Must Read! Principles of Dog Nutrition!

[pstinard]

Originally Posted by 107barney

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.

Three out of four foods tested were, and they name names

[Yorkiemom1]

Originally Posted by 107barney

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

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.

[107barney]

Originally Posted by pstinard

Three out of four foods tested were, and they name names

I suppose this is why elimination diets w/ hydrolyzed foods or home cooked foods are the way to go so that you know that there either very tight quality control or you have home prepped ingredients. I've done it with OTC foods, and it was a nightmare probably because of the reasons stated in the article.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by pstinard

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.

Thank you so much, you've made it so much more clear. Good to know Wellness Simple food Solutions Rice and Venison passed the test, I wasn't sure if any of them with Venison passed. Actually, that would be great information for the library!

[ladyjane]

Originally Posted by 107barney

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

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 had never seen that article before and I agree....I really enjoyed reading it. Very informative and written in a way that does not overwhelm. Extremely helpful information.

[Nancy1999]

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?

[ladyjane]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

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?

It does conflict. She says that carbs should be first in kibble and she explains why.
She also discusses the percentages of proteins.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by ladyjane

It does conflict. She says that carbs should be first in kibble and she explains why.
She also discusses the percentages of proteins.

No, she says carbs should be first three not first. Regarding protein she says, it should be 18-25 percent, but those are MINIMUMS.

In fact, corn or other carbohydrates
should be in the first three ingredients.
 ttat’s because kibble should be composed
of approximately 40 to 60 percent
starch with a protein content of 18 to
25 percent for dogs and 26 to 32 percent
for cats—those are minimums
per AAFCO guidelines.
For healthy dogs and cats, too,

[gemy]

\I believe that it is great that good pet food companies test their products - how-ever any test at all is at a point in time - and testing internally does need to be validated external to the company. They the company may do internal batch control tests which any reputable company should do - but external oversight is definitely desirable.


I think kibble is a good convenient source for pet owners to rely upon to feed their dogs. And gawd knows the 2-3Billion dollar pet food industry has a vested interest in keeping it so.


But Dr Remillard posts no research to back up his opinions with in his article. Yes it is easily digestible to the reader - but it is just one learned opinion. .

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by gemy

I believe that it is great that good pet food companies test their products - how-ever any test at all is at a point in time - and testing internally does need to be validated external to the company. They the company may do internal batch control tests which any reputable company should do - but external oversight is definitely desirable.


I think kibble is a good convenient source for pet owners to rely upon to feed their dogs. And gawd knows the 2-3Billion dollar pet food industry has a vested interest in keeping it so.


But Dr Remillard posts no research to back up his opinions with in his article. Yes it is easily digestible to the reader - but it is just one learned opinion. .

Not sure if you mean Dr. Remillard or Dr. Dunn. Dr. Dunn wrote the article included in this thread, Barney posted another article written by Dr. Remillard, who is a woman and since you said "his", I wasn't sure which article you meant.

[Yorkiemom1]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

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?

Nothing in "the article" makes me say that...it is posts that I recollect, made by people that make their choices of what they feed, for reasons based on their own experience with their own pets, not based on research based clinical trials. It is their own preferences or opinions that direct them to make the choices they make, not based on science or research or clinical trials. People may not LIKE all the science or clinical trials or evidenced based outcomes, but they are the REALITY of life. I simply wish people would make it clear that while THEIR preference is not to feed a dog food with "corn, or fillers or by-products", dog foods that contain these carbs are NOT toxic/harmful to pets and are digested and do play an important role in pet nutrition.

[gemy]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

Not sure if you mean Dr. Remillard or Dr. Dunn. Dr. Dunn wrote the article included in this thread, Barney posted another article written by Dr. Remillard, who is a woman and since you said "his", I wasn't sure which article you meant.

Nancy I assumed a he for Dr Remillard. Did not read Dr Dunn.


Sorry but my automatic fallback is a *he* at least for my age group when looking at learned articles. Personally I don't care if it is a he or a she

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by Yorkiemom1

Nothing in "the article" makes me say that...it is posts that I recollect, made by people that make their choices of what they feed, for reasons based on their own experience with their own pets, not based on research based clinical trials. It is their own preferences or opinions that direct them to make the choices they make, not based on science or research or clinical trials. People may not LIKE all the science or clinical trials or evidenced based outcomes, but they are the REALITY of life. I simply wish people would make it clear that while THEIR preference is not to feed a dog food with "corn, or fillers or by-products", dog foods that contain these carbs are NOT toxic/harmful to pets and are digested and do play an important role in pet nutrition.

Well, I just want to add that I love clinical trials and definitely would want to choose a food that passes a clinical trial. Also, I never said that by-products are bad, and neither did Dr. Dunn, I said, on another thread that it should be cheaper than chicken meal. Also, it can legally vary so much batch by batch as far as the nutrients go that I would not want that as the primary source of protein, but I don't think by-products are bad, in fact, if I did homemade I would add some by products, but I would know exactly what I'm adding. Again, no one is saying that carbs are bad, and of course they are needed for health, but some of us think that some types of carbohydrates are healthier than others. I actually think corn is better than "brewers rice." At least corn has some good amino acids. However, if you are using an easy to digest protein, you are getting your amino acids. Corn is found in many animal feeds and I'm not saying it's horrible, but for many of the animals, we want them to gain weight fast. I'm more interested in the best diet as my dog ages, and some types of carbohydrates can exacerbate conditions such as diabetes and insulin resistance, commonly found an aging animal.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by gemy

Nancy I assumed a he for Dr Remillard. Did not read Dr Dunn.


Sorry but my automatic fallback is a *he* at least for my age group when looking at learned articles. Personally I don't care if it is a he or a she

Well, do you have any thoughts on the article presented in this thread?

[Yorkiemom1]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

Well, I just want to add that I love clinical trials and definitely would want to choose a food that passes a clinical trial. Also, I never said that by-products are bad, and neither did Dr. Dunn, I said, on another thread that it should be cheaper than chicken meal. Also, it can legally vary so much batch by batch as far as the nutrients go that I would not want that as the primary source of protein, but I don't think by-products are bad, in fact, if I did homemade I would add some by products, but I would know exactly what I'm adding. Again, no one is saying that carbs are bad, and of course they are needed for health, but some of us think that some types of carbohydrates are healthier than others. I actually think corn is better than "brewers rice." At least corn has some good amino acids. However, if you are using an easy to digest protein, you are getting your amino acids. Corn is found in many animal feeds and I'm not saying it's horrible, but for many of the animals, we want them to gain weight fast. I'm more interested in the best diet as my dog ages, and some types of carbohydrates can exacerbate conditions such as diabetes and insulin resistance, commonly found an aging animal.

YOU may not have said any of the things I have bolded above, but there are posters that absolutely have said this! There are posters that have said by-products ARE bad..."nasty, nasty by-products that contain saw dust, hair, nails, teeth, hide, etc...." all of which are actually NOT allowed in by- products!

I have very informative articles from the FDA, University Of Ohio Vet School, and several other INDEPENDENT sources that have no financial agenda to promote one food over another...in fact, foods are not given, just how to interpret labels, and clarification of terms such as fillers and by-products, etc....along with what is required by law, etc....these are sources, in addition to vet nutritionists, that should be considered in decisions people make when it comes to food choices.....people must understand terminology and exactly what they are reading, in order to make clear, informed choices. Do your own research people!!!

My father told me years ago there are things you just do not discuss in public....politics, religion, and how to raise kids. I think I can safely add choosing pet food to that discussion....all the above seem to bring out the passionate, determined, most often unswayable resolve in us.....and it is like banging your head on a brick wall....what others believe will not be changed, you will just end up with a bloody head and a huge headache!