Royal Canin Questions?
 

Hello Yorkie Parents :aimeeyork !

My name is Ashley Harris and I am a nutritionist in Scientific Communications at Royal Canin Canada. Learn more about me here: Ashley Harris Pet Food Nutrition

I have noticed some posts with questions around Royal Canin formulas, ingredients or nutrients and wanted to offer my support to help answer your questions. I also provide plant tours and can help answer your questions about food quality, food safety and manufacturing processes.

Please feel free to post your questions below and I would be happy to answer them.

~Ashley :animal-pa

**At no time will I compare formulas from other companies because I do not have the knowledge of their formulas, manufacturing processes etc. to be able to accurately comment.

Amazed no one has commented on this yet! OK, I'll start. Recently I began a search for a new food for my 5 pound, 11-13 yo, yorkie. I stumbled across your yorkie specific formula. Shortly after I discovered you changed the formula somewhat recently. Yorkie 28 is gone, just Yorkie remains. Later I found other of your formulas had also recently changed signified by different formulas, ingredient list, listed at retailer websites vs RC's website. That's with the understanding that RC's website is the most correct and current info, and, the retailers are just behind in updating the info.

In general, what I have seen is: A decreased use of ingredients that are considered to be quality! In general, by scanning through various old and new formulas, RC's trend is reducing or eliminating chicken and or chicken meal in exchange for chicken by product meal. Besides reduced costs to manufacture, why has RC gone down this road to becoming just another Purina?

Here's a couple of threads involved with the discussion:
http://www.yorkietalk.com/forums/yor...requested.html
http://www.yorkietalk.com/forums/yor...ht=Royal+Canin
http://www.yorkietalk.com/forums/yor...ht=Royal+Canin
http://www.yorkietalk.com/forums/yor...ht=Royal+Canin

Hi Mark
 

Hi Mark!
Thanks for getting the ball rolling in here :)

I can understand your concerns with all the mixed information that is making its way around the internet. Royal Canin's philosophy has and always will be pet first. The cat or dog is always at the heart of our formulation process and our ingredient selections are not any different. We carefully select each and every ingredient to 1) provide a desired nutrient profile 2) be of the highest digestibility 3) be of the highest quality and free from contamination. We conduct validations on each and every ingredient supplier before they become part of our supplier network, but also as part of ongoing monitoring and audits. In addition, every ingredient is tested on arrival at our plant.

The change from Yorkshire Terrier 28 to Yorkshire Terrier did not change the quality or the goal of the formula, which is to provide nutrients that support the unique particularities of the Yorkie. The 28 represented the protein content, which we decided to remove from the name because of some confusion when other RC formulas had the same number (or same protein level).

It is important to remember that ingredient are a vehicle to supply nutrients to the body. The change from Chicken Meal to Chicken By-Product Meal (CBPM) was a decision to continue to provide the quality and digestibility of protein and individual amino acids that we strive for in our formulas. The CBPM comes from human grade chickens where the human market utilizes the muscle meats (the breasts, thighs, legs etc.) and we can utilize the other valuable sources of protein, including the internal organs and necks. Doing this we are actually able to achieve the same nutrients, digestibility and quality for the Yorkie as with Chicken Meal.

Why has Royal Canin made this move? We produce a lot of pet food, and the reality is that there is not enough chicken meal that meets our quality requirements, to meet our production demands. In other words we were faced with a decision: continue using chicken meal, which has a name that is more appealing to many consumers, but accept a lower quality ingredient, or; find an alternative ingredient that perhaps has a less appealing name, but which meets the safety, quality, and digestibility requirements we have for our products. Our choice was to maintain the same level of quality and nutrition that our consumers have come to expect from us.

What people may not realize is that what are considered "by-products" are actually just as expensive, if not more. Look at the cost/kg of chicken gizzards in the grocery store, it's actually more expensive than the muscle meat and it packs more of a nutrient punch. Same as pet treats. I have seen elk antlers, beef trachea, duck feet etc cost more than a chicken breast treat. A by-product is simply a product produced in secondary to a principle product. (Analogy: think thanksgiving dinner. You go to all the work to create the beautiful turkey at the center of your table, the principle product. The turkey sandwiches you enjoy the next day would be the by-product. Same great taste, nutrients etc. but you don't go out of your way to make it for the sandwiches)

Thanks!
Ashley

I am JUST seeing this Ashley!!! I would have jumped on this thread like a duck on a junebug if I had seen it before now!!! Hello Ashley!! Judy Wright here....devoted, loyal, and VERY long time member of the RC family....since 1978. I am thrilled you have found your way here....I have been in communication with my rep as well as "corporate" regarding the changes y'all have made in the formulas, and information direct "from the horses mouth" is most welcome! I believe I have communicated with you personally on several occasions as well. I personally will not "jump ship" as RC has served me and my dogs very well for many years, as long as I do not see any deterioration in my dog's conditioning, which is something I do not expect to happen! I do feed the Adult Mini, which has apparently not rearranged the order of the ingredients listed on the label....this change in the ingredient label is of grave concern for many people, and I am NOT a dog food nutritionist, so I can not adequately defend your decisions to make these changes! Believe me, I have tried!....while everyone has their own favorite brand of dog food, for whatever reasons, I am very impressed to see the arrival and active participation of someone actually appearing from the company.....I do not believe that has ever been done by any other of the brands that have been criticized or questioned on here. Great to see RC is actually watching and listening to what consumers are saying about their product! I have tried to make it evident that RC is indeed listening to consumers. Welcome Ashley....I do hope people that have concerns will contact you so you can answer questions and perhaps alleviate concerns some may have. (My major concern about RC is why cant I get your fabulous puppy milk formula here in the US to use in my tube feedings when necessary for supplemental feeding for puppies that need this extra attention.....I have contacted RC about this for several years.....even asked if I could "smuggle" the milk in from Canada!! I understand why the milk is not produced here....just wish I could get RC to provide me access to some!!)

Well, I am a Hill's Science Diet consumer for a regular pet food. I use different RX foods and a couple of them are RC.

I don't understand how people would just assume that a company with a reputation such as RCs would change a food without much careful thinking/planning. Hill's deleted a food some time ago and I had to switch to another food. I was upset at the time, but in the end I realized that they are a great company and my pups were in good hands. I would feel the same way about RC.

Anyway....I am so happy to see you here posting! I never thought to mention it to the vet nutritionist I used to consult with....she recently was hired by RC down here in the Houston area.

Thank you for being here to explain this food change with RC Yorkshire Terrier food. I really found your post easy to read and digest. Especially your last paragraph....great explanation and analogies! :)

Thank you Judy for the warm welcome!!!!!! :animal36 I love hearing that you are a devoted RC'r like myself! Although I haven't fed our formulas as many years as you have been ... but ever since I became familiar with RC during my vet co-op in high school, we have fed RC formulas to all family pets and my currently 6 furbabies. Performance is 100% why I personally feed too. All 6 of mine get different formulas, mainly because they have different issues to support, ranging from kidney failure, to seasonal allergies to loose stool, and with each of their formulas they all are doing amazing!

We like to be aware of the concerns and questions people have not only about our formulas, but nutrition in general. Same as the human nutrition world, there is so much information zooming past us everyday, you can easily get lost and confused with the many opinions out there.

I am with you on the milk replacer... It's such a great formula! Our Canadian breeders and vets can't get enough of it. It actually comes from France because we also don't have the technology at the Guelph facility to manufacture it. Unfortunately, due to import laws for the US, we are unable to ship the milk across the border.

Look forward to chatting with you!
Ashley :animal-pa

So you are saying you removed the number 28 from the label because it "confused" people, but the new product still contains 28% protein?

Hi!!

Happy to hear my post on the Yorkie changes was easy to read. As you get to know me more, you will quickly learn I will use a ton of analogies to explain otherwise complicated topics :) I wonder if I have met your veterinary nutritionist in passing...?

My next analogy installment: Why do we refer to it as the skin "barrier"? The skin's role is to help regulate the body and also protect it from the elements. Your brick house works in very much the same way. The bricks are your skin cells, and the mortar is the ceramides (fat) the runs between the skin cells. Your house helps to keep things you consider valuable inside, such as your jewelry, your yorkies :aimeeyork, and your air conditioning, while keeping things you don't want out, such as buglers, dirt, and allergens. The same is true for your skin barrier. It helps to keep your body's valuables in, like water, temperature and nutrients, while keeping things you don't want out, like allergens, microbes and irritants.

Have a great day and chat with you soon :animal-pa
Ashley

Crude Protein
 

Hi Nancy!

It was more with the Size Health Nutrition formulas we have where the confusion was coming from. Owners would visit a store and ask for the "28 formula", but it would refer to a few formulas rather than a single formula.

Specifically for the Yorkie formula (referencing the Canadian formula on the website, Yorkshire Terrier Adult / Breeds / Dog Diets / Pet Store Products / Home - RoyalCanin) it contains 26% min Crude Protein.

This might open a brief chat about what exactly the "crude" in crude protein means. Crude refers to the simple process that is used to estimate the protein level. It is a very old process. Essentially what happens is a sample is taken and burned in a special laboratory machine called a Protein Analyzer. The machine captures and measures the amount of Nitrogen released from the sample. Nitrogen is a component (protein) and that value is directly proportional to the level of protein in the sample.

The total amount of protein is good to know, but it doesn't provide you with information on the individual amino acid levels, the digestibility or the quality. RC actually does additional testing at our Americas Regional Lab (ARL) here is Guelph to obtain precise amino acid levels and well as simulate the digestibility. This provides us more information about the formula and how it will benefit the pet. If all you did was a crude protein analysis, I could theoretically test a formula that contained hair and a leather boot, and probably obtain the same crude protein level as a commercially available pet food. Why? because leather and hair contain protein. The protein is not available for digestion in the body in its current state, but the machine would still capture the nitrogen and provide a crude protein value.

Why did I want to explain what crude protein is? You might have noticed that the formula went from min 28% to min 26% protein. This is a guaranteed analysis value (a minimum). Another possible protein measurement would be to look at the typical analysis value (an average), which is more accurate than the guaranteed analysis from a protein level standpoint, but still doesn’t give any information about the quality, digestibility, or amino acid profile of the protein. Basically, the “28” was a number that created a lot of confusion, without providing useful information. The measured amount of protein in a formula is not as important as the amount of protein that is digested and used by the body. Each time RC updates a formula we make sure the palatability, digestibility and performance is equivalent or better than the current formula. In this instance, we were able to increase the digestible (usable) protein. Protein that is not used by the body is wasted in the stool, and can even cause stool issues such as flatulence and soft/smelly stool.

Hopefully this helps :)
Ashley

So the new YT forumula has 26 percent protein? Why the change from 28%? For years RC was saying Yorkies needed this higher percentage because of the hair.

Taken from an ad,
So what’s changed, Is there some new research that shows they don’t need 28%? Or is it because when you use a lower quality protein you should actually reduce overall protein?

You say you made this move to by-products because you make a lot of pet food and there wasn’t enough chicken meal. I understand that your company, in April of this year, purchased Iams, Eubanka and NATURA, and I understand that you need a lot more chicken meal, but that’s no excuse for using chicken byproducts as the main protein. If chicken byproducts are so good, why didn’t you use them before? This excuse that by-products are more expensive than muscle meat is so misleading. Anything “boneless, is more expensive, but compare gizzards to boneless breast meat and you’ll find that breast meat is three times as expensive. Also, by- products aren’t regulated in that you HAVE to put gizzards in them, a company can just use whatever is left after the human market takes what it wants, and yes since there is a market for gizzards and hearts and livers, I doubt if the by-products contain much of that because they don’t have to. Since beaks, feet and intestines aren’t used by the human market this is more likely what by products contain, and while I realize all those things contain protein, it doesn’t mean they are quality protein like muscle meat. The only way the consumer knows if the “crude protein” that is posted on the bag is “usable” protein is to check the ingredient list and see what type of meat has been used. I guess we as consumer should switch to one of the companies that are using “LOW” cost but high quality muscle meat.

Also, now, the first ingredient is brewers rice, a by-product of rice with very little nutritional value. I understand that Mars makes Uncle Bens rice and has a lot of brewers rice left over, but to use it in a supposedly "premium" dog food?

My pup was on RC from the time he was able to eat the kibble. I guess around the time the formula changed he started to develop diarrhea. This has been a painstaking few months to figure out that the RC was causing his diarrhea. He'd never had problems with RC or any sort of treat before. Now he's on Hills and doing great, no diarrhea. He did use RC Gastrointestinal until we could figure out what the problem was. He had no problem with that canned food. I guess RC just isn't for my pup because his tummy doesn't like it.

Thanks for that well written response. Could you please address the inclusion of corn in RC's formula? The rice vs brewers rice might be a good one to touch on at the same time.

I'm fairly new to caring for a yorkie, never gave corn a second thought until reading about it here at YT. I was just fine with corn being in a feed until I read something here. I can tell you this, I raised a LOT of quail. Once, I switched from a corn based bird feed to a wheat based. Talk about some pissed off quail! I didn't think it was possible, but, it is.

Hi Ashley,
Welcome to YT! I'm so glad you'll be here to tell us more and hopefully dispel some myths people have. I home cook under the guidance of a veterinary nutritionist but I do use some RC formulas for my pups as a back up. I have been satisfied as a customer and the changes don't bother me. I love the rebates on the Rx foods!

Catherine Lenox and I am very sad that RC snatched her away....happy for her, but sad for my pups. I have one pup who was her client who has lymphangectasia and I give her credit with being a huge part of Cookie's well being since Dec. 2011 when she was diagnosed.

Another great analogy. Perfect! :)

I wondered about the change from 28% too! They claimed it's to bring it inline with other countries productions and that the USA yorkie formula was uniquely at 28, but the RC adult Yorkshire terrier sold in the UK is at 28%, not the lowered 26%. So, hmmm?

Also, nothing changes the fact that RC, whom some of us have trusted for years with our yorkies made a formula change with no notification to us the consumer. There is nothing on the RC Adult Yorkshire Terrier bag that says "new formula" or such. Were they just trying yo slide it by us? It breaks the trust!

I paid the RC price because I wanted quality for my yorkie. If chicken by product was ok with me I'd feed purina and pocket the savings.

Yes, in a day and age when manufacturers are putting the words, "New" or "Improved" on everything, you really expect some type of warning on the label. I guess there's no law that says they must inform you of a major ingredient switch, but I've learned my lesson, I'll never buy another bag of dog food without reading the label, even if I've been buying it for years. I'm glad you know how I feel about this, I feel like it's unethical for a company not to inform the consumer.

Frankly, I am stunned by some of these comments. I realize many of the people on YT believe they are nutritionists, but I have yet to meet one that I know for a fact IS ONE.
Here we have one and people are using language with her that I find offensive...especially the word unethical. I hardly would put RC on my list of people doing something unethical.

Anyone is free to read labels and spout what they think of them and it confounds me why people do not understand that it is more than reading an ingredient list.

I am sure that our new member will rise above it, but I simply HAD to comment because I think some of you are being a tad bit offensive. I won't argue the point....I am simply stating it so that you can do some soul searching...if you don't agree...well I guess have at it. As I said, she is a professional and sounds to me as if she can handle it. She also could be a VERY valuable member of this forum and I for one, am thrilled to see her here.

My goodness if anyone ever commented on how you chose to answer, you'd read them the riot act. Don't you always say, if you don't like my answer report it to admin?

By the way, I also find it unethical that she is suggesting that the by-products they are using are more expensive than the chicken meal they use to use. Give me a break. Talk about Tap dancing. Some of you who are defending them them the most, NEVER used Royal Canin Formula for Yorkshire Terriers. Furthermore, it astounds me you don't think reading an ingredient list is important. I chose the food 8 years ago, because of the ingredients, not the name of the company.

Hi Ashley :) I'm glad you're here to answer some questions about the brand you represent, royal canin. I think it is very valuable to have direct support and input from a brand to support a group of concerned consumers and I appreciate the customer service that represents on behalf of your company, thank you.

I think everyone here has very valid feelings and questions about what is of course a very important subject around here- how we care for our loved and valued yorkies. I think we are all interested in the nutrition we are providing our dogs and that it is wise to have some understanding about nutition- which is why we are all having a conversation with a nutritionist right? So I think if we have questions about the quality and reasoning behind ingredient choices in a food we are using or are considering using that everyone's questions are valid and important. I myself am very curious about the differences between chicken meal and chicken by product meal and which parts of chicken by products balance out to have what kind of amino acid profile- very interesting conversation here! Right up my alley actually. So glad we have so many different view points that we get to bring up, ideas or concepts that we hold and get to share and discuss with others. What a lovely opportunity.

I also think that a companies ethics and values are an appropriate and necessary topic of discussion. Ashley showing up to have this valuable discussion I think represents a very positive company attribute. To have open, transparent discussion about what you represent as a business to the community and why you are making the choices that are impacting our consumers is a very commendable trait indeed. I can also see Nancy's concern about a lack of transperancey when the ingredients in our dog food changed, I don't think it is innapropriate for her to bring that up to Ashley. I think if we are going to make informed decisions to support/continue to support or choose not to support a company, that it is important that we have an understanding of how they operate and if we don't bring that topic up to discuss here, while we do have the support of a company representative and a varied group of competent consumers than we wont get the opportunity to learn, ask, share and make decisions that meet our families needs.

I am grateful for the participation and support of this discussion and I would like to validate and value everyone's feelings and experiences, I hope this can stay positive and cooperative because this is a great opportunity to learn and to share information. I am glad to be a part of a community like that.

Oh also (sorry to double post here) I did contact a royal canin representative about my concerns independently as well last week. I got a very nice reply, which I appreciate but I feel that it lacked in response regarding the value of brewers rice and rice and I look forward to the response that Ashley will have on that subject. I'm also very curious about ingredient placement- can't wait to discuss that one! I know sometimes it's a water weight issue and I know there is alot I don't understand but again- that is why this is such an intriguing conversation. Just like many of us have worked hard to learn more about medical conditions, signs, symptoms, cause and prevention - health and nutrition are so linked and so very interesting and valuable to learn about share and discuss. Very much looking forward to your brewers rice answer ashley- thanks! :)

I would like to do a plant tour. My Yorkie is currently eating prescription low fat RC and I would really like to see where the food is created for a peace of mind.

Well...I can't edit my post anymore. I'd like to add it has always been my dream to visit a pet food production place.

Sorry, I thought you had more of a vested interest in the forum. I am just surprised at the tossing around of the word unethical and also just astounded by all of this to be perfectly frank.

Nope, I think reading that list is somewhat important but do NOT think it is what a lot of people think it is. I believe it is about balance and what is good for my pups and I also believe that corn never killed a dog. I believe a lot of things that would astound you. :) I believe that people who are highly educated in this field know more than most of us....and I believe that companies who spend more money on feeding trials and hiring vet nutritionists are companies I would rather deal with....I don't care for the ones who use their money to market their goods by using slick words.

And, personally, I would never change my dogs' food immediately because I was mad at a company. You and I differ greatly...so that is obvious. You used the food for eight years and your pups did well on it....it's too bad you cannot believe that they would continue to do well. I do hope this change gives you 8 more uneventful years. I don't get a good feeling about it, but I hope I am wrong for you and your pups' sake.

What I find terrible here is NOT that you disagree, but the wording for something I believe is good for the community...but you are right you can go on and voice your opinions. :) I doubt it will feel better about all of this, but have at it Nancy.

I am sure there are people on this forum that will see Ashley's posts and her qualifications (a real live nutritionist and not just a wannabe) and association with actually an outstanding pet food company ( do a little research on their existance since the 1967's), and benefit from the opportunity to consult her and learn from her and her experience and knowledge base, as well as information she can gleen from any of the multitude of vets and research people that are bona fide canin nutrition block builders. Then there are others that will not choose to utilize this wonderful opportunity. We all make our choices and we experience the results of those choices, be they good or bad.

I also have a repulsive visceral response to calling a company that has been devoting the financial committment, scientific research and testing and clinical trials to PROVE their nutritional based formulas are exemplary and are true GLOBAL benchmarks in the making of pet food, "unethical" simply because they did not splash "NEW" or "CHANGED" all over their bags! IMO, "unethical" is deliberatly deceiving people into believing something that is untrue. "Unethical" to me, is when, for example, a dog food company not only denies they use "by products" or whatever is offensive to people, they unabashedly advertise nationally, bragging about how they DONT use a specific product in their food....then when they get "caught" in the LIE, they pass the buck....to me, this is "unethical" behavior. There are several more examples from a couple of the "great" dog foods that are used by many people, but no need to even go there. Then there are the recalls because of many reasons, including but not limited to, improper packaging, ommission of preservatives to prevent a variety of mold, contamination by ecoli, salmonella, foreign objects like hunks of bone or plastic or glass chips, etc..... Then there was that little issue of overdosing dogs on vitamins (which resulted in dogs dying and permanent organ failure in many animals) included in the "vitamin bits", where more is not always better!..... RC changes the order of ingredients or adjusts the % of ingredients, still balancing nutritional requirements required for a healthy pet, and they are "unethical", because they did not splash "NEW" all over the bag or "LOOK AT OUR INGREDIENT LISTS" with flashing arrows pointing to the ingredients, or changing the graphics or art on their bags??? They did not try to hide the changes, they did not lie/deny/pass the buck about any of their labeling.....that in your opinion makes them unethical???? Amazing!!!

When my dogs begin to show that Royal Canin has suddenly, after 45+ years, "forgotten" how to formulate nutritional dog food, and the shifts/changes made in the formulas/ingredient label begin to become evident with lack luster coats, decreased energy levels, diminished stamina, physical symptoms, weakened newborns, etc. then I will change dog food. The ingredient organization as listed on the label is not what I depend on to keep my dogs healthy and in the tip top shape they are in....the stuff inside the bag is what I judge, and that is based on the effect it has on my dogs. I could care less if it contains Dunkin Donuts as "the first ingredient", as long as my dogs continue to be the picture of health that they are. I could care less if the company announces in bold lettering, "NEW", or "CHANGED", or if they change the color of the bags or the pictures of the dogs on the bag!!! I dont even care if they package everything they mak, in the bags they use in France, all in French! As long as the food contained inside that bag provides what my dogs need to remain in "tip top shape, without ANY GI issues, itching, scratching, gas, bloating, smelly fur, oily fur, glommed up eyes, excellent lab work workups annually, etc., I am thrilled and I will pay what RC evaluates their contribution to the health of my pets as well as my breeding mothers, studs, and my resulting newborns, is worth. If I can no longer afford to pay for it, I will have to rethink my business budget! If my dogs begin to decline, I will rethink my choice of dog food.

I appreciate the efforts made by Ashely...like I said, I know of NO other major dog food company that has ever availed themselves to this forum in an effort to answer questions or concerns and generally actually educate people on nutrition and dispelling some of the myths and confusion about specific ingredients that some people recoil from, for whatever reasons. I do hope Ashely knows that there are many people here that will benefit from her contribution. She has included a phone number and an email address where you can contact her also. I have these people on speed dial so my questions/concerns can be clarafied or explaned to me immediately!

LOOK!!! I even made paraghraphs for those that cant read long paragraphs!!! See....we can ALL learn fro professionals!!!

Welcome to YT Ashley!
I am another RC avid user, and have used since 1999. I love what it does for my dogs and my puppies! I am a forever fan!
We are so fortunate that you've joined us!

:thumbup::thumbup:

:thumbup::thumbup:

There's that thing again! Down girl down! LOL

I'm thrilled to have an individual offer the views of the company, RC. Reading legaleze isn't that difficult. Pick out the parts that answer the question, deal with the subject, the rest is similar to fluff. That's ok and to be expected. I am hoping to learn some of the different elements that goes into selecting ingredients, in this thread. I can choose to use that info to select either an RC product or another. Analogies may help some but I'm more of an A squared + B squared = C squared sort of guy.

Given that RC's Yorkie specific feed has changed dramatically, which other RC product most resembles the old Yorkie 28 formula? That may help those who used Yorkie 28 previously. Is the kibble size different in this potential replacement?

RC product links are helpful.

How important is kibble size in a smaller yorkie that doesn't chew all of his food?

Thanks!

Reading back before my post was posted, I DID get to do a facility tour, in the original facility in France, back in the early '80's (I think I remember that was the period when I went...may have been '78 or '79.) VERY, very impressive! That tour sticks solidly in my mind....maybe that is why I will stick with RC until my dogs no longer benefit from eating it!