When a certain group/type of posts/threads is consistently being disparaged - then yes, something eventually does have to be said publicly -- and yes, we do need reminders that suspensions will happen if the behavior doesn't change. If you see that as a threat, I can't change that feeling for you.

And yes, YT most definitely IS accepting of almost all opinions here -- that's the whole point of all this -- that we need to accept that there *are* people here who are interested in holistic/natural treatments and they have a right to post about those interests without them and their info being denigrated as "less than".

The scientific folks need to accept that there are holistic folks here and vice versa. Neither group needs to hide, nor be un-opinionated - as long as they try to remain respectful.

And this is exactly why this all needed to be said -- bc there is *no* reason these threads should turn "toxic".

I really don't want to debate all this either. In fact, I hate it - bc everyone gets so riled up. Hopefully we can just get this all out there and keep moving forward in a more positive manner though.

Unfortunately...and I truly do mean it's unfortunate, to the extreme...it has and does come to a point where people (I'm not insinuating you) may need to be forced to take a break from certain sections if all they seem to do is cause problems in said section. I would hope you'd understand how that need could arise in some instances.

Is everyone having a blue Monday or something? Two threads today seem especially testy - or is it just me? When did some comments start getting monitored for worthiness of content to the thread on YT? We're always posting about others' posts. Do we really want to censor comments we dislike or maybe subjectively see as non-contributory? I see many posts on behavior threads that aren't quite relevant, may actually be harmful to the dog's psyche or maybe seem a bit inane, to me, but never would never try to disrespect the poster by suggesting they avoid posting their thoughts or step away from the discussion.

Lets not get this wrong. It's not about censoring comments I don't like, it's about keeping the discussion on topic. Unfortunately, most of the comments are directed toward a decision I made several months ago to change my dog's food from Royal Canin, to Nature's Logic. A newbie reading this thread, could become very confused as to what's so controversial. My believe is that some can't find anything about the actual article to criticize, but are attempting to just dismiss it as so much holistic hogwash, when the vet who wrote it isn't even a holistic vet. I'm saying let's discuss the merits of the article not a believe that people are out to get you or that my threads are old and toxic.

Dr. Remillard, who is not beholden to ANY pet food company, says that the FINAL NUTRIENT PROFILE of a food, and NOT the ingredient list is the single most important factor in a dog food. She says reading the ingredients only matters to dogs who have food allergies.

I know what holistic means but I also know that the industry doesn't deliver on what the "true meaning" of the word is. Of course, there are exceptions to the rule.

When you say the Final Nutrient Profile, do you mean the analysis, or something else?

The word "holistic" has almost become a dirty word to some, which is unfortunate bc its original intent in the field was a positive one.

He's not just saying read the ingredient list, he's saying "read the labels" and you can find the final nutrient profile on the label.

If Dr. Remillard has an article on how to help consumers choose a healthy dog food, I hope you post a thread on it.

Thanks so much for posting

There was this, but unfortunately, it's behind a paywall :(. This article is actually about how to evaluate alternative diets such as home cooked and raw diets, but the dietary guidelines apply to commercial foods as well. I will try to copy some of the article below, particularly Table 3, but I don't want to violate copyrights:

http://www.yorkietalk.com/forums/gen...ow-you-do.html

I also posted some web-based links from the article in the same thread.

I'm going to park a few more links to articles about canine nutrition and selecting commercial dog foods below. I realize that most of them are behind paywalls, so if anyone wants details about a particular article, please feel free to PM me:

This article is about how commercial dog foods are made, and the rules and regulations for nutritional content: Evaluating Pet Foods: How Confident Are You When You Recommend a Commercial Pet Food?

This is an article about commercial dog foods used in elimination diets, and how some of them are contaminated with other protein sources: ELISA testing for common food antigens in four dry dog foods used in dietary elimination trials - Raditic - 2010 - Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition - Wiley Online Library

I also posted this thread here:
http://www.yorkietalk.com/forums/yor...ml#post4556789

Yes, and she has a whole website where people can click on "Ask the nutritionist" for questions. Petdiets.com

The first one is behind a paywall, and I couldn't access it, it was done by Hills and while it still might be true, I do think manufacture driven research could possibly be more biased. By that I mean, leave out parts that don't give the full picture. However, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't consider it. The second one seems to be independent from the manufactures and talks about foods used in diagnostic elimination trials.

I use to be very familiar with reading research and even designing experiments. I could look at an experiment and see how it was flawed, but I haven't done this in quite a few years, and now I struggle through the research. I figure if I have a hard time of it, so do 60% of the people here. If you could just summarize the findings it would be so helpful.

What exactly did the second study show? Was it that exotic forms of protein such as venison should be used in food elimination trials because it reacts to beef antibodies? Lol, I feel so stupid!

My read: That OTC novel protein (venison) foods could be contaminated with other proteins possibly due to loose quality control or co-packing and are not suitable for conducting food elimination trials.

You're right, the first article is by a Hill's scientist. Good looking out :). It doesn't mean that the article is invalid, but it IS something to keep in mind. Fortunately, the article is mainly factually based and is about pet food manufacturing techniques, and the rules and regulations on pet food labeling and the AAFCO feeding trials. They aren't pushing a particular product--they are just writing an informative article that applies to all commercial dog foods--canned and dry.

The second article is a little more interesting. The ELISA test that is mentioned in the abstract is a means of detecting the protein source in dog foods by using antibodies to the protein. The authors found that the ELISA test for poultry protein was unreliable, so they couldn't check the foods to see if they actually contained poultry. However, the beef and soy ELISA tests ARE reliable, so they could test for those ingredients. The results were as follows: Three out of four venison limited ingredient dog foods that were NOT supposed to contain soy protein actually DID contain soy protein that was not on the label. Those foods are:

Eukanuba Naturally Wild New Zealand Venison & Potato, The Iams Company. Columbus, OH, USA.

Dick Van Patten’s Natural Balance Pet Foods, L.I.D., Limit Ingredient Diet Sweet Potato & Venison, Dick Van Patten’s Natural Balance Pet Foods, Pacoima, CA, USA.

Nature’s Variety Prairie New Zealand Venison Meal & Millet Medley, Nature’s Variety. Lincoln, NE, USA.

One of the four venison limited ingredient dog foods contained beef protein that was not on the label:

Dick Van Patten’s Natural Balance Pet Foods, L.I.D., Limit Ingredient Diet Sweet Potato & Venison, Dick Van Patten’s Natural Balance Pet Foods, Pacoima, CA, USA.

The only venison limited ingredient dog food that contained no beef and soy was:

Wellness Simple Food Solutions Rice & Venison, Old Mother Hubbard. Chelmsford, MA, USA

Keep in mind that they only tested these four foods for soy and beef contamination, and couldn't test for poultry.

The conclusion is:

In conclusion, three of the four OTC venison diets selected in this study contained at least one common food antigen, as detected by ELISA testing and are not suitable for diagnostic elimination trials. It is not known what protein concentration, size or structure is required to elicit an immunological reaction in a food allergic dog. Although, the exact mechanism of food allergies in dogs is still speculative, the immunological basis dictates the necessity to use diets with novel or hydrolyzed sources of proteins from companies with the highest quality controls, monitoring and assurances possible when conducting a diagnostic elimination trial.

In layman's terms, three of the four limited ingredient foods are not suitable for diagnostic elimination diets. The authors don't know how much contamination is needed to cause an allergic reaction in a dog that is allergic to the contaminating ingredient. The authors emphasize that if you are using commercial food for an elimination diet, you need to be sure that the company has the highest quality controls, monitoring, and assurances. The only food that passed the limited testing that they did was Wellness Simple Food Solutions Rice & Venison.

If you want a PDF copy of the whole article, PM me your email address and I'll email it to you.