# Royal Canin .... Opinion Needed



## Debs0162 (May 28, 2014)

I have a very spoilt pup who is coming up to his first birthday at the end of this month. We have had him since he was 12 weeks old and he is a Lhasa Apso x. He is a sweet natured boy and have a great temperament. He is however a real fuss pot with his eating. I have fed him Lily's Kitchen dry/wet food since he was brought home from the breeder but just lately he is turning his nose up at it and refusing to eat. He is really stubborn and will go days without having his food.
He was at my sister-in-laws over the weekend for a sleepover with her two jack russells and he decided he loves Royal Canin. I have done loads of reading about dog foods and those that are not particularly good - RC is one of them - but my pup seems to love it....  
If I am going to move him away from Lily's Kitchen I would rather he had something that was nutritionally better than RC - what do you think? What other food could I try I seem to be losing the battle with LK - what a fuss pot (the dog not me !!)


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

I wouldn't Encourage fussiness in my dogs. While there is nothing wrong with RC, I wouldn't change him as its feeding his fussiness.

Providing he is healthy, he won't starve himself. I've never had a fussy eater. They eat what they get or.....believe me, a dog won't starve itself!


----------



## Westie Mum (Feb 5, 2015)

I'm afraid I'm a tough love feeder aswell - eat it or I'm lifting the bowl ! 

Easier with multiple dogs though as they always eat well which is prob why your little one ate the RC - could be nothing to do with the RC and more to do with eating it before another dog did  (my sisters dog was a mega fussy eater and was ringing circles round her every meal time. Dog came to stay with me for 2 weeks and ate perfectly after the first day when he stood staring at his bowl and one of my dogs ate it all) 

You could though try adding some different toppers to the dry, like sardines etc.


----------



## Debs0162 (May 28, 2014)

I know you are right and I've made a rod for my own back by pandering to him .... thank you for the advice.


----------



## Little P (Jun 10, 2014)

I've fed royal canin to my dog for 12 years and he's done well on it. But I agree with the others about fussiness. I like to feed my dog a food that he enjoys, but luckily that's not difficult as he'd eat anything if it stayed still for long enough.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Low quality, contains carcinogens, as advised by the company when asked. Hugely overpriced for what the ingredients are. Wouldn't touch it. If I had a small dog, I'd try Applaws.


----------



## Middleagedmum (Feb 4, 2014)

My BT came from the breeder on RC but she never really liked it. She too has been a fussy eater partly due to a few health issues we have had during the first year of her life.
She is now settled on Applaws pate trays as wet food and Millies Wolfheart kibble. Both have lots if varieties so she gets plenty of change. I agree that dogs should enjoy their food and she does, I usually supplement with small amounts of roasted meat, cheese etc. now I know that if she doesn't eat its because something is wrong rather than she is being fussy.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Debs0162 said:


> I have a very spoilt pup who is coming up to his first birthday at the end of this month. We have had him since he was 12 weeks old and he is a Lhasa Apso x. He is a sweet natured boy and have a great temperament. He is however a real fuss pot with his eating. I have fed him Lily's Kitchen dry/wet food since he was brought home from the breeder but just lately he is turning his nose up at it and refusing to eat. He is really stubborn and will go days without having his food.
> He was at my sister-in-laws over the weekend for a sleepover with her two jack russells and he decided he loves Royal Canin. I have done loads of reading about dog foods and those that are not particularly good - RC is one of them - but my pup seems to love it....
> If I am going to move him away from Lily's Kitchen I would rather he had something that was nutritionally better than RC - what do you think? What other food could I try I seem to be losing the battle with LK - what a fuss pot (the dog not me !!)


If your dog likes it feed it but what happens when he turns his nose up at that one.

Royal Canin is one of many foods which produces and maintains fabulous dogs.

As for the assertion that it contains carcinogens, well MOST things are potential carcinogens in the right circumstances  including raw and home cooked ingredients.

My dogs like everything and will eat what is put in front of them.

Part of their diet also consists of licking their own bottoms and each others and fresh horse manure.

(Probably carcinogenic and poor quality)


----------



## Renata (Mar 18, 2013)

cinnamontoast said:


> Low quality, contains carcinogens, as advised by the company when asked. Hugely overpriced for what the ingredients are. Wouldn't touch it. If I had a small dog, I'd try Applaws.


It is not true what you claim here.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

Feeding dogs can be highly emotional for humans as its part of nurturing your dog.it can create very strong opinions with some people Think how much parents obsess about what their children eat, or how to wean babies. 

To look at the subject of canine nutrition, you have to divorce yourself of these perfectly natural feelings and look at the subject logically.

And remember that opinions are not facts.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

I expect the majority of those supporting Royal Canin don't actually feed it to their own dogs which would suggest something. My opinion is that it's overpriced and relies on company loyalty being brought with puppy packs and breeders incentives.


----------



## EAD (May 10, 2013)

Royal canin definitely wouldn't be my first or second or third choice of food but I am feeding Alfie the tinned Sensitivity at the minute due to colitis and while it's agreeing with him I will continue.


----------



## Westie Mum (Feb 5, 2015)

Goblin said:


> I expect the majority of those supporting Royal Canin don't actually feed it to their own dogs which would suggest something. My opinion is that it's overpriced and relies on company loyalty being brought with puppy packs and breeders incentives.


My OH who knows nothing about dog food wanted to feed ours the RC Westie formula. Purely cause it had a cute Westie on the front.

I told him to read the ingredients and even he put it back on the shelf !

I do truly believe a lot of people buy it when it has a picture of their breed on because they think it's the best food, tailor made for their dog ..... Whereas in reality, most are the same food, with different packaging


----------



## Debs0162 (May 28, 2014)

Thanks everyone... clearly a very emotive subject. I think I am going to persevere with his Lily's Kitchen as he's had that since we brought him home and other than being an over indulged fuss pot due to besotted owner giving in to him far too easily he's looking really good on it. Thanks everyone for your feedback.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

smokeybear said:


> If your dog likes it feed it but what happens when he turns his nose up at that one.
> 
> Royal Canin is one of many foods which produces and maintains fabulous dogs.
> 
> ...


The assertion? The letter that came back to a query said that they do in fact use BHA and BHT which are _known_ carcinogens.



Renata said:


> It is not true what you claim here.


What do you know about this? The company responded to an email query saying that they used the two ingredients I quoted and therefore I think it IS true, actually.

There is no data to prove that different breeds of dogs need specific types of food and looking at the ingredients for the various breeds, they are all incredibly similar.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Breakdown of one type: first ingredient rice.

The first ingredient in this food is a grain. Rice is a reasonable quality grain, but we believe dog food should be based primarily on meat products, not on grains. The second, sixth and ninth ingredients are named meat sources. We note that one is fish. The manufacturer does not claim to use ethoxyquin-free fish sources (ethoxyquin is a chemical preservative believed to be carcinogenic).


It is a concern to see chicken fat as the third ingredient. Research at Purdue University has identified a fat in the top four ingredients of a dry dog food as a factor that increases the risk of bloat in large breed dogs. Smaller breeds are untested.


Corn gluten meal is filler, for which the AAFCO definition is the dried residue from corn after the removal of the larger part of the starch and germ, and the separation of the bran by the process employed in the wet milling manufacture of corn starch or syrup, or by enzymatic treatment of the endosperm. In plain English, that which remains after all the nutritious bits have been removed. Brown rice is a decent quality grain.


Beet pulp is yet another controversial ingredient  it is a by-product, being dried residue from sugar beets which has been cleaned and extracted in the process of manufacturing sugar. It is a controversial ingredient in dog food, claimed by some manufacturers to be a good source of fibre, and derided by others as an ingredient added to slow down the transition of rancid animal fats and causing stress to kidney and liver in the process. We note that beet pulp is an ingredient that commonly causes problems for dogs, including allergies and ear infections, and prefer not to see it used in dog food especially so high on the ingredient list. There are less controversial products around if additional fibre is required.


We note the use of soya oil in the food. Soy is a poor quality source of protein in dog food, and a common cause of allergy problems. Some believe that it is the number 1 cause of food allergies in dogs (outstripping even wheat).


----------



## Renata (Mar 18, 2013)

cinnamontoast said:


> The assertion? The letter that came back to a query said that they do in fact use BHA and BHT which are _known_ carcinogens.
> 
> What do you know about this? The company responded to an email query saying that they used the two ingredients I quoted and therefore I think it IS true, actually.
> 
> There is no data to prove that different breeds of dogs need specific types of food and looking at the ingredients for the various breeds, they are all incredibly similar.


What do I know about this? I can only recommend you to do some reading on canine nutrition. There are some good books that you can get on Amazon. Or there are courses on canine nutrition.


----------



## Thorne (May 11, 2009)

Renata said:


> What do I know about this? I can only recommend you to do some reading on canine nutrition. There are some good books that you can get on Amazon. Or there are courses on canine nutrition.


Please recommend the books and courses, I am very interested in canine nutrition and dog food


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Renata said:


> What do I know about this? I can only recommend you to do some reading on canine nutrition. There are some good books that you can get on Amazon. Or there are courses on canine nutrition.


Many of us have read extensively on canine nutrition. Why don't you read and actually take on board what is normally actually stated?

Try: http://www.acana.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/White-Paper-Revisions-CP-Feburary-11th-2012.pdf although it is marketing, also contains references backing it up.

How about: Importance of Animal-Based Proteins in Dog Foods | Iams.com if you want a pet food manufacter's research result which certainly backs cinnamontoast's statement on corn gluten. Then again, you've always ignored information like that in the past.


----------



## Little P (Jun 10, 2014)

Goblin said:


> I expect the majority of those supporting Royal Canin don't actually feed it to their own dogs which would suggest something. My opinion is that it's overpriced and relies on company loyalty being brought with puppy packs and breeders incentives.


I feed it through choice and I'm very happy with the results that I have got over the 10 years I've been feeding it. I've tried other foods over the years and have always gone back to RC.

Do you feed the best food on paper, or do you feed a food that the individual dog does best on? MWH is held in high regard here, gave my collie diarrhoea, do I continue feeding it because it's a good food, despite the effect on my dog? My older terrier eats RC, my younger collie eats pro plan - shock horror 

Both are perfectly healthy, very happy, doing well and importantly for me, enjoy their food.


----------



## Jamesgoeswalkies (May 8, 2014)

Goblin said:


> Try: http://www.acana.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/White-Paper-Revisions-CP-Feburary-11th-2012.pdf although it is marketing, also contains references backing it up.
> 
> Importance of Animal-Based Proteins in Dog Foods | Iams.com if you want a *pet food manufacter's research* result


Unfortunately when looking at research on *any *subject you are advised to avoid manufacturers reports and findings at all costs. There won't be an unbiased one amongst them ...he who pays the piper and all that.

I'm sure there are some interesting and unbiased reports out there .... I've never studied it as a stand alone subject so I've never looked.



Little P said:


> Do you feed the best food on paper, or do you feed a food that the individual dog does best on?


This is something that every dog owner should consider. There is massive pressure to feed 'the best' (whatever that may be) sending some new owners into a panic.

And I do wonder sometimes though with all this massive marketing of 'good dog food' how my friends dog lived to 16 (the sweet boy has just passed away) after being fed on a mixture of supermarket brands and left overs.

J


----------



## Little P (Jun 10, 2014)

Jamesgoeswalkies said:


> Unfortunately when looking at research on *any *subject you are advised to avoid manufacturers reports and findings at all costs. There won't be an unbiased one amongst them ...he who pays the piper and all that.
> 
> I'm sure there are some interesting and unbiased reports out there .... I've never studied it as a stand alone subject so I've never looked.
> 
> ...


My previous dogs ate supermarket wet food - I think Pal was the usual one - with some cheap mixer type biscuits. The collie lived to 17 with good health throughout. He was PTS after a bad vestibular episode. The JRT x either collie or escaped local fox hound (never knew which!) lived to 19, again with no issues until right at the end.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Jamesgoeswalkies said:


> Unfortunately when looking at research on *any *subject you are advised to avoid manufacturers reports and findings at all costs There won't be an unbiased one amongst them ...he who pays the piper and all that.


Whilst I acknowledge your point a lot of research is only done by pet food manufacturer's regarding dogs. Unless you want to rely on research away from dogs, mice being common, you run into problems. Great example has been when looking at kidney problems and protein levels, science has shown differences where low protein diets were recommended due to research with mice/rats. In fact, the opposite is actually true when science looked at the same thing in dogs. The other important consideration when looking at things: are research papers listed and referenced? Here we run into problems with the second link, which references internal documents. Strange that this document is not available but then IAMS do not actually seem to use or push for animal based proteins as the main source of protein in their food. By all means show me references for scientific studies which show bulk, low "biological value" plant based materials are preferential for a hypercarnivore?



> And I do wonder sometimes though with all this massive marketing of 'good dog food' how my friends dog lived to 16 (the sweet boy has just passed away) after being fed on a mixture of supermarket brands and left overs.


Quite simply dogs are flexible and scavengers. There is no single best food for all dogs. What we can do however if try to bump up the odds of long life even marginally when we can. What is certain: despite all the research we do not have capability to make complete and balanced food for all humans. How can we assume and believe it when pet food manufacturers advertise they can? They lie left right and center when it comes to things like "premium" brands. One of the oldest humans to live smoked. Is that an example you want to raise to convince people smoking is good for them?


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

Linda Case: dog food logic. An excellent book which also contains as good an explaination of the scientific method as I've seen.

And carcinogens? As SmokeyBear had already stated, many things are carcinogenic. It's about level of exposure. If you tried to avoid all carcinogenic substances you wouldn't be alive. Here's a list of some well known carcinogens:

Sunshine
Roasted or fried potatoes (though there is current work being done on a GMO potato which doesn't contain acrylamide)
Wood smoke
Sawdust
Drinking water
Bacon
Smoked fish.....


You see it's not the carcinogen, it's the ammount you consume which determines if it is harmful.
So, the statement that some dog foods contain "known carcinogens" is pretty meaningless without details of how much it contains and what levels need to be consumed to cause harm.

Alarmist statements like "thay contain carcinogens!!" Are unhelpful.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Old Shep said:


> Alarmist statements like "thay contain carcinogens!!" Are unhelpful.


As is ignoring or refusing that it is controversial for a reason. Interresting to note, research isn't if they are harmful as in high doses it's a given, it's at what level it becomes harmful.

Food Additives ~ CSPI?s Food Safety sums it up well.



> BHA retards rancidity in fats, oils, and oil-containing foods. While some studies indicate it is safe, other studies demonstrate that it causes cancer in rats, mice, and hamsters. Those cancers are controversial because they occur in the forestomach, an organ that humans do not have. However, a chemical that causes cancer in at least one organ in three different species indicates that it might be carcinogenic in humans. That is why the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services considers BHA to be "reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen." Nevertheless, the Food and Drug Administration still permits BHA to be used in foods. This synthetic chemical can be replaced by safer chemicals (e.g., vitamin E), safer processes (e.g., packing foods under nitrogen instead of air), or can simply be left out (many brands of oily foods, such as potato chips, don't use any antioxidant).


Many pet food manufacturer's do not use it. Out of interest what is one of the major causes of premature death in dogs.. isn't it cancer?


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

Goblin said:


> As is ignoring or refusing that it is controversial for a reason. Interresting to note, research isn't if they are harmful as in high doses it's a given, it's at what level it becomes harmful.
> 
> Food Additives ~ CSPI?s Food Safety sums it up well.
> 
> Many pet food manufacturer's do not use it. Out of interest what is one of the major causes of premature death in dogs.. isn't it cancer?


That's your source of information? CSPI? Do you know who they are? Lol!!

Peer reviewer published papers from Pumed/Medline and the like I will respond to, not crazy woo filled crank sites.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

I don't ever remember dogs having such problems health wise when I was a kid. Back then, there was a standard tin of wet meat and a winalot type mixer biscuit.

You just don't know what goes into a little pellet in a bag that has a list of ingredients on the back.

If we can't trust manufacturers of human food to be honest and only put in our food what is listed on the pack, then how can we ever expect to be able to trust a dog food?

If you buy raw, you can see what it is and which part of the animal it came from as long as it hasn't already been minced and mushed up. You don't know how safe the meat it, how it was killed or if it was fallen stock from a farm....so, the answer is...feed your dog whatever it will eat and whatever your pocket can afford.

and, for the record...I feed mine tripe and biscuits and have done for years and never yet had a skin or digestive problem or any other food related problem.


----------



## GoldenRetrieverman (Sep 7, 2012)

Old Shep said:


> Linda Case: dog food logic. An excellent book which also contains as good an explaination of the scientific method as I've seen.
> 
> And carcinogens? As SmokeyBear had already stated, many things are carcinogenic. It's about level of exposure. If you tried to avoid all carcinogenic substances you wouldn't be alive. Here's a list of some well known carcinogens:
> 
> ...


Are you still feeding Happy dog dry food? You know that dry food that doesnt contain known carcinogens :ihih:


----------



## Little P (Jun 10, 2014)

Goblin said:


> As is ignoring or refusing that it is controversial for a reason. Interresting to note, research isn't if they are harmful as in high doses it's a given, it's at what level it becomes harmful.
> 
> Food Additives ~ CSPI?s Food Safety sums it up well.
> 
> Many pet food manufacturer's do not use it. Out of interest what is one of the major causes of premature death in dogs.. isn't it cancer?


As I've already mentioned, I've fed RC for 10 years. My dog doesn't have cancer.


----------



## Renata (Mar 18, 2013)

cinnamontoast said:


> Breakdown of one type: first ingredient rice.
> 
> The first ingredient in this food is a grain. Rice is a reasonable quality grain, but we believe dog food should be based primarily on meat products, not on grains. The second, sixth and ninth ingredients are named meat sources. We note that one is fish. The manufacturer does not claim to use ethoxyquin-free fish sources (ethoxyquin is a chemical preservative believed to be carcinogenic).
> 
> ...


You do not mention at all what food you are are talking about. What sources do you copy from? Lots of information you are giving here is not correct at all.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Renata said:


> What do I know about this? I can only recommend you to do some reading on canine nutrition. There are some good books that you can get on Amazon. Or there are courses on canine nutrition.


Are you serious? The manufacturer has stated that BHT/BHA are used in the production of their food. I would prefer to avoid this when giving food to an animal that has no choice, regardless of amount. From your post, it sounds like you think canine nutrition should include these two ingredients.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Old Shep said:


> That's your source of information? CSPI? Do you know who they are? Lol!!


Really.. well the fact of the matter is, the CSPI overview matches what was found elsewhere just summarized it, looking at both sides of the argument. Unlike some who close their eyes and reject anything they do not like.

Peer reviewed science... what was the quote from Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association?


> If peer review was a drug it would never be allowed onto the market


So instead of taking one source which matches what I want, I'm happy to look around at the various information available and use something which sums up the various conclusions. Then again, you never actually go into sources do you, simply reject any information which doesn't say what you want. Unreliable, even if peer reviewed.

Little P : As previous mentioned, one of the oldest women ever smoked. Would you use her as an example of why people should smoke? She never had cancer either


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Renata said:


> You do not mention at all what food you are are talking about. What sources do you copy from? Lots of information you are giving here is not correct at all.


Omg, really? What food is this thread about? How do you know the info is incorrect? What is not correct according to the analysis (Dogfoodanalysis site, btw) Are you working for this brand?


----------



## Little P (Jun 10, 2014)

Goblin said:


> Really.. well the fact of the matter is, the CSPI overview matches what was found elsewhere just summarized it, looking at both sides of the argument. Unlike some who close their eyes and reject anything they do not like.
> 
> Peer reviewed science... what was the quote from Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association?
> 
> ...


And plenty of people who eat well, refrain from drinking and smoking, exercise regularly and look after themselves generally, get cancer.

Maybe I shouldn't walk my dog near traffic or during daylight hours because of the carcinogens? I also feed him from a melamine bowl, oh the horror of horrors!

If you wanted to avoid all carcinogens you'd have live in a bubble away from direct sunlight. Even then someone would probably find a cancer causing chemical in the bubble.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Little P said:


> And plenty of people who eat well, refrain from drinking and smoking, exercise regularly and look after themselves generally, get cancer.
> 
> Maybe I shouldn't walk my dog near traffic or during daylight hours because of the carcinogens? I also feed him from a melamine bowl, oh the horror of horrors!
> 
> If you wanted to avoid all carcinogens you'd have live in a bubble away from direct sunlight. Even then someone would probably find a cancer causing chemical in the bubble.


You're absolutely right, of course. It's pretty impossible to avoid carcinogens, but even putting aside those ingredients, the amount of grains and the lack of meat doesn't justify the price of this food. It reads more like what I give the horse.


----------



## Little P (Jun 10, 2014)

cinnamontoast said:


> You're absolutely right, of course. It's pretty impossible to avoid carcinogens, but even putting aside those ingredients, the amount of grains and the lack of meat doesn't justify the price of this food. It reads more like what I give the horse.


The fact that it is the food that my dog does best on justifies the price for me.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Little P said:


> The fact that it is the food that my dog does best on justifies the price for me.


Fair enough. If mine were ill or doing badly on their current food, I'd have no hesitation changing.


----------



## Thorne (May 11, 2009)

Renata - which books or websites would you recommend for learning more about canine nutrition? I've got a good basic knowledge from my degree but it is hard to find unbiased studies or publications.


----------



## mollymo (Oct 31, 2009)

Little P said:


> I've fed royal canin to my dog for 12 years and he's done well on it. But I agree with the others about fussiness. I like to feed my dog a food that he enjoys, but luckily that's not difficult as he'd eat anything if it stayed still for long enough.


I agree if any of mine did not like or would not eat a particular food then yes I would change it.
If it happened to be RC that they would eat then RC it would be


----------



## Renata (Mar 18, 2013)

cinnamontoast said:


> Omg, really? What food is this thread about? How do you know the info is incorrect? What is not correct according to the analysis (Dogfoodanalysis site, btw) Are you working for this brand?


You say "break down of one type" which really means nothing. Is it puppy, maintenance, senior dog food?


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

Thorne said:


> Renata - which books or websites would you recommend for learning more about canine nutrition? I've got a good basic knowledge from my degree but it is hard to find unbiased studies or publications.


I have already suggested, twice now, linda Case "dog food logic" she lectures bets on nutrition.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

This has already degenerated into those who take a dispassionate look at the evidence (ie me) and all the rest of you who disagree with me (who are obviously wrong)

:001_tt2:


----------



## Renata (Mar 18, 2013)

cinnamontoast said:


> Are you serious? The manufacturer has stated that BHT/BHA are used in the production of their food. I would prefer to avoid this when giving food to an animal that has no choice, regardless of amount. From your post, it sounds like you think canine nutrition should include these two ingredients.


As for BHA/BHT: the inclusion of antioxidants in commercial pet foods is necessary for the protection of dietary fat from detrimental oxidative changes. The proper use of all types of antioxidants prevents the occurence of rancidity and the production of toxic compounds in pet foods. In most cases, synthetic antioxidants are included in foods because of their efficacy, good carry-through, and cost. In contrast, poor carry-through, instability, and high levels needed for effective protection make natural-derived antioxidants more chalenging to use as the only type of antioxidant in pet food. 
More info you will find in Canine and Feline Nutrition by Case, Daristotle, Hayek, Raasch. 
As for fibre and Beet pulp: Studies of the use of beet pulp as a fibre source for dogs and cats have found that including beet pulp in the food does not negatively affect palatibility and positively contributes to bowel regularity and stool quality. When included at optimal levels in a food, the moderately fermentable fibre of beet pulp helps to provide adequate bulk for gastrointestinal tract functioning while also promo thing gastrointestinal cell health through production of SCFAs.
More info: Canine and Feline Nutrition.

By the way - I do not feed my dogs RC, it is too expensive.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Renata said:


> You say "break down of one type" which really means nothing. Is it puppy, maintenance, senior dog food?


As already mentioned, all of their food is extremely similar. The different foods for different breeds is not backed up by any data and again, the ingredients are virtually identical. Including beet pulp, while justifiable, is not the top choice: there are other ingredients which aren't a residue of a process to remove sugar that are more suitable to canines, bone being a fair example.

The antioxidant information you posted is available on wiki, not that I rely on an freely editable source such as that, but no amazing surprises contained within it. It's a generic description of the function and other antioxidants requiring greater volume and being less stable does not justify-or excuse-the premium price charged for a non-premium food.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Renata said:


> As for BHA/BHT: the inclusion of antioxidants in commercial pet foods is necessary for the protection of dietary fat from detrimental oxidative changes.


No, it's one option from many. It's not necessary to add such a controversial ingredient. It's actually banned in several areas around the world from being used as an additive for human food. Even several countries which haven't banned them have "needs more research" as part of their approval information. The US Food and Dring Administration (FDA) in the states writes:



> While no evidence in the available information on butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) demonstrates a hazard to the public when it is used at levels that are now current and in the manner now practiced, uncertaintied exist requiring that additional studies be conducted.


Something very similar is written for BHT but the actual safety concerns are different and without the spelling mistake. It's not simply cancer as a potential hazard which needs more research.


----------



## Renata (Mar 18, 2013)

cinnamontoast said:


> As already mentioned, all of their food is extremely similar. The different foods for different breeds is not backed up by any data and again, the ingredients are virtually identical. Including beet pulp, while justifiable, is not the top choice: there are other ingredients which aren't a residue of a process to remove sugar that are more suitable to canines, bone being a fair example.
> 
> The antioxidant information you posted is available on wiki, not that I rely on an freely editable source such as that, but no amazing surprises contained within it. It's a generic description of the function and other antioxidants requiring greater volume and being less stable does not justify-or excuse-the premium price charged for a non-premium food.


Get the book and read it. What I posted is just a fraction of what is in the book. I am not going to copy here pages of text when the books are available for those who are interested on Amazon or elswhere.


----------



## Renata (Mar 18, 2013)

cinnamontoast said:


> As already mentioned, all of their food is extremely similar. The different foods for different breeds is not backed up by any data and again, the ingredients are virtually identical. Including beet pulp, while justifiable, is not the top choice: there are other ingredients which aren't a residue of a process to remove sugar that are more suitable to canines, bone being a fair example.
> 
> The antioxidant information you posted is available on wiki, not that I rely on an freely editable source such as that, but no amazing surprises contained within it. It's a generic description of the function and other antioxidants requiring greater volume and being less stable does not justify-or excuse-the premium price charged for a non-premium food.


Beet pulp is not top choice for you. Beet pulp is moderately fermentable fiber and it is the best fiber source for companion animals (as opposed to highly fermentable and nonfermentable fiber sources).


----------



## Renata (Mar 18, 2013)

Thorne said:


> Renata - which books or websites would you recommend for learning more about canine nutrition? I've got a good basic knowledge from my degree but it is hard to find unbiased studies or publications.


Canine and Feline Nutrition (A Resource for Companion Animal Professionals)
Authors: Case, Daristotle, Hayek, Raasch

Principles of Companion Animal Nutrition
John P. McNamara


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

One or two things I would question but overall a fair & even view of dog food ingredients..

The Complete Dog Food Digestion And Healthy Eating Guide


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

Sorry, but I wouldn't rate any site that starts by stating that we have to understand wolfs nutritional requirements to understand dogs as dogs share 99% of their genes with the timber wolf. 

This is wrong on so many levels. For instance

"About 99 percent of genes in humans have counterparts in the mouse," said Eric Lander, Director of the Whitehead Institute Center for Genomic Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts. "Eighty percent have identical, one-to-one counterparts."

So, the fact that the timber wolf and the domestic dog share genes, says ABSOLUTLY nothing about dogs nutritional needs.

I'm fed up with people comparing the domestic dog to timber or grey wolves alive today.

Wolves and the domestic dog share a common ancestor. That's all.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Old Shep said:


> Sorry, but I wouldn't rate any site that starts by stating


Linda Case as far as I can see works with pet food manufacturer's. Hardly unbiased viewpoint for a book  Show me science which says dogs are herbivores based on actual biology or even primarily vegetable matter consumers. Start there.


----------



## Renata (Mar 18, 2013)

Goblin said:


> Linda Case as far as I can see works with pet food manufacturer's. Hardly unbiased viewpoint for a book  Show me science which says dogs are herbivores based on actual biology or even primarily vegetable matter consumers. Start there.


Are you serious here? I always thought that pet food manufacturers are supposed to work closely with nutritionists. 
Linda Case is doing great job educating people. 
Did anybody say here that dogs are herbivores?


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Renata said:


> Beet pulp is not top choice for you. Beet pulp is moderately fermentable fiber and it is the *best fiber source for companion animals* (as opposed to highly fermentable and nonfermentable fiber sources).


Sorry..crock of $hit right there 
It is not the best fibre source for companion animals at all....It is a usable form of fibre but that don't make it the best


----------



## Renata (Mar 18, 2013)

StormyThai said:


> Sorry..crock of $hit right there
> It is not the best fibre source for companion animals at all....It is a usable form of fibre but that don't make it the best


So what is the best fibre source for Companion animals and why?


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Renata said:


> So what is the best fibre source for Companion animals and why?


Surely you know the answer to that with all your nutritional expertise?


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Renata said:


> Are you serious here? I always thought that pet food manufacturers are supposed to work closely with nutritionists.
> Linda Case is doing great job educating people.


Or spreading marketing ideas... 



> Did anybody say here that dogs are herbivores?


What else do you describe dogs if you push for food which is primarily vegetable matter?


----------



## lorilu (Sep 6, 2009)

RC is over rated, over priced, relies on marketing hype to sell, and full of junk. How is that for an opinion (as asked for in the title) LOL.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

Renata said:


> Are you serious here? I always thought that pet food manufacturers are supposed to work closely with nutritionists.
> Linda Case is doing great job educating people.
> Did anybody say here that dogs are herbivores?


They are not, which we all know. So I'm not a fan of feeding diets to dogs in which the primary ingredient is a plant.


----------



## Renata (Mar 18, 2013)

StormyThai said:


> Surely you know the answer to that with all your nutritional expertise?


That is not answer.


----------



## Renata (Mar 18, 2013)

Shoshannah said:


> They are not, which we all know. So I'm not a fan of feeding diets to dogs in which the primary ingredient is a plant.


Neither am I.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

Ingredients of typical Royal Canin dry dog food, lifted straight from their site:

_COMPOSITION: dehydrated poultry protein, maize, maize flour, rice, animal fats, hydrolysed animal proteins, maize gluten, vegetable fibres, vegetable protein isolate*, beet pulp, fish oil, soya oil, minerals, yeasts, fish hydrolysate, hydrolysed yeast (source of manno-oligo-saccharides), hydrolysed crustaceans (source of glucosamine), marigold extract (source of lutein), hydrolysed cartilage (source of chondroitin).
_
Trouble is, we have no percentages to work with, so have no idea whether the 'dehydrated poultry protein' is present in greater amounts than the 'maize, maize flour, rice, maize gluten, vegetable fibres' etc etc put together.

I wish RC gave more information on their packaging.

Just so I'm not accused of singling out RC, here's a typical Hill's dry dog food:

_Chicken: Maize, wheat, chicken (27%) and turkey meal,animal fat, maize gluten meal, digest, soybean oil, minerals, dried beet pulp,flaxseed, vitamins, trace elements, taurine and beta-carotene. Naturally preserved with mixed tocopherols and citric acid. _

Does the maize and wheat that precedes the chicken meal on the ingredients list make up more of the total than the meat? Not clear to me, but if it does then it's another dog food in which the main ingredient is plant-based.


----------



## lorilu (Sep 6, 2009)

Ingredients are generally listed by weight, before processing (at least in the USA) This means, in a dry food, even if "chicken" is the first ingredient, because "chicken" is full of water, by the time the food is processed, it has dropped way down on the list. All that corn, corn corn and more corn. Corn is cheap and contains protein so makes the "GA" show the right numbers. Corn is rather indigestible though, even for humans. The dog just poops it right out.

As for "dehydrated poultry protein", that could be anything. Feathers and beaks, most likely.


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

Shoshannah said:


> Ingredients of typical Royal Canin dry dog food, lifted straight from their site:
> 
> _COMPOSITION: dehydrated poultry protein, maize, maize flour, rice, animal fats, hydrolysed animal proteins, maize gluten, vegetable fibres, vegetable protein isolate*, beet pulp, fish oil, soya oil, minerals, yeasts, fish hydrolysate, hydrolysed yeast (source of manno-oligo-saccharides), hydrolysed crustaceans (source of glucosamine), marigold extract (source of lutein), hydrolysed cartilage (source of chondroitin).
> _
> Trouble is, we have no percentages to work with, so have no idea whether the 'dehydrated poultry protein' is present in greater amounts than the 'maize, maize flour, rice, maize gluten, vegetable fibres' etc etc put together.


You're being a little coy there Shoshannah 

RC are using a listing technique known as "splitting" where different forms of the same basic ingredient are listed seperately thereby promoting the meagre meat content to first place. The reason they don't list % is because they don't have too & don't want the punters to know.

I'd pretty much put my mortgage on the Maize content in RC being a good 40-50%...


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

BlackadderUK said:


> You're being a little coy there Shoshannah
> 
> RC are using a listing technique known as "splitting" where different forms of the same basic ingredient are listed seperately thereby promoting the meagre meat content to first place. The reason they don't list % is because they don't have too & don't want the punters to know.
> 
> I'd pretty much put my mortgage on the Maize content in RC being a good 40-50%...


Coy? Me?

Yeah, splitting is what they all do... does my head in. That said, I never look at ingredients on food I'm about to eat. Like, ever. But with the cat, I always do!

#thecateatsbetterthanIdo


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

Shoshannah said:


> Coy? Me?
> 
> Yeah, splitting is what they all do... does my head in. *That said, I never look at ingredients on food I'm about to eat. Like, ever. But with the cat, I always do!*
> #thecateatsbetterthanIdo


 I don't think you're on your own there.

I eat what I choose, my dogs don't have a choice!


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Renata said:


> That is not answer.


No it's not, but it is one that you can find out with the right education :wink:


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

lorilu said:


> Corn is rather indigestible though, even for humans.


Not really though. Pet food manufacturer's can make the claim that corn is highly digestible. It's digestible as it's been extensively processed and therefore things like the cell walls in plants, which are one of the main difficulties for herbivores when it comes to digestion, are already broken.


----------



## lorilu (Sep 6, 2009)

Goblin said:


> Not really though. Pet food manufacturer's can make the claim that corn is highly digestible. It's digestible as it's been extensively processed and therefore things like the cell walls in plants, which are one of the main difficulties for herbivores when it comes to digestion, are already broken.


"Make the claim" being the key words, LOL. Of course every pet food manufacturer that relies on corn to fill their pet food is going to make that claim. It doesn't change the fact that the corn is pooped right back out again. Provides no health benefit to dogs, and is most likely detrimental to many. Cheap filler that adds the right numbers to the "guaranteed analysis". Don't you just love how they call it "maize" now that so many people will no longer choose a food containing corn for their pets.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

lorilu said:


> "Make the claim" being the key words, LOL. Of course every pet food manufacturer that relies on corn to fill their pet food is going to make that claim. It doesn't change the fact that the corn is pooped right back out again. Provides no health benefit to dogs, and is most likely detrimental to many. Cheap filler that adds the right numbers to the "guaranteed analysis". Don't you just love how they call it "maize" now that so many people will no longer choose a food containing corn for their pets.


The words "corn" and "maize" have always been interchangeable, nothing has changed there.

In the UK the labelling laws do not require the percentage of CHO to be identified however it is simple to calculate once you have removed the moisture and deducted the %age of fat and protein.

The vast majority of dog foods are primarily carbohydrates for the simple reason most people cannot afford dog foods which are primarily meat or fish based.

Simple economics.


----------



## lorilu (Sep 6, 2009)

I know maize and corn are interchangeable. You know it too. But, believe it or not, there are people in the world who do not. In my wanders in on line pet communities I've seen more than one actual post "oh yes, RC is a great food! I love it for my (pets). It may cost more but it doesn't have corn in it at all. Just maize! Very high quality". People actually say that, or variations of. 

Yes it is economics. Royal Canin isn't a "cheap" dog food. "All they can afford" indicates grocery store pet foods. Royal Canin is very expensive corn. Or maize. Whichever you like.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Renata said:


> Did anybody say here that dogs are herbivores?


Well, looking at the bulk of ingredients in Royal Canin, the manufacturers clearly do!


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

It always amuses me when people try to undermine the credibility of canine nutritionists by stating that they work for dog food firms.

Doh............

Of COURSE they do, otherwise who ELSE would they work for?

Baby food manufacturers?

Dear heaven above, if dog food manufacturers did not employ qualified nutritionists how would they demonstrate that their food is fit for purpose?

And if they did not employ same, there would be no jobs and no degrees in it.

There are also free lance canine nutritionists who advise a number of firms on their products, but they are few and far between.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

smokeybear said:


> It always amuses me when people try to undermine the credibility of canine nutritionists by stating that they work for dog food firms.


Well you could say the same about human nutritionists however they don't claim to know everything about nutrition and claim that they can artificially provide a complete and balanced diet for everyone despite having a much larger body of scientific research available.

Then again there are plenty of nutritionists who are not connected with pet food companies, much like there are plenty of human dietitians.


----------



## EAD (May 10, 2013)

Royal Canin Sensitivity wet food contains.....

Meat and animal derivatives - chicken 52%
Cereals - rice 12%
Derivatives of vegetable origin
Oils and fats 
Minerals
Sugars

Not exactly detailed but I'm sure not the worst food. 

Alfie continues to do well on it so for the time being I'll stick with it.


----------



## lorilu (Sep 6, 2009)

EAD said:


> Royal Canin Sensitivity wet food contains.....
> 
> Meat and animal derivatives - chicken 52%
> Cereals - rice 12%
> ...


No identification of the "meat and animal derivatives" so they could be anything. But even more concerning: I would consider any pet food that contains added "sugars" to be, yes, one of the worst foods.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

One of the most derided foods on the planet (in times of health) that smells vile, and has no identifiable ingredients is the one that is most "prescribed" in times of illness.

Good old Chappie.

Go figure.

And despite the fact that we know dogs can and do metabolise grains, they are still referred to as "cheap fillers".

I do not feed grains myself, feeding raw and Orijen (and £70 a bag) but I am smart enough to understand that neither is feasible for many owners (and their dogs) for many reasons.

Dogs survive and thrive on a myriad of diets and there is really no need to try and put either their owners or manufacturers on a guilt trip or undermine their credibility.

Just feed your dog on what it does best on, simples.

Or you could continue to ask a random hodgepodge group of people who are not qualified in canine nutrition their opinions on various foods.

After all if you give typewriters to enough monkeys.................................


----------



## Renata (Mar 18, 2013)

smokeybear said:


> One of the most derided foods on the planet (in times of health) that smells vile, and has no identifiable ingredients is the one that is most "prescribed" in times of illness.
> 
> Good old Chappie.
> 
> ...


Amen.............


----------



## Little P (Jun 10, 2014)

smokeybear said:


> One of the most derided foods on the planet (in times of health) that smells vile, and has no identifiable ingredients is the one that is most "prescribed" in times of illness.
> 
> Good old Chappie.
> 
> ...


Precisely 

Commercial dog food is a relatively new thing. Obsessing about dog food is even newer still. Dogs did perfectly well on whatever they got before that, with many (including my own) living long happy and healthy lives.

I had a first time dog owner asking me about food recently, completely bamboozled about all the types and info out there. My advise was to yes, ask opinions, do some Internet research, but ultimately feed the best quality food they can for their budget, that works best for both their dog and them.

Now please excuse me, my dog is waiting for his RC breakfast :scared:


----------



## EAD (May 10, 2013)

lorilu said:


> No identification of the "meat and animal derivatives" so they could be anything. But even more concerning: I would consider any pet food that contains added "sugars" to be, yes, one of the worst foods.


Ok maybe in your opinion it is one of the worst but after 6 months of random runny poos and mucous I'll stick with whatever helps him.

That might change next week anyway, we're just going from day to day.


----------



## lorilu (Sep 6, 2009)

Little P said:


> Precisely
> 
> *Commercial dog food is a relatively new thing. *Obsessing about dog food is even newer still. Dogs did perfectly well on whatever they got before that, with many (including my own) living long happy and healthy lives.
> 
> I had a first time dog owner asking me about food recently, completely bamboozled about all the types and info out there.


What's even newer is loading the dog food with every sort of junk, to get rid of food waste. Filling it with the cheapest poorest quality ingredients, then slapping a brand name and/or specialty label on it and charging three times as much as the equivalent sitting on a grocery store shelf.

It doesn't take a degree in any kind of nutrition to learn to read a label. And how much knowledge or education is needed to understand what a carnivore should eat? Or at least, _shouldn't_ eat. It's not that difficult to learn what to avoid. 



> My advise was to yes, ask opinions, do some Internet research, but ultimately feed the best quality food they can for their budget, that works best for both their dog and them.
> 
> Now please excuse me, my dog is waiting for his RC breakfast :scared:


That was good advice. And if they heed it, they will not be feeding RC.

.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Do you actually read what you write?

You have already accused manufacturers of deliberately trying to confuse people re maize v corn but now it appears little or no education is required to decipher a food label.

Most people have no understanding re crude protein, dry matter, ash to name just three elements which are not immediately obvious to those who have a less than obsessive interest in food labels.................


----------



## lorilu (Sep 6, 2009)

If one can read one can read the words "corn" wheat" "cellulose" "sugar". And it isn't difficult to understand that none of these things are appropriate dog food ingredients.

Further, it isn't difficult to make a comparison to the label on a generic bag in the supermarket, and realize there is very little difference between that and the one made by a company that can afford to push major marketing campaigns not only on the general public but to people in the animal care professions.

What do you think marketing is, anyway? Why do you think advertising is such a humungous industry? If it didn't work, companies would not pay unbelievable amounts of money to advertise their products. Why do you think veterinary schools are inundated with a particular brands, "gifts", seminars, pamphlets, free food, etc?

You think pet food companies don't try to confuse/delude the consumer? You think they don't use gimmicks and vagueness and distraction from the real issue? You think they don't pay attention to trends, and change their wording, when people begin to wake up and realize what's really in that expensive pretty bag?

I sometimes wish I still had such innocence. But..then again. Not really. It's better to be aware, _I_ think.

PS. For what it's worth, I used to be on the other side of the coin. I can remember having a very similar argument in a now "dead" forum, with me saying basically the things you are saying, and someone else, someone who had already started educating herself, arguing against. (I remember because we often would bang heads over the same issues every time the subject came up). If I knew where that person was now, I wouldn't hesitate to tell her how wrong I was. That was before the melamine poisoning happened in 2007. That was when I, and many other people, started paying more attention, and learning about pet food.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

smokeybear said:


> One of the most derided foods on the planet (in times of health) that smells vile, and has no identifiable ingredients is the one that is most "prescribed" in times of illness.


Which goes to show, people and nutritionists don't know everything and the idea of marketing a "complete and balanced" food simply as it matches a number of figures on a chart is wrong. We do not know enough and cannot make that claim.



> And despite the fact that we know dogs can and do metabolise grains, they are still referred to as "cheap fillers".


You yourself admit, corn is used to keep the price down when compared with animal based protein sources. I agree, in processed form nutrition can be extracted. Are dogs herbivores though?



> Dogs survive and thrive on a myriad of diets and there is really no need to try and put either their owners or manufacturers on a guilt trip or undermine their credibility.


Don't rock the boat you mean with manufacturer's you mean. Opinion asked for, opinion given.



> Or you could continue to ask a random hodgepodge group of people who are not qualified in canine nutrition their opinions on various foods.


Or you could only take a group of people with little or no need for objectivity who need to maintain their status quo. No qualification <> not a valid voice in discussions. I know plenty of people who have no qualifications in a wide range of areas. They do their jobs better than those who have been trained and qualified and do their jobs but only follow the lines on what they have been taught. Qualifications have their place. Peer reviewed science has it's place. Neither are 100% foolproof.



> After all if you give typewriters to enough monkeys.................................


Or you can believe all the marketing hype including that X food is better as "it has been scientifically proven". Then you can find out the science refered to is that two groups of dogs were given the same food, simply one group was given more. The group which was fed more, died earlier therefore diet X is a great brand and that is backed by peer reviewed science. You can also believe morals and trying to do the best things win out and are the primary goal of multi billion corporations who answer only to their stock holders.

You can ignore the science which shows dogs are carnivores and insist that humans can fudge it instead.



> I do not feed grains myself, feeding raw and Orijen (and £70 a bag) but I am smart enough to understand that neither is feasible for many owners (and their dogs) for many reasons.


Orijin is one of the most recommended by those "unqualified". All most people ask is people look at the ingredients on food and make a choice, trying to get as high a meat content as possible for their budget.

Most of the arguments here come from people who insist pet food manufacturer's know everything, only they have dog's interests at heart and they never try to mislead their customers.

So simple question (I'll ignore raw) - Why do you feed Orijin, not Royal Canin? Why don't your actions match your declaration?


----------



## Renata (Mar 18, 2013)

lorilu said:


> Ingredients are generally listed by weight, before processing (at least in the USA) This means, in a dry food, even if "chicken" is the first ingredient, because "chicken" is full of water, by the time the food is processed, it has dropped way down on the list. All that corn, corn corn and more corn. Corn is cheap and contains protein so makes the "GA" show the right numbers. Corn is rather indigestible though, even for humans. The dog just poops it right out.
> 
> As for "dehydrated poultry protein", that could be anything. Feathers and beaks, most likely.


"Dehydrated poultry protein"

When an ingredient is listed as "poultry" it includes the clean combination of flesh and skin with or without bone derived from part or whole carcasses of poultry, EXCLUSIVE of feathers, heads, feet and entrails.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

What have I declared?

Can you extrapolate from the fact that I am a vegetarian that ergo I feel meat is unhealthy?

IF you can, congratulations.

But that don't make it true! 

ROFLMAO

I do not eat vine leaves, does that make them "bad"? No it means I do not like them.

What I choose to feed my dogs is my business, and what others feed their is their business.

I am certainly not in any particular "camp" and I do not believe that ANYBODY knows everything, that would include myself, anyone on this forum and food manufacturers, after all science is discovering things all the time and making preconceived ideas obsolete.

Dogs may taxonomically be carnivores, but they are not OBLIGATE carnvores and are omnivorous by nature.

To use that argument is specious at the very least as of course PANDAS are also "carnivores" but they consume only vegetation and only ONE particular type.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

lorilu said:


> If one can read one can read the words "corn" wheat" "cellulose" "sugar". And it isn't difficult to understand that none of these things are appropriate dog food ingredients.
> 
> *Really? So the fact that ceullulose (ie plant fibre) is not a suitable food for a dog?
> 
> ...


I am afraid that no part of the food industry is immune to poor practice, whether it be melamine in food via China, mad cow disease from people choosing to feed dead animals to bovines, or a myriad of other practices used on food destined for human consumption

Some of us starting educating ourselves on nutrition (in various species) decades ago and are still doing so.


----------



## Renata (Mar 18, 2013)

Shoshannah said:


> Ingredients of typical Royal Canin dry dog food, lifted straight from their site:
> 
> _COMPOSITION: dehydrated poultry protein, maize, maize flour, rice, animal fats, hydrolysed animal proteins, maize gluten, vegetable fibres, vegetable protein isolate*, beet pulp, fish oil, soya oil, minerals, yeasts, fish hydrolysate, hydrolysed yeast (source of manno-oligo-saccharides), hydrolysed crustaceans (source of glucosamine), marigold extract (source of lutein), hydrolysed cartilage (source of chondroitin).
> _
> ...


Food 1 protein sources: dehydrated poultry protein, hydrolysed animal proteins, maize gluten, Vegetable protein isolate

Food 2 protein sources: chicken and turkey meal, maize gluten meal

As for carbohydrates: dietary carbohydrate provides animals with a source of energy and assists in proper gastrointestinal tract functioning. Digestible carbohydrate also has a protein-sparing effect. Just as animals eat to meet their energy needs, the body satisfies its energy requirement before using energy-containing nutrients in the diet for other purposes. If adequate carbohydrate is supplied in the diet, protein will be spared from being used for energy and can then be used for tissue repair and grow.

Canine and Feline Nutrition, Case, Daristotle, Hayek, Raasch

It is not about how much protein we feed. Important is quality and digestibility of protein source. Animals cannot store protein, excessive protein will be deposited as fat and the nitrogen will be excreted in the urine. Unlike fat and carbohydrate, excess amino acids are not stored by body for future use.

I know that you know all that.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

Renata said:


> Food 1 protein sources: dehydrated poultry protein, hydrolysed animal proteins, maize gluten, Vegetable protein isolate
> 
> Food 2 protein sources: chicken and turkey meal, maize gluten meal
> 
> ...


Indeed, I do, although it's a fair few years since I knew the various metabolic pathways like the back of my hand. They've faded into the back of my brain these days.

Carbohydrate is not an appropriate energy source for cats. Diabetes is rife. This is also a well known fact.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

The thing I really don't get about RC etc is the vast variety of diets they produce.

This new one for urban dogs. What do urban dogs require that dogs living in a housing estate or country village don't, or vice versa?

Please, someone explain to me how a food for urban dogs is not an unnecessary thing.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

Can we just clear up one thing which really p1sses me off when it's repeated.

in taxonomy, the mammalian order Carnivora categorically does NOT mean the animal, so classed, eats only-or even mainly- meat.

Pandas are classed in the order- and im pretty sure bamboo isn't a meat.


Taxonomy is an interesting subject and one that is constantly in a state of flux as we learn more about plants, animals, fish and insects. When naturalists began classifying living things together (the Victorians liked things in a list!) we knew little, or even nothing, about some creatures. 


As for diets for urban dogs? That sounds suspiciously like marketing to me.
While I have no beef with RC, they do seem to produce a confusing variety of foods. If the dogs we are breeding need a specialist diet, it may be time to look at the dogs we are breeding, rather than the food.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

lots of things are not necessary but people buy them cos they like em............


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

Old Shep said:


> Can we just clear up one thing which really p1sses me off when it's repeated.
> 
> in taxonomy, the mammalian order Carnivora categorically does NOT mean the animal, so classed, eats only-or even mainly- meat.
> 
> Pandas are classed in the order- and im pretty sure bamboo isn't a meat.


True. But we know that cats - all cats, big and small - do eat virtually 100% meat.

Dogs are less straightforward.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Shoshannah said:


> True. But we know that cats - all cats, big and small - do eat virtually 100% meat.
> 
> Dogs are less straightforward.


Cats are obligate carnivores, dogs are not.


----------



## Guest (Feb 15, 2015)

Meat is a relatively new luxury. If canis familiaris could not survive with minimal meat they would not be around at all as a species. 

Back in the 60s and 70s our dogs mostly grains, cooked brown rice and barley with whatever offal that was available mixed in. No one could afford to feed their dogs actual meat and even if they could it would have been considered ridiculous to waste good human food on the dogs. Our dogs lived long healthy lives.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

smokeybear said:


> Cats are obligate carnivores, dogs are not.


Yes, hence the argument about carnivores not actually eating a carnivorous diet cannot be applied across the entire group.


----------



## Little P (Jun 10, 2014)

Out of interest, for those who think that RC is the work of Beelzebub himself, what would you suggest I feed my dog instead? Senior small dog, no health issues. No major fish content though.

ETA: No raw!


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

smokeybear said:


> To use that argument is specious at the very least as of course PANDAS are also "carnivores" but they consume only vegetation and only ONE particular type.


Deer eat meat, hippos eat meat. Does that mean they should be fed a diet of mostly meat?

As for panda's, what % of time do panda's actually need to eat to sustain themselves and why? Another example would be rodents which are technically carnivores. As has been proved scientifically (BHA/BHT and even high protein diets and kidney functions) rodents are not dogs. Then again, according to you, I can't comment,read science or make judgements based on that science since I am not a qualified nutritionist.

Fact: For dogs, protein should preferably be animal based.

Fact: BHA/BHT are controversial ingredients and more research needs to be done (See FDA guidelines and the fact they are banned in some locations based on expert/qualified opinion). Alternatives deemed safer exist and are used in commercial pet food.

By all means point me to studies which show either of those statements are false. Until such time I will match my actions and what I feed my dogs with what I write when asked for opinion.


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

Little P said:


> Out of interest, for those who think that RC is the work of Beelzebub himself, what would you suggest I feed my dog instead? Senior small dog, no health issues. No major fish content though.
> 
> ETA: No raw!


Ok I'll bite... which RC are you feeding out of the bewildering number of choices? How much are you paying? How much are you prepared to pay, max?


----------



## Little P (Jun 10, 2014)

BlackadderUK said:


> Ok I'll bite... which RC are you feeding out of the bewildering number of choices? How much are you paying? How much are you prepared to pay, max?


Dental small dog. Couldn't tell you how much I pay to be honest, a small bag seems to last forever! He doesn't eat much, and cost isn't an issue.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

How old is the dog?


----------



## Little P (Jun 10, 2014)

cinnamontoast said:


> How old is the dog?


12, small dog, at his ideal weight and still relatively active

Only other issue is that it must come in a small quantity up to 3kg max (3kg of his current food would last about 3-4 months)


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

Okey dokey...

I'll assume this is your feed?
*Royal Canin Dental Special Small Dog* @ £21.49 for 3.5kg (petplanet)
Ingrdients: rice, maize, dehydrated poultry protein, animal fats, maize gluten, wheat gluten*, vegetable fibres, beet pulp, hydrolysed animal proteins, minerals, fish oil, soya oil, fructo-oligo-saccharides, green tea extracts (source of polyphenols), marigold extract (source of lutein).

You could try...

*Acana Ranchlands *£16.90 for 2.27kg (zooplus)
Ingredients:Fresh beef (11%), dried beef (10%), green peas, fresh lamb meat (8%), dried lamb meat (8%), dried whitefish (6%), herring oil (6%), field beans, red lentils, fresh potatoes, Dried salmon (3%), fresh bison meat (3%), fresh beef liver (3%), fresh lamb liver (2%), sun ripened alfalfa, pea fibre, fresh apples, fresh pears, fresh sweet potatoes, fresh pumpkin, fresh "butternut" pumpkin, fresh parsnips, fresh carrots, fresh spinach, cranberries, blueberries, seaweed, chicory root, juniper berries, angelica root, marigold flowers, sweet fennel, peppermint leaves, lavender, rosemary, Enterococcus faecium.

*Applaws Adult Small & Medium Breed Chicken & Lamb *£9.99 for 2kg (zooplus)
Ingredients:Chicken 61% (from Dried Chicken), Chicken Mince 10.5%, Peas 8% (from Dried Peas), Potato Starch 6%, Poultry Oil 2.5% (Source of Omega 6), Lamb 5% (from Dried Lamb), Beet Pulp, Poultry Gravy, Whole Egg (from Dried Egg), Cellulose Plant Fibre, Minerals, Vitamins, Salmon Oil (source of omega 3), Tomato (from Dried Tomato), Carrot (from Dried Carrot) Chicory Extract (F.O.S), Alfalfa Meal, Seaweed/Kelp, Yeast Extract (Purified Beta Glucan 0.1%), Glucosamine, Methylsulfonylmethane, Chondroitin, Carrot, Peppermint, Paprika Meal, Turmeric, Thyme Extract, Citrus Extract, Taurine 1000 mg/kg, Yucca Extract, Cranberry, Fennel Extract, Carob Extract, Ginger, Rosehip Extract, Dandelion Extract, Rosemary Oil Extract, Oregano, Probiotic: Contains E1705 Enterococcus faecium cernelle 68 (SF68: NCIMB 10415) 1,000,000 cfu/kg as an aid in the establishment, maintenance and restoration of a balanced gut flora in dogs.

*Millies wolfheart farmers mix* £19.99 for 4kg (millies)
Ingredients: Dried Turkey (min. 27.8%), Black Aberdeen Angus beef (min. 10.2%), turkey (min. 10.2%), sweet potato, potato, tapioca, chick pea, turkey fat (min. 5.9%), pork (min. 4.7%), turkey gravy (min. 1.6%), tomato pomace, pea fibre, vitamins and minerals, glucosamine (min. 0.01%), methylsulfonylmethane (min. 0.01%), chondroitin sulphate (min. 0.01%), dried apple, carrot flakes, lovage powder, seaweed meal, dried cranberry, aniseed and fenugreek, mixed herbs (thyme, marjoram, oregano, parsley, sage), camomile powder, burdock root powder, peppermint, dandelion herb

Compare the first few ingredients & then decide which might be best for no more money 

Just to add... all kibble has to have a starch content to keep it in one piece.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

BlackadderUK said:


> (source of lutein).
> 
> You could try...
> 
> ...


sweet potatoes, potato, chick peas, tomato pomace, pea fibre, dried apples, carrots, lovage, seaweed, cranberry aniseed, fenugreek and herbs.

Surely some of these contain carbohydrates and are more suited to a herbivore than a carnivore?


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

smokeybear said:


> sweet potatoes, potato, chick peas, tomato pomace, pea fibre, dried apples, carrots, lovage, seaweed, cranberry aniseed, fenugreek and herbs.
> 
> Surely some of these contain carbohydrates and are more suited to a herbivore than a carnivore?


I think you've confused me with somebody else


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

BlackadderUK said:


> I think you've confused me with somebody else


No, I am not confusing you with anyone, just pointing out the existing of carbohydrates and vegetable matter which according to some is something that dogs were never designed to consume...........


----------



## Little P (Jun 10, 2014)

Dare I say it - RC works out very cheap for me as I get it at cost price :thumbsup:

However the pooch is having some random food allergy issues lately so I am considering changing his food to see if it helps. He also has Lily's kitchen of varying flavours in his kongs during the day. He recently had a dental (of sorts - actually had epuli removed, his teeth were perfect and didn't even need descaling, just had a polish!) and he ate just the LK wet for a few days afterwards, and he was actually itchier than when he was eating less LK alongside the RC


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

smokeybear said:


> which according to some is something that dogs were never designed to consume...........


Aiming your comments at the "some" would be the best option then, don't you think?


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

BlackadderUK said:


> Aiming your comments at the "some" would be the best option then, don't you think?


I think writing a post in the relevant thread is all the aim one actually requires, don't you think?


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

Little P said:


> However the pooch is having some random food allergy issues lately so I am considering changing his food to see if it helps.


If you don't try you'll never know  The worst that can happen is you go back to RC.


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

smokeybear said:


> I think writing a post in the relevant thread is all the aim one actually requires, don't you think?


Some would agree, some might not.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

BlackadderUK said:


> Some would agree, some might not.


And some would do neither.


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

smokeybear said:


> And some would do neither.


Some might also think this is a little childish  So lets both stop.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

BlackadderUK said:


> Some might also think this is a little childish  So lets stop.


I wonder where they would get that idea from.....................

sometimes it is better not to start something you cannot finish.


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

smokeybear said:


> I wonder where they would get that idea from.....................
> 
> sometimes it is better not to start something you cannot finish.


There was never a start but it is finished


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

BlackadderUK said:


> There was never a start but it is finished


If only we know what IT was..................


----------

