[GermanSheperdlover]

Well Nate your vet loves you feeding this because HE GETS TO SEE YOUR DOG AND YOUR CHECK BOOK SO OFTEN.
No Shan Ol Roy is by the far the worst dog food then beneful and the Pedigree, eukiaweful and RC.

 

[Bec]

Dear Jess,

I am a veterinary student currently taking a course in nutrition at Murdoch University, Perth, Western Australia. I was interested to read these comments as we are predominantly informed about RC, Hills and Eukanuba/Iams at my university and it is good to get as much information as possible to formulate accurate opinions before deciding how to advise clients on appropriate nutrition for their pets.

The problem that I have with what you say about the ingredients used by RC to formulate their foods, is that your information has been obtained through websites only, not feeding trial studies or scientific papers or any other peer-reviewed sources. The websites that are your sources claim to be 'independent reviewers' of pet nutrition, but content on the www is not peer-reviewed, nor is it regulated by any reviewing body, so how can you be sure what you are reading is accurate? And what are the credentials of the authors of the material written on those websites?

The Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) is the reviewing body that ensures the quality of the pet food manufactured by companies like RC. All premium pet foods should be reviewed by AAFCO and have an AAFCO statement written on every bag detailing what calculations / testing procedures have been undertaken to ensure the food is appropriate for your animal. I hardly think that such a large regulatory body would endorse ingredients like corn if "CORN IS AS BAD AS IT GETS FOR DOGS, IT CAUSES SKIN,COAT, EAR AND EYE PROBLEMS IN DOGS. DOG DO NOT NOR CAN THEY DIGEST CORN AND THAT IS A FACT" as you suggest it is/does.

Granted, premium pet foods like RC are very expensive but the cost must be at least somewhat reflective of the amount of research and development undertaken to ensure the foods provide correct nutrition for your pet, wouldn't you think? Likely that is why supermarket brand pet food is so cheap.

Unfortunately for manufacturers you can probably dig up dirt on all pet food brands via Google or Yahoo and use it to discredit a certain company. Personally I would be wary of trusting anything found on the internet that is not appropriately referenced using peer-reviewed sources.

Finally, I can see that you are very enthusiastic and passionate about ensuring pet owners get the right advice, keep their pets safe from harmful foods and keep the money in the owner's pocket which is great - but perhaps you should find more appropriate sources supporting your recommendations and provide your credentials before advising people what is or isn't good food for their pet.

 

[GermanSheperdlover]

I'll tell you why, because I lost a great GSD to a tumor. 2 different vets told me the same thing, that they could NOT rule out bad dog food and it was a very likely source. So over the last year I have educated myself on good and bad ingredients in dog food. NOW I DO NOT KNOW EVERYTHING but if I see corn,wheat and other crap in Dog food I have no problem with calling it crap.I come across more people who have and have had issues with RC. We all know they fund vet schools, so that soon to be vet well tell his patents RC is the best. It's a no brainer!!!!

Now find some dirt on Orijen, Acana, Evo, Innova, Ca. Natural, Health Wise, Fromm, Merrick and TOTW. Their are many more dog foods I recomend BUT, RC or should I say the "R"eal "C"rap, Eukacrummy & Hillis is far from one.

Let me ask you this would you recomend this puppy list to a dog owner???

Chicken meal, brown rice, ""corn gluten meal"", ""chicken fat"", chicken, "rice", dried egg product, ""dried beet pulp"" (sugar removed), natural chicken flavors, ""wheat gluten"", anchovy oil (source of EPA/DHA), "dried brewers yeast", potassium chloride, sodium silico aluminate, flax seed, "salt", fructo-oligosaccharides, choline chloride, L-lysine, taurine, ""salmon meal"", "dried brewers yeast extract" (source of mannan-oligosaccharides), Vitamins [DL-alpha tocopherol acetate (source of vitamin E), L-ascorbyl-2-polyphosphate (source of vitamin C), biotin, D-calcium pantothenate, pyridoxine hydrochloride (vitamin B6), vitamin A acetate, niacin supplement, thiamine mononitrate (vitamin B1), riboflavin (vitamin B2) supplement, folic acid, vitamin B12 supplement, vitamin D3 supplement], marigold extract (Tagetes erecta L.), Trace Minerals [zinc oxide, ferrous sulfate, zinc proteinate, copper sulfate, manganese proteinate, manganous oxide, copper proteinate, calcium iodate, sodium selenite], preserved with natural mixed tocopherols (source of Vitamin E) and citric acid, rosemary extract.

corn gluten meal IS AS BAD AS IT GETS AND IT IS the 3rd ingredient. A study at Purdue University says chicken fat in the 1st 5 ingredients can cause bloat. I don't know about that, but they did the study. dried beet pulp is terrible and is in the food only to harden the stools and to me this is saying they know they make a bad dog food. wheat gluten, come on this is terrible for a dog. salmon meal, I would bet anything this has ethoyquin in it. Why so much salt?? Sodium everywhere. Their is other ingredients I do not like in this food, but if this what you are going to recomend I would never recomend you as a vet to anyone.

Good luck with your studies and please look hard at whats in dog food. Here is a list of what I like and yes their are more.

The A list
1. Orijen
2. Evo
3. Horizon Legacy
4. Acana
5. Innova
6. Wellness Core
7. Blue Wilderness
8. Taste of the Wild, wetlands & Prairie only
9. Fromm
10. Go, free endurance, chicken & Salmon only
The good price list
1. TOTW
2. California Natural
3. Health Wise
4. Kirkland, Costco
The B list
1. California Natural
2. Instinct
3. Evanders
4. Wellness
5. Timberwolf
6. Artemis
7. Solidgold
8. Canidae
9. Prairie
10. Karma
11. Health Wise

 

[buddy97]

bec,

RC is premium priced, not a premium food. for what they charge there are truly premium kibbles available.

ask RC what percentage of their kibble is meat product. they likely will not divulge this as it is certain to pale in comparison to many much higher quality kibbles (or they will hide behing the "proprietary information" veil.

Champion and Natura will provide this information because they are happy to let their customers know they make a meat based kibble.

 

[Bec]

Dear Derek,

RC is an AAFCO endorsed 'premuim' food, as is Natura (I do not know anything about Champion). What criteria do you believe identifies a pet food as a 'truly premium kibble' then?

I know it is difficult to appreciate but while it important to select for foods that are primarily meat based, it is not all about quantity. Quality (amino acid profile) of the protein source is also essential - especially for dogs and cats who are monogastric (have 1 stomach) and so need to obtain all of the essential amino acids required for normal bodily function from their food.

Digestibility is another important factor under consideration when selecting ingredients for pet food, there's no point incorporating a whole load of meat if it is included with other ingredients that decrease the digestibility of that meat or if it's digestibility is decreased by the method of processing used to create that pet food.

Finally it's the Dry Matter weight/proportion of the meat used in the food that is key to what final percentage of the food is actually meat protein - by law, manufacturers must list ingredients as a percentage of the food by precooked weight so 'fresh lamb 35%' for example may be a precooked weight of 35% but after processing (ie. dehydration to make kibble, animal muscle cells are ~60% water) the actual percentage of lamb in that food may have been reduced to only 15%. So when 'fresh lamb' is first on the list of ingredients, it will be the greatest proportion of the food when fresh (60% water) but when dehydrated/processed is may represent a proportion of dry matter content less than the ingredients listed further down the list.

So when processed into kibble 'fresh lamb' may be only 15% of the kibble (when listed as 35% fresh weight proportion) while 'barley' that may be 4th on the list of ingredients and allocated 20% of the fresh food proportion (approximately 10% water) after dehydration may represent 18% of the kibble, so there could be more barley dry matter in that kibble than lamb, you just don't know. Natura for example are happy to provide that information to you because legally they must divulge the fresh weight/proportion and don't need to make comment on the dry matter proportion. I'm not saying that they don't put a higher percentage of meat in their foods than many other manufacturers, I'm just saying that you can't assume that RC has a lower percentage of meat in their kibble compared to Natura based on the information on the package/website because of the legal requirements of how that information is divulged.

For the record I do not feed my dog RC, Eukanuba or Hills although I am a vet student / vet nurse and I do not mean to cause offense by this debate. I find it very interesting to see consumer opinions of pet food as there are many brands on the market and it is good to know what people like and do not like.

 

[SaltyDog]

First of all, way to regurgitate most of that off the Royal Canin website.

Second, EVERY dog food must meet AAFCO standards. Yes, there is a difference between meeting the standard and actually doing the feeding trial, which I get, and many may not.....BUT, the feeding trial is bogus because there isn't a single company the does the trial long enough to actually see the effects. Who actually governs over AAFCO?

As a vet student that you are, you would also know the many dog foods include synthetic vitamines or vitamine/mineral supplements that are so low of an inclusion that the dog would have to eat half the bag to achieve any benefit.

EVERY kibble should be supplemented with a whole foods supplement or at the very least, a digestive enzyme. Regardles of how great your kibble is (and I feed only Orijen, Acana or Evo products for my kibbles) it is still not natural for a K9 to eat and digest this.

You are correct in saying that we do not actually know how much meat is actually in the kibble. It's unfortunate, AAFCO has standards, but their standards aren't really high enough. For kibbles with grains, it is harder to figure, but grainless foods with higher fat percentages and higher calories, tend to lead you to believe of a higher meat base.


I'm not sure if we are debate Royal Canin or not, but they include corn gluten meal, soy oil and brewers yeast in their formulas. Royal Canin is not cheap....In my opinion, if you are willing to spend the money on RC, I'd take a look at Orijen, Acana, and Evo. If money is no objen, I'd feed raw or Honest Kitchen.

 

[Bec]

Dear Eric,

The information I have written above about fresh lamb dry matter content was extrapolated from my nutrition lecture on companion animal feeding which may or may not have been taken from RC by my lecturer. Wherever it is from, they have a point if you agree that we don't actually know how much meat is in the kibble.

AAFCO oversees the feeding trials and the statement on the bag should read "Animal feeding tests using AAFCO procedures substantiate that [product name] provides complete and balanced nutriton for [specific life stage]" if at least 8 healthy adult dogs of the specified age group are fed the diet solely for a minimum of 26 weeks, checked by a vet at the beginning and end, and observed weekly for daily food intake, general health and wellbeing (blood work also perfomed at the beginning and end) are fit, healthy and happy at the end of the trial.

Synthetic sources of vitamins and minerals have been formulated to be more available to the animal than natural sources and are included at very small quantities because they are only required in very small amounts because they are so readily available, and so as to minimise waste (they will be urinated out if unused) and minimise the chance of toxicity. Digestive enzymes promote digestibility of ingredients and make the energy and nutrients more available to the animal. While I agree that is it not natural for our pets to be consuming synthetic ingredients, they are domestic not wild and everything else about their lives with humans is hardly natural so why is it so much of an issue for owners to feed them synthetic vitamins and minerals? We eat synthetic ingredients in most processed foods we consume.

I have comments to make on the rest of your post and Jess's last post but I don't have time at the moment. Will come back later. Thanks for everyone's feedback.

 

[buddy97]

Bec, the garbage foods in the grocery store meet AAFCO standards. you are writing as though meeting those standards make a food stand up to some level of scrutiny. AAFCO standards are laughable....foods like Orijen, Acana, EVO, etc..go so far beyond those standards. i am talking about meat % in the final product, after cooking. that is why named meat meals must be used, as no manufacturer could use enough raw chicken, turkey, etc...to cause there to be any significant amount in the finished product after the cooking (they could, but they would charge us $150 per bag).

again, other quality manufacturer will give information regarding meat content in the finished product. RC wont, and im certain their isnt much.

RC is more concerned with "MARKETING" to the unsuspecting by making "breed specific kibbles", putting a nice picture of that breed on a bag so the consumer gets bamboozled into thinking that food must be something really special for their..GSD, Poosle, Boxer, etc...instead consumers should look for a food with good meat content and quality ingredients as well as a manufacturer that runs their own facility and makes their own food.

 

[buddy97]

Bec,

hopefully once you become a vet, you will no lomnger be regurgitating the information being fed to you by some of these companies and you will spend some time researching and keepin up with what foods are widely available on the market.

then, you wont just be another vet who pushes foods like SD, RC, Eukanuba, Purina, etc....you will be able to tell customers about all the wonderful, TRULY premium foods (not foods that say "premium" because AAFCO says they can)that are available on the marketplace, foods with high levels of meat content (for example, many of the grainless foods on the market).

 

[SaltyDog]

Hi Bec,

See, that AAFCO trial is laughable at best. 8 dogs in 26 six weeks, hardly seems like a study. It sounds more like a weekend co-ed project. I understand that we have to have standards, but their standards are so sub-par...someone needs to come in and govern over AAFCO or reorganize what is standard AND how a feeding trial is done. In 26 weeks, the seasons have changed, activity levels have changed, ailments have arised, different stress situations have come into play.....you get the picture. And 8 dogs? That's like me and two of my neighbors. And where are the studies performed? In the dogs normal, comfortable environment? Or in some lab? Some low grade kennel? Are these dogs loved? Are they kennel dogs, looking for a home? I have weimaraners, were the studies performed on shiz-tzu's?

I also agree that synthetics are more readily available, but that doesn't make them better. And yes, over supplemented, the dog will excrete what is not used, but I've read plenty research papers on toxicity to understand that it is natural for dogs, and humans for that matter, to excrete any unused vitamins and minerals without toxic issues. The levels at which toxicity would come into play, the animal would have to consume extreme levels, over and above the daily dosage during sequential feedings. The chance of this happening? Highly unlikely. You have a better chance of running into HOD first.....which is usually mis-diganosed.

I understand that we have domesticated our dogs, but they are still carnivors. Domesticating is behavior, not how they eat. We has humans, should not be eating the processed foods that we eat....but we eat them anyway. So if we eat them, then they are good enough for our pets as well....right? Well, I don't believe it is right, but it is what we feed, because everyone says so. A natural diet of raw meat and meaty bones is more species appropriate than dry kibble. Kibble has come a long way though, but it is still not natural. It's McDonalds for dogs.....conveinient, just like for us. You gain nutrition, but lets be real, McDonalds for humans isn't really species appropriate now is it? It's not the best nutrition you could feed. A home cooked meal with chickens in your back yard, vegetables picked from your own garden, made with love by mom....now that is species appropriate for humans. But let's be real, who today has time for meals like that? Maybe once...twice a week, if you are lucky. Yet we should be eating that way 3 times a day. Kibble is conveinient....that's it. Orijen is the best kibble they have come up with thus far. But it's still not natural, yet I eat McDonalds so my dogs eat kibble.

I see and understand your debate on domestication, but I think you are confusing domestication (the change in behavior of a species) with what the species should be eating. And as someone who should understand nutrition, processed anything and synthetic anything is not appropriate for any species on this planet.

I hope you realize that I'm not attacking you, but enjoying this debate. Thus far, I understand your points, but I don't agree with all of them. I think it is clear on the parts both of us agree upon.

 

[Hameed]

Ingredient
Maize, dehydrated Poultry meat, Maize product, Vegetable protein Isolate, Animal fat. This is the RC ingredients in India. Explain this Bec, If there is valid reason for these Ingredients then I(we) shall accept RC is really committed to pet foods. Every dog food brands point of view is money, but it should not be on the Illness and negative health on dogs.

 

[GermanSheperdlover]

Hey Bec
Here is a link to what I feel is one of the better dog food sites on the net. A lot of great information, that isn't just someones opinion. Look on the left side and there are lots more info.

http://www.dogfoodproject.com/index.php?page=badingredients

 

[GermanSheperdlover]

Oh I do agree with you. You have to take what you read on the internet with a grain of salt, but if you read the same thing over and over again it is most likely true. And I really believe the list in the link above is 100% acurate, I just feel they left some unneeded stuff out. Such as apples and tomatoes, I feel they aren't needed in a dogs diet. Now that would just be my opinion and is far from being a fact.

It's kinda sad your lecturer is quoting quotes off of dog food manufactures sites. That really tells me something about your professor/lecturer. Seems they are just quoting the INTERNET, LOL. If you want to read some really BIG lies by a dog manufacture go to abady dog food, they say and I quote "that their dog food can cure hip dysplasia". Now I am pretty certain you being a vet student you have some knowlege in that field. My point is you really can't believe anything these manufactures say. I feed Orijen, can I believe they actually have 70% meat in their food like they say??? Humm, I really am not certain. but at least they have alot because the ingredient list is so full of meats.

 

[Bec]

Dear Shan,

Maize is corn - corn is a good source of fibre (hulls) that maintains large intestinal microbial flora, minimises gas production and keeps faeces firm - and is a high energy carbohydrate with high vegetable protein value (starch component) however is a potential allergen for dogs with food sensitivities. Dehydrated poultry meat is similar to poultry meal (90% dry matter) but unground, likely sourced from more poultry species than just chicken, contains only skin and muscle meat, no bones. I do not know what 'maize product' is, I suggest you contact RC for that information. Vegetable protein isolate is vegetables processed to isolate the protein component (amino acids) and make it readily available to the pet's digestive tract - vegetable and animal proteins have very different amino acid profiles so it is important that both are incorporated to attain the appropriate mix of essential amino acids for the dog/cat. Often vegetables are incorporated in pet foods but the majority of their nutritional value is trapped within their outer 'shell', for example like a pea. Isolating them makes those proteins easily and readily available in the dog/cat's small intestine for absorption and utilisation. Animal fat is fat taken from non-specific animal sources, fat is a high energy nutrient almost always incorporated in all processed pet foods to increase energy density.

Those are the reasons I have been taught as to why those ingredients are incorporated into RC foods. Questionable that the first ingredient listed is maize which is then split into maize and 'maize product' (ingredients splitting), however the first 3 ingredients listed are good sources of protein (discounting the maize product) - 1 cereal, 1 meat and 1 vegetable source of protein. They have not included other cereals such as oats, barley, wheat etc. just the maize which is the 'best' allround cereal grain (for the high energy and protein content compared to other grains) as long as the animal it is fed to is not food intolerant.

I agree that every manufacturer has their valid reasons for selecting particular ingredients and do so for the merits of those ingredients. The only thing I would be investigating in the above mentioned ingredients is the 'maize product' and the actual final percentage of total maize on a dry matter basis - both questions you can pose to RC directly. I have met many animals on RC and they all appear happy and healthy to me, and in my 5+ years as a veterinary nurse I have heard few complaints about RC as a brand (usually food hypersensitivity/intolerance based) and many good things. I doubt they would intentionally cause illness or negative health to pets as they are the market for their product, however they are a business like every other business and their aims incorporate keeping production costs low and charging plenty of money for what they produce.

From what has been discussed above it appears as though if you would prefer a 'natural' diet Orijen, EVO, Acana etc are they way to go. Though I do not condemn RC for utilising cheap, readily available ingredients as long as their use is of appropriate nutritional value and not harmful to the pet.

 

[Bec]

Dear Derek,

I am doing my research on alternative pet foods to what we get given as examples in class as we speak. Everyone here has been great helping me sort out my views on manufacturers and ingredienst etc and consumer views also. Unfortunately Innova and California Natural are the only brands on the list Jess has given that I have seen in Western Australia (in a few small pet store, not in the huge franchise pet stores) and I have lived here for 22 years, so this is likely one of the reasons they are not discussed in our veterinary programme at Murdoch. I am completely open to suggestion though and have not even settled on a manufactured pet food for my pride and joy (1.5yo golden retriever with mild atopic dermatitis) who is on human grade turkey breast mince and sweet potato + supplements, so do not be concerned that I will purely regurgitate to my clients what I have been taught at uni.

Also, for the record - AAFCO is regulated by the NRC (national research council) who's nutritional minimum requirement tables I'm fairly sure all pet food manufacturers use to measure their products against.

Would love to stay and continue responding to messages but uni is calling. Back later.

 

[SaltyDog]

Bec,

Great write up on you answer to Shan.


What kind of products are you able to obtain in Australia?


One of my favs, but I don't know if you have it or can get it, is Honest Kitchen. It is a dehydrated raw that is FDA inspected not AAFCO. My vet has pushed Science Diet and Iams until I turned him on to Honest Kitchen. Now he feeds it to his own cats.

 

[maquignon]

Royal Canin, along with Science Diet, is the most overpriced rip-off on the market. It is apparent that they spend more money on the fancy packaging, with the picture of each breed, than they do on what they put inside the bag. There is absolutely no reason to have a different food for each breed of dog. It is the biggest marketing gimmick around and it is astounding that so many people fall for it. Its certainly not the worst food on the market, but when you buy Pedigree, you know that you are buying the lowest priced food on the market and you don't expect anything better. When you pay the prices Royal Canin charges you expect to get something better and Royal Canin costs as much as real quality foods (Blue Buffalo, Castor & Pollux, AvoDerm, Pinnacle, Dogswell etc.) Why, why, why would anyone pay the prices Royal Canin charges when they can get real quality for the same price?????

 

[Brandon2]

Well, working at a large pet food retail store, and after doing a lot of research and listening to countless pet food companies come in and pitch thier food I can tell you RC is not a bad food. The do more research than all other pet food brand combined to see what is good for a dog and what is not good for a dog. But most importantly to me is the customer reponse. I have made suggestions for tons of different dogs with different types of food including Blue Buffalo, Bil Jac, RC, Castor and Pollux, amongst a few others, and about 90% of the people I suggest go on the RC for whatever reason they come back and thank me, and then they tell a friend about it. The internet is fully of opinions, but when i see in real life how happy customers are when they dinally find a food thier dogs likes, and that in the long run it saves them money i know its a good food. I also personally use this food. I started off on Pedigree because it was what i had always fed my dogs growing up and knew nothing more about foods. When i started at my job i switched to NutroMax. A decent entry level premium food, and i saw good benefits, so i moved up to Nutro Natural Choice, saw some improvement in skin and coat, so i went to Ultra. Loved it my dog was happy, nice firm stool, active shiney all i could ask for. Then one day she just stopped eating it. I had to change wend to RC and havent looked back. She is still all of the above, and more. She eats far less which saves me money and is the picture of health. Never loses or gains weight. If this was such a horrible food, it wouldnt be on the market. The key thing to remember is that just because a dog food is working for one dog it might not work for the next. Otherwise there would just be 1 dog food. Research has shown that this is not the case. I always tell my customers if your dog is doing well on the food its on and you are happy stick with it. Even if they are looking at going from a food that costs $25 a bag to something closer to $45 a bag.

 

[GermanSheperdlover]

You should quit because you have no clue about dog food. OL ROY is no DOUBT, "THE WORST" dog food made today. RC is down right terrible and you have the eduction of a 3rd grader. NutroMax and Ultra and extremely LOW grade dog foods... AND YOU ARE GIVING RECOMMENDATIONS OUT ABOUT DOG FOOD??? Geez, that's like putting a private in charge of the entire military of the USA.

 

[Charley1]

Hey Jess,

I have to say since I put my Boxer on RC he has been doing phenomenal!!! No more runny stool, skin problems, excesive licking etc... I also can confirm that several champion breeders in my area that have BIS & BIG Boxers on RC from the begining. I have had my Boxer on everything from the raw natural organic food crap being marketed now as EXCEPTIONAL (NOTTTT!) to $75.00 bags of Innova to some other "Natural Dog Foods" gimmick crap. Bottom line. RC stopped all symptoms, period. Why such animosity against RC? If it works for your dog, and they're healthy, then you should be better off. what's the argument about? No one dog food is the end all cure all for all dogs.