies risk that ? I think because they think many wouldn't believe that they are doing that or they think many wouldn't find out.

And I don't know how many big brand, small brands let's forget them for a while but the one I found is Purina as the big brand, the one suspected highly on including dead dogs inside their pet food. Maybe Science Plan, Eukanuba, or Royal Canin surely wouldn't do that it seems til now, only they are experimenting on dogs :-s

[mimimomo]

Originally Posted by DewiWihardja

Why would many companies risk that ? I think because they think many wouldn't believe that they are doing that or they think many wouldn't find out.

And I don't know how many big brand, small brands let's forget them for a while but the one I found is Purina as the big brand, the one suspected highly on including dead dogs inside their pet food. Maybe Science Plan, Eukanuba, or Royal Canin surely wouldn't do that it seems til now, only they are experimenting on dogs :-s

It all comes down to money. I've also read somewhere that Purina has their own rendering plant...that doesn't surprise me & I believe it.
Just avoid pet food containing mystery meat 'meat & bone meal'. If it doesn't say where the source comes from, e.g. chicken, beef, lamb, etc. don't buy it. I also avoid 'natural flavors' & 'animal digest'.

[Britster]

I do understand that testing is sometimes a necessary 'evil'. I am not against humane testing. Afterall, it's our own family and our own pets that we'd like to keep safe.

As far as dog food goes though, I'm not real impressed with a food passing an AAFCO feeding trial in the first place. I mean, yeah, I suppose it's "better than nothing". But I'm not sure it will make that much of a difference in the overall scheme of things.

AAFCO feeding trials consist of at least eight dogs being fed the same diet for a mere 26 weeks (approximately six months). During this time, 25% of the dogs (so, two animals) can be removed from the test (without a reason as to why) and the dogs eating the food can lose up to 15% of their weight and condition; the food will still pass the test and be labeled "complete and balanced." All dogs in the trial are given a complete physical examination at the beginning and end of the test. This 'physical examination' can be provided by any veterinarian including the pet food manufacturer veterinarian; a clear opportunity for bias.

I mean, really, the chance of your dog dying or suffering some big illness from eating ANY dog food is probably very slim anyway. I think some of our "fears" (mine included) are overblown. I'm guilty of it. I always talk about Diamond for example, how I wouldn't touch it, etc. A lot of us are now TERRIFIED of Diamond produced foods. But really? our dogs probably have a one in a million chance of anything happening to them because of dog food. They probably have a higher chance of dying from a snake bite, or something crazy, then dying because of eating pet food. And the only reason I know about all this stuff is because of pet forums. If I was just a regular ole' owner, I wouldn't even think twice about this stuff, and I'm sure Jackson would be absolutely fine with whatever I chose to feed.

But of course, we want the best for our dogs. I know I do. I pay attention to every little thing, lol. I'm kind of anal about it actually. So it's slightly disturbing to me to think that dead dogs and cats could possibly be in the food people feed their beloved family pets. With that said, dogs are scavengers, and evolved alongside humans... eating whatever scraps they could find and corn mush and whatever they could catch themselves. Was it the healthiest? Probably not, but they survived. Would I choose to feed a dog food knowing such stuff is in there? Nope, it wouldn't be my first choice.

I do believe in good QC, and think being informed is important. Obviously. Or else I wouldn't research so much. But I just think that other things play so much more into a dog's life and health, like genetics, neutering/spaying, over-vaccination, etc. I do think diet plays a part - I know that I notice little things between different brands, and my dog does better on one over the other. I don't really trust Purina, but I don't really trust most pet foods.

[Lovetodream88]

Originally Posted by Britster

I do understand that testing is sometimes a necessary 'evil'. I am not against humane testing. Afterall, it's our own family and our own pets that we'd like to keep safe.

As far as dog food goes though, I'm not real impressed with a food passing an AAFCO feeding trial in the first place. I mean, yeah, I suppose it's "better than nothing". But I'm not sure it will make that much of a difference in the overall scheme of things.

AAFCO feeding trials consist of at least eight dogs being fed the same diet for a mere 26 weeks (approximately six months). During this time, 25% of the dogs (so, two animals) can be removed from the test (without a reason as to why) and the dogs eating the food can lose up to 15% of their weight and condition; the food will still pass the test and be labeled "complete and balanced." All dogs in the trial are given a complete physical examination at the beginning and end of the test. This 'physical examination' can be provided by any veterinarian including the pet food manufacturer veterinarian; a clear opportunity for bias.

I mean, really, the chance of your dog dying or suffering some big illness from eating ANY dog food is probably very slim anyway. I think some of our "fears" (mine included) are overblown. I'm guilty of it. I always talk about Diamond for example, how I wouldn't touch it, etc. A lot of us are now TERRIFIED of Diamond produced foods. But really? our dogs probably have a one in a million chance of anything happening to them because of dog food. They probably have a higher chance of dying from a snake bite, or something crazy, then dying because of eating pet food. And the only reason I know about all this stuff is because of pet forums. If I was just a regular ole' owner, I wouldn't even think twice about this stuff, and I'm sure Jackson would be absolutely fine with whatever I chose to feed.

But of course, we want the best for our dogs. I know I do. I pay attention to every little thing, lol. I'm kind of anal about it actually. So it's slightly disturbing to me to think that dead dogs and cats could possibly be in the food people feed their beloved family pets. With that said, dogs are scavengers, and evolved alongside humans... eating whatever scraps they could find and corn mush and whatever they could catch themselves. Was it the healthiest? Probably not, but they survived. Would I choose to feed a dog food knowing such stuff is in there? Nope, it wouldn't be my first choice.

I do believe in good QC, and think being informed is important. Obviously. Or else I wouldn't research so much. But I just think that other things play so much more into a dog's life and health, like genetics, neutering/spaying, over-vaccination, etc. I do think diet plays a part - I know that I notice little things between different brands, and my dog does better on one over the other. I don't really trust Purina, but I don't really trust most pet foods.

Salmonella is a real risk for humans who touch the food and elderly dogs as well as dogs with low immune systems. We just need stricter laws when it comes to dog food I don't think any one could disagree with that. I'm not sure I buy into the over vaccination by getting the DAP every three years and Rabies every three years and a couple extras like Lyme and stuff thrown in there. We had two dogs both different from different genes and different owners and stuff and both only ever got there puppy shots and that was it and both had cancer these dogs where never even treated with flea and tick meds so I donno that I really buy into the over vaccinating but that's just my opinion. I do not feel my vet is a vet just for money so I trust her opinion on it I have also read many stores that a titter test is pretty much useless and can be wrong as well as my vet told me the same thing.

[Britster]

Originally Posted by Lovetodream88

Salmonella is a real risk for humans who touch the food and elderly dogs as well as dogs with low immune systems. We just need stricter laws when it comes to dog food I don't think any one could disagree with that. I'm not sure I buy into the over vaccination by getting the DAP every three years and Rabies every three years and a couple extras like Lyme and stuff thrown in there. We had two dogs both different from different genes and different owners and stuff and both only ever got there puppy shots and that was it and both had cancer these dogs where never even treated with flea and tick meds so I donno that I really buy into the over vaccinating but that's just my opinion. I do not feel my vet is a vet just for money so I trust her opinion on it I have also read many stores that a titter test is pretty much useless and can be wrong as well as my vet told me the same thing.

And on the flip side, I've known dogs who were vaccinated every year for everything under the sun and they've all died of cancer before the age of 10. That's all anecdotal though. We all have stories of dogs living to be 20 on Dog Chow and dogs dying early from cancer, etc.

But the fact is that over-vaccinating IS a problem. There are many many studies out there to prove this. It's not just a "here-say" issue or internet hogwash.

My only point was to bring up that I think things like vaccinating and genetics play much more of a part than diet or nutrition to a canine. Doesn't mean I don't care about what my dogs eating though (you know, I very much do! lol)

Titers can be pretty useless. I won't be wasting $$$ on them, but I won't be getting Jackson vaccinated for anything else either (besides rabies per the law).

[DewiWihardja]

But vaccine is not important? Here it's also done yearly, along with anti-worm and also rabies. I mean, isn't it to protect our babies from easily getting ill

For now, I m using also advantix for anti-parasits and cardoteck for anti-filaria ( a kind of dengue fever for dog).

For food, I know maybe my dog would survive well, but i think I'll try the brands that aren't suspected with dead dog ingredients... maybe they would stay fine, but I think I would prefer not to risk.

So far my highest interests are in royal canin and italian brand almo-nature

[Britster]

Originally Posted by DewiWihardja

But vaccine is not important? Here it's also done yearly, along with anti-worm and also rabies. I mean, isn't it to protect our babies from easily getting ill

For now, I m using also advantix for anti-parasits and cardoteck for anti-filaria ( a kind of dengue fever for dog).

For food, I know maybe my dog would survive well, but i think I'll try the brands that aren't suspected with dead dog ingredients... maybe they would stay fine, but I think I would prefer not to risk.

So far my highest interests are in royal canin and italian brand almo-nature

Initial vaccines ARE important. I am definitely not saying "no vaccines ever". Just that OVER-vaccinating is a very common problem. I'm sure it varies country-by-country. I do not know what is followed in Italy.

Yearly vaccines are no longer recommended by the AAHA. The latest scientific research proves that after the first course of injections as a puppy most dogs are immune against these diseases for at least seven years, if not for life. I don't see why anyone would think vaccinating every year is necessary in any shape or form.

The present study examines the DOI for core viral vaccines in dogs that had not been revaccinated for as long as 9 years. These animals had serum antibody to canine distemper virus (CDV), canine parvovirus type 2 (CPV-2) and canine adenovirus type-1 (CAV-1) at levels considered protective and when challenged with these viruses, the dogs resisted infection and/or disease. Thus, even a single dose of modified live virus (MLV) canine core vaccines (against CDV, cav-2 and cpv-2) or MLV feline core vaccines (against feline parvovirus [FPV], feline calicivirus [FCV] and feline herpesvirus [FHV]), when administered at 16 weeks or older, could provide long-term immunity in a very high percentage of animals, while also increasing herd immunity.

Age and long-term protective immunity in dogs ... [J Comp Pathol. 2010] - PubMed - NCBI

But your dog is not ANY more protected getting vaccines every year than if they got them every 3 years for example. Because it's the SAME exact vaccine. There is no difference between "1 year" or "3 year" or whatever. So getting your dogs vaccinated every year is not protecting them in any way and all you are doing is adding unnecessary chemicals into their body year after year.

The thing is, a lot of vets don't want to give up that money they get from yearly vaccines. Let's face it - most dog owners wouldn't want to fork up the dough to get titers and a majority of people ONLY take their dogs to the vet when they need vaccines. It's a HUGE money maker for them. Of course a lot are going to continue recommending yearly. Now, an owner like me, I'll be at the vet at least once a year anyways for annual check-ups, bloodwork, etc so they'll still get their money from me. But an average owner... does not do this.

Consider this… One dose of rabies vaccine costs the vet about 61 cents. The client is typically charged between $15 and $38, plus a $35 office visit. The markup on the vaccine alone is 2,400 percent to 6,200 percent—a markup equivalent to charging $217 for a loaf of bread. According to one estimate, removing the one-year rabies vaccination and consequential office visit for dogs alone would decrease the average small vet’s income from $87,000 to $25,000—and this doesn’t include cats or other vaccinations.

According to James Schwartz, author of Trust Me, I’m Not a Veterinarian, 63 percent of canine and 70 percent of feline vet office visits are for vaccinations. Clearly, radically changing the vaccine schedule for dogs and cats would result in a huge economic loss for any veterinary practice that is built around shots. And chances are the vaccines you are paying so much for are creating even more income for vets, because the adverse reactions and other medical issues caused by the vaccines keep Fluffy coming back often!

Veterinary vaccine sales amounted to more than $3.2 million in 2004 and have risen 7 percent per year since 2000. This figure is projected to exceed $4 billion in 2009. Six companies account for more than 70percent of world veterinary vaccine sales. The market leader is Intervet, with sales of almost $600 million in 2004. That’s a whole lot of 61-cent vaccines. The United States has by far the largest share of the national market with revenues of $935 million, and Japan comes in second with $236 million.

Pet vaccination warning. Severe adverse reaction to immunization


Please check out a few of these links:
Science of Vaccine Damage
Bordetella Vaccination for Dogs: Fraud and Fallacy | Dogs Naturally Magazine
Lifelong Immunity – Why Vets Are Pushing Back | Dogs Naturally Magazine
http://www.cedarbayvet.com/duration_of_immunity.htm

Rabies is required by law every 3 years here so we do that to abide the law. I like doing DHP as a pup (8 weeks, 12 weeks, 15 weeks) and then boostering at one year old for us personally. I like to follow Dr. Dodd's protocol.

I've had bad luck with vaccines as well. Jackson was VERY ill following a lepto shot, never again. And he's always gotten kennel cough after every bordatella vaccine or something like it. We will never again be getting that, the last one was the last straw.

Good luck in whatever you decide and in your research

Btw, Royal Canin is a good choice.

[DewiWihardja]

Originally Posted by Britster

Initial vaccines ARE important. I am definitely not saying "no vaccines ever". Just that OVER-vaccinating is a very common problem. I'm sure it varies country-by-country. I do not know what is followed in Italy.

Yearly vaccines are no longer recommended by the AAHA. The latest scientific research proves that after the first course of injections as a puppy most dogs are immune against these diseases for at least seven years, if not for life. I don't see why anyone would think vaccinating every year is necessary in any shape or form.


Age and long-term protective immunity in dogs ... [J Comp Pathol. 2010] - PubMed - NCBI

But your dog is not ANY more protected getting vaccines every year than if they got them every 3 years for example. Because it's the SAME exact vaccine. There is no difference between "1 year" or "3 year" or whatever. So getting your dogs vaccinated every year is not protecting them in any way and all you are doing is adding unnecessary chemicals into their body year after year.

The thing is, a lot of vets don't want to give up that money they get from yearly vaccines. Let's face it - most dog owners wouldn't want to fork up the dough to get titers and a majority of people ONLY take their dogs to the vet when they need vaccines. It's a HUGE money maker for them. Of course a lot are going to continue recommending yearly. Now, an owner like me, I'll be at the vet at least once a year anyways for annual check-ups, bloodwork, etc so they'll still get their money from me. But an average owner... does not do this.


Pet vaccination warning. Severe adverse reaction to immunization


Please check out a few of these links:
Science of Vaccine Damage
Bordetella Vaccination for Dogs: Fraud and Fallacy | Dogs Naturally Magazine
Lifelong Immunity – Why Vets Are Pushing Back | Dogs Naturally Magazine
http://www.cedarbayvet.com/duration_of_immunity.htm

Rabies is required by law every 3 years here so we do that to abide the law. I like doing DHP as a pup (8 weeks, 12 weeks, 15 weeks) and then boostering at one year old for us personally. I like to follow Dr. Dodd's protocol.

I've had bad luck with vaccines as well. Jackson was VERY ill following a lepto shot, never again. And he's always gotten kennel cough after every bordatella vaccine or something like it. We will never again be getting that, the last one was the last straw.

Good luck in whatever you decide and in your research

Btw, Royal Canin is a good choice.

Thank you so much, in Italy they said it's yearly, but if it's not so different... And rabies maybe is required in Europe if we are traveling between countries, and maybe yearly.

I don't know why the regulation has to be different because all dogs from all countries are the same, the yorkshires...

[Britster]

Originally Posted by DewiWihardja

Thank you so much, in Italy they said it's yearly, but if it's not so different... And rabies maybe is required in Europe if we are traveling between countries, and maybe yearly.

I don't know why the regulation has to be different because all dogs from all countries are the same, the yorkshires...

You're welcome! DHP (which is distemper, hepatits, and parvovirus) is not usually required by law. You have a choice. So I would look into that. Typically, the only vaccine actually required by law is rabies. How often depends on your state or country.

[DewiWihardja]

Originally Posted by Britster

You're welcome! DHP (which is distemper, hepatits, and parvovirus) is not usually required by law. You have a choice. So I would look into that. Typically, the only vaccine actually required by law is rabies. How often depends on your state or country.

Ah okay, rabies I think it's required every 1 month before the journey between countries, Europe and some Asia like Singapore. However, they consider me to do it yearly as the disease is still around until now