posted 03-02-2004 11:36 AM         

As for the many strong opinions on types of dog food, the vet we saw again today had his own strong views. We asked him about some of the natural brands mentioned here, as well as the criticisms of the foods such as Eukanuba. His reaction, more or less exactly quoted, was: "Oh gimme a break. You are obviously talking to a bunch of 'foo-foo' types. This isn't 1 million B.C., and your dog isn't going to be chasing gazelle. And if he was truly in the wild and eating like a wild dog, he would be eating a lot of so-called by-products. Last time I checked, wild pack animals tear their game to shreds and eat pretty much the whole thing: hearts, lungs, skin, everything..." He added, "Some people think the preservatives in the commercial foods are bad. Is there any proof that they're harmful in the long run and in those quantities? No. Is it justified for some of the health food companies to charge three times as much for so-called organic dog food? No, they're just ripping off silly people." Just one vet's opinion, I guess...

posted 03-02-2004 12:17 PM         

Definitely take a look at the Whole Dog Journal. This page is on the Innova site, but it has good info about what the ingredients you see on the bag really are: http://www.naturapet.com/display.php?d=ingr-wiz-results&pxsl=%2F%2Fingredient

"And if he was truly in the wild and eating like a wild dog, he would be eating a lot of so-called by-products. Last time I checked, wild pack animals tear their game to shreds and eat pretty much the whole thing: hearts, lungs, skin, everything..."

Right. Of which the "by-products" are a small percentage of the total meal. In a bag of Eukanuba, it is ALL by-products.

Let me see if I can find the link to the article that talks about finding euthanasia drugs in some major name-brand foods. Here's one: http://animalark.eapps.com/animal/ArkArticles.nsf/0/8f0f7b72890632fc86256b7b0 05e97fe?OpenDocument

And here is the data from that study: http://www.fda.gov/cvm/efoi/dfchart.htm

See this article as well: http://www.nexusmagazine.com/Petfood.html

This next quote is from the FDA pet food labeling standards page ( http://www.fda.gov/cvm/index/consumer/petlabel.htm ). It is talking about ethoxyquin, a preservative most people believe is dangerous. Note that it says it MAY be dangerous but in the absence of definite data they are allowing it:

"Another pet food additive of some controversy is ethoxyquin, which was approved as a food additive over thirty-five years ago for use as an antioxidant chemical preservative in animal feeds. Approximately ten years ago, CVM began receiving reports from dog owners attributing the presence of ethoxyquin in the dog food with a myriad of adverse effects, such as allergic reactions, skin problems, major organ failure, behavior problems, and cancer. However, there was a paucity of available scientific data to support these contentions, or to show other adverse effects in dogs at levels approved for use in dog foods. More recent studies by the manufacturer of ethoxyquin showed a dose-dependent accumulation of a hemoglobin-related pigment in the liver, as well as increases in the levels of liver-related enzymes in the blood. Although these changes are due to ethoxyquin in the diet, the pigment is not made from ethoxyquin itself, and the health significance of these findings is unknown. More information on the utility of ethoxyquin is still needed in order for CVM to amend the maximum allowable level to below that which would cause these effects, but which still would be useful in preserving the food. While studies are being conducted to ascertain a more accurate minimum effective level of ethoxyquin in dog foods, CVM has asked the pet food industry to voluntarily lower the maximum level of use of ethoxyquin in dog foods from 150 ppm (0.015%) to 75 ppm. Regardless, most pet foods that contained ethoxyquin never exceeded the lower amount, even before this recommended change."

And then take a look at this quote, from the same page. Note that it was believed that propylene glycol was safe because nothing had proven that it wasn't. Then, when they did have the proof, they banned it. How many other dangerous chemicals are being fed to our dogs while we wait for "proof"? I try to avoid feeding my dog any foods with too many ingredients that I can't pronounce, just in case.

"If scientific data are presented that show a health risk to animals of an ingredient or additive, CVM can act to prohibit or modify its use in pet food. For example, propylene glycol was used as a humectant in soft-moist pet foods, which helps retain water and gives these products their unique texture and taste. It was affirmed Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) for use in human and animal food before the advent of soft-moist foods. It was known for some time that propylene glycol caused Heinz Body formation in the red blood cells of cats (small clumps of proteins seen in the cells when viewed under the microscope), but it could not be shown to cause overt anemia or other clinical effects. However, recent reports in the veterinary literature of scientifically sound studies have shown that propylene glycol reduces the red blood cell survival time, renders red blood cells more susceptible to oxidative damage, and has other adverse effects in cats consuming the substance at levels found in soft-moist food. In light of this new data, CVM amended the regulations to expressly prohibit the use of propylene glycol in cat foods."

The book called "Raw Meaty Bones Promote Health" by Tom Lonsdale talks about the dangers of kibble.

Why would your vet react so harshly to a question about nutrition? Is he feeling defensive because he doesn't know enough about the subject but doesn't want to admit it? Is he getting nervous that he might lose your money if you stop buying his food? Does he not like to have to take the time to answer clients' questions? He wants proof that additives are not harmful - do you want your dog to be one of the guinea pigs that provide this proof, or should you just play it safe and not take the risk?

Take a look at Whole Dog Journal first. See their criteria and their food selections. And note the foods they hated and why.

Maisey once had an example of how much it cost to feed her two fairly large dogs Canidae - it was no more than Science Diet costs and really didn't add up to much. Perhaps she can post her figures again.

It's not like the cost of a quality kibble is going to break the bank. Why take a chance with your dog's health?

Jamiya

posted 03-02-2004 12:47 PM         

Best of luck to Atlantabulldog's puppy.

posted 03-02-2004 05:41 PM         

"To me", that is his way of telling me that he's the kind of Vet that could take advantage of my $pending$ when ever he pleases, because he didn’t come forward and tell you the truth.

Watch out for this guy... I say do research on the things you intend to go in for next time around, or else he may just play ring-around-the-rosie w/ your wallet.

A LOT of the diseases that are diagnosed today by veterinarians are due to the poor-quality junk that the commercial pet food industry has been marketing/BRAINWASHING the public w/.
If you start looking into nutrition, you'll find articles & statements by holistic DVM's & nutritionists & regular "concerned" DVM's saying that when dogs in our grand & great grandparents days (before the commercial pet food industry began) were fed exactly what humans had for breakfast/lunch/& dinner, there were few, if any of the health issues that today's pet owners deal with.
They strongly believe and have documented proof that ever since (from generations to generations) the public "bought into" commercial pet foods (i think it's been like 40-60 years), that this junk has contributed if not directly gave life to new diseases in our dogs/cats & other pets today.
Like the v a s t # of Skin Disease... and that's just 1 thing.

They've also said that dogs in those days lived not only healthier & happier lives but A LOT l o n g e r ones.

Nutrition’s key to a good health, it's worth the time to research.

Don't 4get exercise

posted 03-03-2004 04:26 AM         

What everyone said about the stool having less volume, less often, and less stinky is a good indication of the quality of food that you feed. We started Nala out on Science Diet Puppy because that's what the shelter fed her and we didn't know any better. Even as a small puppy, she pooped a LOT and boy did it smell!! We were NOT looking forward to her adult "messes".

Then I switched her to Healthwise (after a brief time on Innova - too rich for her) and you'd be amazed at the difference. She went from pooping 5-6 times a day to pooping twice, and there was much less of it and much less stinky.

Now that she is on raw, I'm not sure where she poops in the yard because I can't find it! It is small, solid, not squishy, and I am told that after a couple days it should just dry up and blow away. I guess it does, because I haven't stepped in a pile of poop in the yard in months. (This is also good for expressing anal glands naturally - something many small dog owners would jump for joy about.)

She also drinks a lot less water, because she gets the moisture in her food now.

So whatever you decide to feed, or if you are experimenting with several different foods, look to the poop factor to help you make your decision. Less waste means more nutrients were absorbed by the dog, which is a good thing. And less smell is nice, too!