[aimee]

I’ve come across sellers of rawhide who insist their chews, made of corium, have no skin in them, insisting that corium is a tissue layer below the skin. This is incorrect. Corium is the middle layer of skin and is the layer traditionally labeled rawhide.

I think the people saying this simply are unaware of the structure of skin and parrot information they are given to market the product. Corium is not a common word, and the pet industry seems to be relying on people not being familiar with the term.

Dermis, however, is a word that I think most people recognize as referring to the skin, e.g. dermatology, so I was quite shocked when a company representative insisted their “collagen” chew was not made of skin, nor did it contain any part of the skin. The chew is dermis, NOT skin.

Baffling. Can they not hear what they are saying? Seems to me that the pet industry is gaslighting consumers. 

[aimee]

Hi Madelyn,

I agree beefcheek is white after cleaning just as it is before it is cleaned. If you do not want to offer hide as a chew, then do not chose a chew that lists beefcheek as an ingredient since beefcheek is hide.

AAFCO does not address the labeling of dog chews. Manufacturers can make whatever claims they want, it is only if the chew claims to be food that an AAFCO definition can be enforced by the state, but enforcement is virtually nonexistent.

I agree that transparency from a company is desired, unfortunately inquiries regarding processing are often unanswered. For example, Redbarn replied to my inquiry saying they use “proprietary manufacturing procedures” and a “proprietary process”. I did not find that helpful.

It is understandable that people are concerned about the processes used at the tannery.
Fearmongering is rampant. For example, lye (NaOH) is a compound a tannery may choose to dehair the skin. Understandably the knee jerk reaction to that is that AWK!. But did you know is that pretzel dough is dipped in lye before baking to get that nice brown carnalized crust. “Scary” processes can become less scary when put into context. Rarely do I see it discussed that the same material from the tannery that is used to make rawhide can be used for human food production if the tannery has USDA oversite.

Rawhide and beefcheek are untanned skin; leather is tanned skin. I suspect leather is less digestible than rawhide, because tanning crosslinks the collagen. Prior to tanning, the processes used make it easier for tanning compounds to penetrate the skin. I suspect this may also increase the ability of digestive enzymes to penetrate. Who knows, it could be that skin that has been prepared for tanning is more, not less digestible than skin that hasn’t undergone these processes.

If I wanted to get someone to buy a traditional rawhide over beefcheek I could capitalize on that point and spin it further by saying beefcheek is full thickness skin from an area on the cow that has the thickest and densest skin. The collagen fibers are tightly packed together limiting the penetration of digestive enzymes. Rawhide is not only thinner than beefcheek which makes digestion easier, but that dense top layer has been removed allowing for better penetration of digestive enzymes. Combing those attributes with the human food production process used to promote deep penetration of digestive enzymes is what makes rawhide digestibility much higher than that of beefcheek and makes it a far better and safer chew than beefcheek…. It is all marketing spin.

Reality is rawhide is digestible; Beefcheek is digestible. Taken as a group neither is more or less digestible than the other. If the statement that “skin[rawhide] is turned into something that our dogs’ digestive system isn’t capable of recognizing and digesting ” was true there wouldn’t be multiple published studies reporting digestibility of rawhide as high as 99%.

Both digest slowly which is why if a large piece of either product is swallowed an obstruction may occur. To state that one is more digestible or safer than the other is IMO without basis and can endanger dog’s lives. Heck some beefcheek chews state right on the label that the product can cause an obstruction.

I personally only use skin based chews that have been sourced from and produced in the Unted States where processes may be more stringent than other countries. And I only use large flat flexible sheets to minimize chance of tooth breakage and my dogs only have access under direct supervision.

I completely agree with your final paragraph.

[aimee]

Wow King Rottweillers,

Thanks for posting this. I found it very interesting

[aimee]

Hi j D,

Wow! Such interesting information! I have no real knowledge of the legal system, so I found this post very enlightening. Would sending copies of emails to the law firms involved in this issue be perhaps the best thing to do?

Bugs. Apparently, a big problem with these “body part” chew bars and such. Apparently, common recommendations to retailers are to freeze all stock, use galvanized steel, and add things such as bay leaves, diatomaceous earth, essential oil sprays and pheromone moth traps into and around displays. The interesting thing is some retailers are reporting decreased sales if the products are packaged … so some remove the manufacturer’s packaging.

Also, I couldn’t agree more regarding the need for direct “eyes on the dog supervision” whenever dogs are chewing certain types of materials. With rawhide I used flat flexible sheets larger than the dog’s head and I’ve even pre-softened a bit with water to prevent gum injury.

Sadly, like you, “My trust in companies and stores has depleted more and more in recent years” It is disheartening. I think there are some good people out there in retail, but I don’t think many have the skill set needed to objectively evaluate information and some seem to become quite defensive when someone else does the leg work and finds things they apparently do not want to see or know.

[aimee]

Hi Jason and Colter,

It is confusing isn’t it?

Before there were foods specifically formulated for large breed growth, a common recommendation was to feed large/giant breed puppies an adult food based on a presumption that levels of nutrients in an adult food were closer to the growing pup’s needs. Unfortunately, this wasn’t always true, some adult foods were/are absolutely terrible for growth, but sometimes it was true and hence the persistence of that bit of advice.

Also, it was at that time thought that protein played a role in the development of orthopedic conditions like hip dysplasia, so adult foods were recommended on the assumption that they would have a lower protein level in them than a puppy food. This was not always the case; some adult foods may have a higher protein level in them than a puppy food, but more importantly, research came out that ruled out the higher protein levels in food as a contributing cause of this condition.

Currently some foods have nutrient levels in them appropriate for large breed growth and are formulated for growth yet are marketed as an adult food. The front of the bag may say XYZ for adult dogs, but the nutritional adequacy statement reads “formulated for growth”. I’ve personally heard of breeders saying don’t feed XYZ’s puppy food, feed XYZ’s adult food only to find that XYZ’s adult food is formulated for growth, so even though the recommendation was for “adult” food, it is still sound.
 
It is a more recent phenomenon that nutrient levels have been established for and foods are specifically formulated for large/giant breed growth. AAFCO currently requires that manufacturers specify if their food is appropriate for large breed growth in their nutritional adequacy statement if the food is formulated to an AAFCO nutrient profile. The statement will look like this:

Pet Food Name] is formulated to meet the nutritional levels established by the AAFCO Dog Food Nutrient Profiles for growth/all life stages including growth of large-size dogs (70 lbs or more as an adult).

[Pet Food Name] is formulated to meet the nutritional levels established by the AAFCO Dog Food Nutrient Profiles for growth/all life stages except for growth of large-size dogs (70 lbs or more as an adult).

Unfortunately, there is a bit of a loophole. If a food meets AAFCO through a feeding trial, the manufacturer does not have to indicate if the food exceeds AAFCO’s max calcium level for large breeds. I believe AAFCO is addressing this.

The key is to look at the food before you. During growth feed a food whose nutritional adequacy statement indicates the food is appropriate for growth of large breed dogs.
Consider using a food whose calcium level is as close to 3 grams/1000 kcals as possible, a food whose energy density is around 3700 kcal/kg for a dry product and is made by a company that has fed the diet to large breed puppies and monitored them throughout the growth period.

Work with your veterinarian on the diarrhea issue. Food may be a factor but there are other causes as well. On thing that may be of interest, but I do not know if it applies to puppies as to the best of my recollection the work has been done in adult dogs. Large/giant bred dog have been found to have a longer transit time of food through the colon compared to smaller dogs. This time persistence gives more time for bacteria in the colon to break down undigested food components that may result in products that make soft stool. Talk to your vet. My understanding is that some companies address this through use of specific formulas for giant breeds.

[aimee]

Hi Eric,

Personally, during the growth period, I’d only consider brands that have fed their foods to and monitored the growth of large breed dogs throughout the growth period, such as Purina, Hill’s Pet Nutrition, Royal Canin, Iams/Eukanuba. IMO these companies have shown that they have a vested interest in their products and nutritional outcomes verses a company that does not employ veterinary nutritionists, feed or monitor dogs eating the products they make.

[aimee]

Hi GSDsForever,

No real changes I’m aware of, though I have seen opinions from veterinary nutritionists leaning away from the relative importance of the ratio with the absolute values being the more important variable.

I’d personally look for a Ca level close to the recommended NRC level of 3 grams/1000 kcals. and stay with company that does growth feeding trials on large breeds. The company I went with used Labs in their trials, the breed I was getting, and followed them for 18 months with Dex, scans radiographs general blood work, hormone levels … over 1600 data points/dog.

I’ve been seeing some crazy nutrient analysis from smaller companies including one which reported that the level of Vit D in their food as 8 times the AAFCO’s Max limit , and another whose calcium levels , vit D and E were significantly less than AAFCO’s min in a diet labeled for growth. It is apparent from “conversing” with their “nutritionists” the companies have no clue.

[aimee]

Hi Keremms,

Thank you for taking the time to comment. IMO the primary reason the testing was inconclusive was because the regulatory agencies involved did not run tests capable of giving a conclusive result. Digestion study and bite force studies can not tell you what a substance is. Microscopy revealed that No Hide look “indistinguishable” from rawhide, but it needed to be followed up with amino acid analysis. And apparently, not being familiar with how rawhide is typically made, regulators were seemingly unaware that a pathologist can not identify rawhide as skin since identifying elements like hair follicles etc. reside in the layer removed at the tannery.

Unfortunately, IMO many missteps were made along the way. Penn. regulators, apparently stated they missed that their pathologist referred to No Hide as “animal tissue” and needed to be shown that the label of the product they tested did not contain any animal gelatin after saying a finding of collagen could be from gelatin. Also, while they did protein and starch analysis and found No Hide similar to rawhide, they failed to test moisture content which muddied the waters of interpretation and after watching a production run, apparently never had sent a roll they witnessed being made to pathology to compare it to an “off the shelf” product. My understanding is that they seemed willing to do follow up amino acid testing but later apparently said they had run out of money.

It is hard to know why an AA analysis was not done. IMO it was simply lack of knowledge and experience in testing unknowns.

I fully agree with you when you said ” It is essential for regulatory agencies to follow through and conduct further investigations or request additional testing when faced with inconclusive results to reach a definitive conclusion”

[aimee]

Hi Muttsandcats,

I understand your concern. I look at reporting this event not to disparage the particular product you were using but rather to add to the overall body of knowledge regarding use of CBD products. As you said it is not commonly known that use of CBD may have this effect.

Formal prospective studies usually only use a relatively few test subjects. Less common reactions may not be experienced by any of the test subjects simply based on numbers.

When a product use becomes widespread, those less common reactions will start to be seen BUT if no one reports them they remain unknown, and like your vet, an attending Dr may assume it is not from the product since it is not a listed concern.

[aimee]

Hi Mattunderwater,

It is understandable to be confused. Before there were specific diets for large breed puppies it was a common recommendation to switch them to an adult food before fully grown.

Now that large breed puppy foods are available, veterinary nutritionists recommended that a puppy food appropriate for large breed growth food be fed until 80% mature, ~18 months-2 years depending on the breed.

https://veterinarypartner.vin.com/default.aspx?pid=19239&id=5985068

I don’t know anything about the brand you are using to know how their foods are made, some “adult” foods meet requirements for growth, but the information given to you by pet shop and trainer is not current.

If the food you are using is not made for growth/ juniors than I’d consider switching to one that is appropriately formulated for the growth of large breed puppies (not all diets labeled for large breed puppies are appropriately formulated) and feeding it in amounts to maintain good body score.

[aimee]

Hi 2 Chihuahuas,

I understand your frustration. Usually, the best way to compare pricing is on a caloric basis, meaning how much does it cost to purchase 1000 kcals of food. But when comparing these fresh food services, you have to factor in shipping, so it gets more complicated.

Keep in mind that ,IMO, fresh food services often underestimate how many calories your dog will need to consume in a day. Using the information they provided, and their recommended feeding program, I’ve found that the nutrient intake in some cases did not meet NRC min based on body weight of my dog.

I agree these fresh food companies appear to hold up numerous hoops to get what should be a simple question answered. A red Flag for me.

When I’ve been confronted with the mining for my personal information, I fill out the fields without giving out any personal information ; )

[aimee]

Hi Mary B,

I’m so glad your dog is now doing well!

I’ve held Greenies in a warm water bath and they fell apart, so I felt safe giving them to my little guy. What an ordeal! Thanks for sharing your experience.

[aimee]

Hi Crazy4cats,

I don’t understand the repeated excessive Vit D recalls. It seems it would be fairly easy to avoid maybe I’m just ignorant of challenges to prevent this. In this case, it appears Primal sent the food for testing, it came back high and then instead of recalling, they ignored the threat.

Here is the ink to the warning letter https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/warning-letters/primal-pet-foods-inc-645467-02212023

Darwin’s Pet Product. Arrow Reliance also got a FDA warning letter and it is IMO a doozy of a letter. Apparently, FDA documented Salmonella in the diets, and found they were including a “disinfectant” not approved for animal use and apparently at a higher concentration than allowed. Apparently, the disinfectant peroxyacid is used as a beef carcass wash in human food production. But the letter makes it seem that Darwin’s was incorporating it into the diet!

Interesting to me is how ST seemingly defends this company which is on her list, and apparently claiming that the company was unfairly targeted. The FDA investigated after a feline was diagnosed with Salmonella. She reports the company was investigation was for “diarrhea” and there are many complaints of diarrhea that go un investigated. Apparently she is unconcerned of the repeated finding of pathogens in this brand , despite an animal dying several years ago from one of them. She also seems to give them a pass for using a non-approved disinfectant.

[aimee]

What is really disappointing to me is that regulatory agencies report tests as “inconclusive”, then apparently metaphorically gathered their toys and went home instead of following though to a conclusive end. Pet parents deserve better. Absolutely, baffling to me that an amino acid analysis apparently was never done by regulatory.

[aimee]

I recently became aware that the class action lawsuit involving Earth Animal No Hide chew which alleges that No Hide contains rawhide was dismissed without prejudice.

From what I can gather,
this can occur when there is a procedural error, and the judge finds merit in the case. This gives the plaintiff an opportunity to correct/modify the error and then refile the case.

Certainly, this is disappointing. It has been over two years since the case was filed and now it appears this essentially means starting the process over.

Of great significance to me though is that the case was dismissed WITHOUT prejudice. My understanding is that cases which a judge deems frivolous, insufficient or lacking in evidence are dismissed WITH prejudice in that situation the case cannot be refiled.

I suspect, based on past behavior, that Earth Animal may leave out this detail and falsely declare “victory” just as they seemingly did when they claimed that “There are several, very thorough, governmental investigations that have all come to the same undisputable conclusion: Earth Animal No-Hide® Chews do not contain rawhide and are not mislabeled.”; a statement in direct contrast to one from the FDA report received through FOIA ” The statement that this is a “no-hide” product may not be accurate” David Rotstein DVM MPVM Dipl ACVP

[aimee]

Hi M & C,

I’ll start off by saying I’ve never looked at the ingredients in toothpastes so I’m ignorant in this area. I’ve usually thought of toothpastes as primarily flavoring agents to facilitate brushing but believe a study was published that demonstrated that brushing with the tested product, which as I recall was “Healthy Mouth” resulted in better outcomes.

Take a look at the VOHC list that crazy4cats linked to.

I will say that if your cat has not had a recent oral exam be cautious. If the mouth has any painful lesions the brushing will be painful.

For cats I’ve used tuna juice, or jarred meat baby foods ass a “dentifrice” and a Q tip brand cosmetic swab as the “brush” For my dogs I’ve acclimated them to a spin brush and used babyfood. spray cheese and C.E.T products.

[aimee]

Hi M & C,

I’m so glad to hear that your dog’s liver enzymes have returned to normal. I agree that it is a bit suspicious that the CBD was the cause. You might want to consider reporting to the company and to the FDA.

Also, very glad to hear that he’s gone 16 days without a shaking episode and that he hasn’t had a generalized seizure in over a month.

I hope he continues to do well .

Thanks for the update. I was hoping you would post back with the results.

[aimee]

It seems to me that it is coming up more often than it used to in the past.
I agree it becomes an annoyance.

[aimee]

Hi M & C,

Glad to hear that the shaking episodes seem to be resolving.
Hope that the anticipated seizure doesn’t materialize and that your vet visit goes well.

[aimee]

Hi M & C,

Since the T max of the CBD is within the time frame as the shaking events , when they happen, I don’t think you can rule out a CBD effect. If you had said you gave the CBD with the meal and the shaking events were 5-20 min after its administration, then it would seem less likely that the CBD was exerting any effect.

I wouldn’t suspect Sam E as long as the source is reputable.

Good you are keeping note of all of this to discuss with your vet.

[aimee]

Hi M & C,

I’m not aware of any reports of increased liver enzymes from Rescue Remedy, and unless a contamination issue, I do not see anything concerning.

The observation that the shaking events are fairly predictably occurring very soon after eating is interesting.

Trembling can be seen as a response to pain or fear but to me that evokes a finer tremor than I’d associate with shaking. Taking note of your dog’s general body language prior and during an event may help give you some clues. Is the reluctance to eat in the am a new thing?

On the days he gets the CBD what is the time frame it is administered in relation to his meal? In your readings did you find any information on the pharmacokinetics of CBD ?

[aimee]

Hi M & C,

I hope you have had more shaking free days however if they continue and if you capture an episode on video perhaps your vet can help with interpretation.

Not sure if you saw this article on OTC CBD products marketed or pets. They do not name names and I didn’t see one that seemed to match with the Joy Organics Pet version but
the article is informative. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32346530/

As I recall liver enzyme 1/2 life is a bout 3 days in dogs. Meaning that if the insult stops, the level in the blood will be 1/2 of the initial level three days later. If you feel safe to discontinue the CBD before the blood test it may give you a better picture, but understandable to not discontinue if you feel it is controlling the episodes.

Hope this is a better week for you and your dog

[aimee]

Hi M&C,

Your CBD dose was quite a bit higher than I assumed it would be. When I looked at the OTC options at my local store, as I recall a $100.00 bottle would have been enough to last 3 days at the 5 mg/kg/day dose. At the time, the prescription CBD was ~1200.00 a bottle. On a mg basis it was pretty comparable to the having to buy multiple OTC strength bottles.

As I understand it, CBD itself may cause a rise in ALP but an increase in ALT wouldn’t be expected, hard to know if it is related or not. Only way to know I think would be to discontinue and remeasure the blood levels.

Bile acids are produced from cholesterol, stored in the gallbladder, and shucked out into the intestines with gallbladder contraction, primarily in response to ingestion of food. They are reabsorbed in the ileum, the end portion of the small intestine. The blood flow from the intestines takes a tour through the liver and the liver picks out the bile acids and sticks them back into the gallbladder.

If the liver is not functioning well, the liver doesn’t do a good job picking the bile acids out of the blood, so the bile acids can be found circulating in the blood at higher than excepted levels. Bile acid levels in the blood can also be high when the blood flow to the liver is altered, like with a liver shunt. Gastric and Intestinal motility may also influence results. The bile acids have to be presented to the terminal intestine for absorption. Apparently, there can be day to day variation in test results due to this or other factors.

The test is usually done by measuring levels in the blood in a fasted state and again 2-3 hours after feeding, which is done to stimulate gall bladder contraction. If both pre and post eating samples are high, the problem is more likely one of liver function. If pre are normal and posts are high, it may be more likely to be a problem of blood flow. BUT these are very wide generalizations and dogs don’t read the books.

Apparently, there can be a lot of “grey” in interpreting the results. The specialist I took one of my dogs to said he rarely runs the test because the liver has a lot of functional reserve so local lesions that can increase liver enzyme levels in the blood may not alter test results at all and factors outside the liver can influence results. This could be why your vet recommended an ultrasound and not a bile acid test to further explore the liver enzyme increase.

On the other hand, if you are giving a dog something that is known to be able to alter liver function in some scenarios, doing repeated bile acids to monitor for change in function may be warranted. I believe an anti-seizure medication such as phenobarbital falls into that category.

Since so much about CBD use in dogs is unknown it makes sense perhaps to included bile acids in these initial studies to monitor for any toxic effects.

I’m not aware of any instance where MCT would increase liver enzymes.

[aimee]

Hi Patricia,

I don’t think there are any perfect diets. We are left to making the best decisions we can based on the information we have available to us.

[aimee]

Hi Patricia,

I’ll share anything I learn regarding the recall.

When looking at foods without supplementation the nutrients I first check, being careful to convert to caloric basis, are Vit E, Vitamin D, and Zinc. One company whose Vit D levels were very low told me it isn’t a problem because dog make Vit D. I just needed to make sure they got enough sun .. Facepalm -Vit D is essential in dogs and the basis for saying that as a species, though overall considered an omnivore, they have a carnivore bias.

This is taken from the article I inked to ” our current hypothesis is that compounds in these ingredients may have toxic effects on the heart.”

Because lentils are the third ingredient, I personally would not consider feeding diet 2.

[aimee]

Hi Patricia,

In general, I believe that most additions are all automated so was there a problem with that process? If it was a general remix problem, I’d think the recall would be widespread.

The other thought I had was there a “clump” of Vit D for lack of a better word in the premix which resulted in a small amount of the premix being of higher Vit D levels.

So far it appears the company took appropriate action. About 10? years ago, as I recall, there was a company that didn’t recall for months after getting reports and when they did recall implicated the dogs for being overly sensitive to Vit D . That never sat well with me.

Thanks for the kind feedback I’m glad to know that you have found value in my posts.

I do not believe legumes are blocking taurine absorption. nor that the problem is due to insufficient animal protein. Based on this most recent update from Tufts, it seems a toxin is suspected. I do not believe supplementing a suspect diet would be helpful. Right now, I think the best course of action is to avoid feeding legumes (soy being the exception) https://vetnutrition.tufts.edu/2023/02/diet-associated-dilated-cardiomyopathy-the-cause-is-not-yet-known-but-it-hasnt-gone-away/

While I understand their appeal, I haven’t yet come across a supplement free diet that I would trust. You hit it on the head when you said they “claim” to meet… based on manufacturer supplied nutritional analysis I’ve consistently found these diets low in some nutrients and excessive in others.

I’ll be happy to give you my opinion on the recipes you post.

[aimee]

Hi Kelwolf,

Usually when someone says ” I stay away from Anything that is or turns into Sugar” they mean to convey that they avoid carbohydrates. However, protein and fat are also sources of sugar. Sugar is necessary for life . If not supplied in the diet the body has to make it from other sources.

It may interest you to learn that dogs, like humans and other omnivores have sweet receptors, to guide them to select sweet items to eat from nature’s table. Cats and other carnivores lack this ability.

[aimee]

I’ve been watching this recall. It seems very very limited in scope which in general seems atypical for Vit D recalls which historically have been broad and seem to expand over time.

I wonder what cause would result in only a small amount of food being affected.
Will have to see how this plays out.

[aimee]

Hope the balance of the day went well. I think it likely that there will be a subset of dogs that respond to CBD. My stumbling block at this point is dose. As I recall, dogs metabolize the stuff like crazy. The OTC doses seem so low to me compared to the doses used in people and the published studies in dogs. But each dog is an individual.

I hope he does well.

[aimee]

I’m so sorry that your dog and you are both going through this. I think Keppra is a good choice and I hope it can get the situation stabilized. Is your dog in an age bracket where advanced testing may be advised?

[aimee]

Hi M&C,

Since I myself had a dog with seizures I thought I’d share what I learned. She had her first partial seizures, meaning she didn’t lose consciousness. at 9 months. As I recall, vets broadly rank possible causes based on age with toxicity (ingested or metabolic) and infections being more common in very young dogs, a genetic cause being more in a young adult, and tumors or other metabolic cause from organ dysfunction. more common in middle aged to older adults

I consulted a neurologist. and together we decided not to start her on medication. I did not change her diet. For the most part, her seizures occurred when relaxed in the car. The neurologist suspected a noise induced component (apparently engine noise can cause seizures in some dog) combined with the brain waves pattern in light sleep. I also consulted with a holistic vet. I was told she was seizing in response to negative energy I had from having to get up early on the days we traveled. That was the first and last time I ever consulted a holistic vet.

Her seizure frequency was greatly reduced by preventing her from dozing during travel. She also had seizures not associated with travel. The general guidance I was given for deciding when a seizure disorder should be medicated is if they were occurring more than once a month, if there were multiple seizure in a day or if any one seizure was of longer duration. Apparently, the more seizures a dog has, the more established that brain pattern becomes and the more refractory they become to responding to anti-convulsant, so it is better to start medication early in the course of the disease if they meet the criteria. She stated to seizure more frequently and I decided the time had come to put her on meds but I was neglectful in getting her back to the vet and after several months of increased frequency the dang things just stopped.

What I learned is that seizure patterns sometimes have no pattern. It can be easy to ascribe triggers to things that had no bearing on their cause or to credit interventions with decreasing seizures when in reality the intervention had no effect. My understanding is that CBD. is an established treatment for a particular type of seizure in children and its use is being evaluated in dogs. As I recall the doses tested with marginal to no effectiveness have been about 20-40 times higher than the supplements marketed for pet owners. Personally, I think if you are supplementing with an OTC CBD oil it will have no real benefit, but if not well made could bring ham.so I think it was a good decision to remove it to see if it is playing a role in the increased liver enzymes.

[aimee]

Hi M & C,

I’m not aware of any recent company restructuring by Nature’s Variety. I feel more confident with them as a raw company based on past interactions, their use of HPP across all diets. And as I recall they test each batch for pathogens multiple times during production using PCR, which is IMO, much more sensitive that culture. Finally, I believe they are the only raw food producer that employs a full time boarded veterinary nutritionist, Dr. Susan Wynn.

I agree the posted nutritional information appears very straightforward and professional I like that they provide information on a calorie basis and that the numbers appear appropriate. I didn’t see any errors that jumped out on a cursory view.

Copper content overall is higher than I’d like to see, and IMO, likely reflects the company’s feeding philosophy. I suspect it is coming primarily from the inclusion of organ meat. Interesting factoid, apparently copper in pork liver is in a form that cannot be absorbed by the dog.

Based on my understanding of the pet industry, vit/min premixes are a bulk commodity purchased from an outside source. I suspect they include copper at a baseline min value designed to meet an AAFCO profile when incorporated at a prescribed level. It makes no sense to include any more than necessary.

I do not think in most cases a premix is individualized to each recipe but instead the recipe is formulated around the premix. So, when I see foods that have a high level of copper and a supplement, I suspect the level is coming primarily from the ingredients and not the premix.

[aimee]

Hi M & C,

I posted this same reply in the raw thread from which it originated. But answering here as well

If I had to name one area in nutrition that makes my head spin the most it is fatty acids. This is my understanding, but keep in mind my simplification of a very very complex topic may be incorrect, is that omega 6’s on their own are not inflammatory, but that they can be used as a building block for the body to make mediators of inflammation both pro and con.

Linoleic acid (LA) is an Omega 6 essential fatty acid (EFA) made by plants and is vital for skin health. Corn and soy are good sources, so animals raised on corn and soy like poultry and pigs can be good sources of this EFA.

Arachidonic acid (AA) is an omega 6 made by animals from LA. and is the primary building block for the production of inflammatory mediators. Dogs make AA from LA, cats cannot, so it is essential in this species, one reason dogs are classified as omnivores while cats are classified as carnivores.

The Omega 3, alpha linolenic (ALA), is made by plants and is the counter partner to linoleic acid (Both have 18 carbons). EPA and DHA are Omega 3’s made by algae,,but can also be made from ALA by some animals. The ability to do so and how efficient that process is differs among species.

. Here is where I’m not confident in my understanding but I think that when other structural FA are in short supply, cell membranes become saturated with Omega 6’s at levels near their dietary requirement. Meaning that higher levels of Omega 6 in the diet do not necessarily mean higher levels of Omega 6 in the membrane. Supplementation with Omega 3 is done to provide a different set of building blocks so that instead of the cell membrane being made with all Omega 6 it is made with omega 6 and omega 3. Now when Cox or Lox enzymes are present less inflammatory compounds will be produced.

So my understanding is that the key to decreasing inflammation is to provide Omega 3’s in the diet to meet the levels on a metabolic kg body weight basis that have been shown or believed to be beneficial for the condition you want to address and then because the Omega 3’s and 6’s compete for the same enzyme and metabolic pathways, control omega 6’s. so that the 6’s do not outcompete the 3’s for access to enzymes.

With that as a background I find the statement that chicken is inflammatory, baffling. Chicken can be a good source of LA, an EFA, and while LA can be converted to AA which then can in the presence of COX/LOX becomes a mediator of inflammation, on its own I don’t see it as a de facto source of inflammation. Nor do I understand the assessment that your dog is likely allergic to chicken based on a physical exam in the absence of any typical GI or skin signs.

In general, what I find in the holistic field is that a mustard seed of truth morphs into a sweeping overgeneralization which is then presented as fact. That is how I view this bit of information you were given.

[aimee]

Hi M & C,

I’m playing catch -up.

If I had to name one area in nutrition that makes my head spin the most it is fatty acids. This is my understanding, but keep in mind my simplification of a very very complex topic may be incorrect. Omega 6’s in general on their own are not inflammatory, but that they can be used as a building block for the body to make mediators of inflammation both pro and con.

Linoleic acid (LA) is an Omega 6 essential fatty acid (EFA) made by plants and is vital for skin health. Corn and soy are good sources, so animals raised on corn and soy like poultry and pigs can be good sources of this EFA.

Arachidonic acid (AA) is an omega 6 made by animals from LA. and it is the primary building block for the production of inflammatory mediators. Dogs make AA from LA, cats cannot, so it is essential in this species, one reason dogs are classified as omnivores while cats are classified as carnivores.

The Omega 3, alpha linolenic (ALA), is made by plants and is the counter partner to linoleic acid (Both have 18 carbons). EPA and DHA are Omega 3’s made by algae but can also be made from ALA by some animals. The ability to do so and how efficient that process is differs among species.

Here is where I’m not confident in my understanding, I think that when other structural FA are in short supply, cell membranes become saturated with Omega 6’s at levels near their dietary requirement. Meaning that higher levels of Omega 6 in the diet do not necessarily mean higher levels of Omega 6 in the membrane. Supplementation with Omega 3 is done to provide a different set of building blocks so that instead of the cell membrane being made with all Omega 6 it is made with Omega 6 and Omega 3. Now when Cox or Lox enzymes are present fewer inflammatory compounds will be produced.

So my understanding is that the key to decreasing inflammation is to provide Omega 3’s in the diet to meet the levels on a metabolic kg body weight basis that have been shown or believed to be beneficial for the condition you want to address, and then because the Omega 3’s and 6’s compete for the same enzyme and metabolic pathways, control omega 6’s. so that the 6’s do not outcompete the 3’s for access to enzymes.

With that as a background I find the statement that chicken is inflammatory, baffling. Chicken can be a good source of LA, an EFA, and while LA can be converted to AA which then can in the presence of COX/LOX become a mediator of inflammation, on its own, I don’t see it as a de facto source of inflammation. Nor do I understand the assessment that your dog is likely allergic to chicken based on a physical exam in the absence of any typical GI or skin signs.

In general, what I find in the holistic field is that a mustard seed of truth morphs into a sweeping overgeneralization which is then presented as fact. That is how I view this bit of information you were given.

[aimee]

Hi M & C,

Last year?? I called Hill’s Pet Nutrition, Royal Canin and Purina and asked for copper levels in multiple diets. Interesting to me, was that the levels from all three companies fell within a narrow range of as I recall ~3-4 mg/1000 kcals with exception of the therapeutic diets, which were much lower, and breed specific formula by RC was right at AAFCO min ~1.8. The situation I found with small companies’ raw/freeze dried raw offerings was vastly different. Like you I found wild fluctuations among the products they made with some near 100 mg/kg DM Wow just Wow

I first started looking because of a comment I read by Dr Sharon Center who said, as I recall, in her opinion, one factor in the rising cases of copper storage disease ( CSD) was the trend towards “natural” diets, resulting in liver/organ meat being used to meet certain nutrient needs and the side effect feeding high organ content was the high copper levels that came with their use. In contrast, I’ve found posts from random people giving advice on CSD to avoid commercial diets that have copper supplements and instead feed “natural” diets. Considering that I found that even though the commercial kibble made by the large companies listed a supplement, the diets had lower levels in general than the “natural diets,” that advice seems very reckless.

That advice reminded me of something I learned long ago. From a biological standpoint the natural diet is meant to sustain an animal through reproduction. After successful reproduction, it is in the interest of the species for the parental generation to die off so that they do not compete with the new generation. In other words, the natural diet may not be the optimum diet to sustain an animal long term.

I suspect copper levels may be lower in poultry based foods because chickens are slaughtered at such a young age so little time for copper to accumulate in their livers as opposed to cattle.

[aimee]

Hi M & C,

In my experience authors usually do not provide the names of the products they have tested. Sometimes a list of ingredients is provided and by searching on those ingredients you can make an educated guess as to what product was tested. This may be because the purpose is not to call out any one product, whose ownership and formulations can change quickly, but to provide overall assessment of what is available.

Also consider how litigious this industry has become. Veterinaries are being threatened for advising their clients or for making associations that implicate products. Recall Earth Animal threated to sue one of the authors of the dog chew paper, and as I recall a veterinarian down under was threatened with a lawsuit after making an association between a company’s products and a neurologic condition in cats. The veterinary nutritionist I consulted with shared that they had been threatened with lawsuits several times for dispensing nutritional advice. For all these reasons, authors and publishers may shy away from providing names.

I did read a paper on veterinary probiotics which listed brands. As I recall ~ 25 brands were tested and the only ones that were correctly labeled were the ones made by Iams and Purina.

I also recall an article testing thiamin levels in canned cat foods and a significant number were below AAFCO and I believe all were manufactured by small companies.

Yeah $58 for one article. I have the full text on that article and the dog chew one too. Sometimes you can get them through a library. Sometimes I’ve found them available for free at websites other than the publisher by searching on google scholar and some through the vet if published by JAVMA. Other times I buck up and buy them.

I do not know of any membership that has access to in depth unbiased information.

[aimee]

Hi M &C,

Thank you for the kind words. The more I learn the more I realize how little I know. If the lab characterized the samples as N then I think you should be fine there.

I could be wrong on this but as I understand it Lipase in the panel refers to circulating lipase levels whose source is usually primarily the pancreas. When the pancreas is inflamed, ((pancreatitis) lipase levels will likely be increased. Lipase from the pancreas breaks down dietary fat in the intestine, allowing it to be absorbed. When there is enough fat consumed, the fat can be seen in the blood after eating.

Tissue lipase is bound to the tissue and its purpose is to facilitate the transfer of circulating fats out of the blood so they can be used at the tissue level. Some dogs have low tissue levels of lipase so when they eat fat it gets digested and into the blood, but can’t easily get out of the blood, putting them at risk for high triglycerides. There are other causes of elevated triglycerides, but as I understand it low tissue lipase is one cause.

[aimee]

Hi M & C,

Initially I wrote out how to hand calculate but the post got so long so deleted it. Hand calculating an estimated caloric value is just an extension of calculating the number of fat calories. For a G/A that lists min protein as 25 and min fat as 25 and max moisture at 10 and max fiber as 5 you can estimate carbs by subtracting the knowns from 100. If you know the ash content, you need to subtract that too, but if you don’t you can guess (Balanceit uses 3). In this example estimated carbs is 100-25-25-10-5-3= 32. Next multiply each macronutrient by number of kcals/gram, which is 4 for protein and carb and 9 for fat. For kibble I use the Modified Atwater numbers which are 3.5 kcals/gram for protein and carb and 8.5 kcals/gram for fat to accounts for digestibility. For this example (4X25) + (4X 32) + (9 X 25) = 453 kcals/100 grams= 4530kcals/kg

Estimating is fraught with error though, especially with fresh foods, which I why I use the given caloric information if it is available. What I’ve found is the underreporting of fat in raw foods is very common, this is evident if your carb number ends up high when there is no plant matter listed in the ingredients. Also, you can back calculate fat content if they give the caloric information.

Years ago, I asked a company whose name would imply that they would respond to inquiry, what the fat content was in their food. They wrote back that it took them years of research to determine the ideal amount and that they would not just give that information away to someone who could be trying to poach their recipe. I thanked them for their answer and said I as estimating it to be 35 % . They wrote back gob smacked wanting to know how I knew. It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad. Yet another example of a company that appeared to have no clue what they are doing.

[aimee]

Hi M & C,

There are several papers published that use DNA testing to confirm or refute labeled ingredients. If soy DNA is found in a soy free food, it could be because of contamination and not willful substitution. However, when labeled ingredients are not detected by DNA that is valid concern since this technology can pick up trace amounts.

My understanding is that quantitative DNA analysis is available but more costly. Recently a paper was published that used this method and found in some cases significant amounts of chicken in chicken free foods and in other cases did not find any chicken in foods labeled to contain chicken.

This same publisher was the one to publish the paper on the microscopic examination of dog chews. Similar to this one the authors compared what they saw under the microcop to what was reported on the label.

[aimee]

Hi Danielle,

I’m so sorry that your dog and you are going through this. It sounds like you have a good team of Dr’s and that your dog is getting appropriate care.

My dog was on reglan after she developed esophagitis post anesthesia. She had no issues with the drug and her condition resolved after 6 weeks treatment.

My understanding is that bilious vomiting is related to a motility issue so using reglan makes sense to me. As I understand it the motility issue itself may be secondary to another problem so the homecooked diet trial seems appropriate. Please note that the current DCM issue associated with “grain free” is not due to a lack of grain. Dogs eating grain inclusive diets have also been affected. It seems linked to the use of peas and legumes as the primary carbohydrate sources in the diet.

You may want to consider discussing with your vets if a trial treatment for Physaloptera, the stomach worm, would be appropriate. My understanding is that this parasite can sometimes only be diagnosed on endoscopy. I say this because I know of a dog that had chronic intermittent vomiting and a single worm was found on scoping. It was removed and the dog had no further problems.

[aimee]

Hi M and C,

I have ST’s 2022 list and find the choices baffling. I don’t understand the inclusion of a company whose FDA inspection report was one of the most atrocious that I’ve ever read. or companies who promote misinformation. It is almost as if the claimed ingredient sourcing blinds her to other issues.

I suspect that nutritional information is not evaluated or perhaps it isn’t given the same weight that I put on it when evaluating a company.

I can’t see what a company’s knowledge base is in regard to proper sourcing, handling and testing of ingredients or cleaning protocols or pathogen control but I can see the nutrition information they provide. If I find apparent deficits in understanding in that area, then I lose confidence in that the company has the needed knowledge in other areas to make a safe product.

[aimee]

Hi M and C,

Didn’t mean to send you on a snipe hunt. Glad you eventually found the No Hide thread i commented on. Did you use the search forums option? That is how I find it.

Going through that has really been a life changing experience. I lost trust in the regulatory process and the pet industry as a whole. Several months ago, I watched a presentation titled something like finding balance between sales and ethics as a pet retailer. It was both fascinating and disheartening at the same time. A discussion about being faced with compromising your ethics so that you have product you could sell to pay the bills, and finding and establishing where you will draw your personal line in the sand.

I have no idea what the vitamin and mineral content of tendons or esophagus would be. To reach a caloric count of 4585, I ‘d suspect approx. 15 % fat as fed basis.

[aimee]

Hi M &C,

Every company uses spin and I’ve learned to tolerate a certain amount but when it veers off into misinformation, I pull way back and when it ends with behavior I see as reckless animal endangerment I’m out. That is where I ended with SRF. Looking at the posted NA, I’d agree with you that the “as fed “vitamin information for the frozen looks to be incorrect. I think what they may have meant with their reply was that the data posted is “as fed” for the freeze dried option and since there is little moisture in the freeze dried it is close to DM basis.

The nutrient profiles IMO highlight numerous problems in formulation with some formulas not appearing to meet AAFCO min or exceeding AAFCO max. AAFCO does not list a Max copper, something veterinarians have been calling for since copper storge disease is being diagnosed with increasing frequency. I believe Europe standards call for no more than 28mg/kg. SRF has reports levels as high as 80.5 It appears they are completely disregarding this health concern.

The company describes their beef diet as “low-fat, nutrient dense……..”, a very direct statement. I see this as an egregious unforgivable marketing error. This diet appears to have a min of ~51% fat calories. To put that into context, a low fat therapeutic diets, Hill’s GI low fat has ~17% fat calories. The general consumer isn’t educated on evaluating nutritional information. An owner with a fat intolerant dog may find this diet marketed as low fat, see an 8% min fat level similar to the low fat diet their vet recommended and purchase it, not realizing that 8% as fed in a moist diet is very different from 8% min fat in a dry diet. I personally am aware of this exact situation occurring.

I’ve found that % calories from fat typically ranges between 25-60% in commercial diets with raw diets on the high end. and some far exceeding that 60% I’d consider low fat to be not more than 25% fat calories, moderate fat up to 40% fat calories and high fat over 40% fat calories. I personally don’t like to exceed ~35% calories from fat for my dogs and for my fat intolerant dog 25%.

You can estimate % calories from macronutrients from the GA alone by using the converter at the balanceit website, or hand calculating. SRF reports a min of 8 grams fat in every 100 grams (140 kcals). 8 grams X 9 kcals/gram /140 kcal in 100 grams ~51% calories from fat.

BINGO! Quality ingredients does not = quality food.

[aimee]

Hi M & C,

I never chuckle. I learn so much through other’s questions and perspectives.

There are a lot of pet food regulations but IMO little verification that manufacturers are following them. I brought an issue of concern to a regulator and was asked “How many confirmed deaths” which gave me insight to where their focus lies. When I asked about truth in labeling, honesty and integrity the response was a sigh and “yes, there is always that” with an underlying context of “we don’t have the luxury of worrying about things like ingredient substitutions”.

It seems then, that holding companies accountable for labeling is falling to the courts and lengthy class action lawsuits. I agree with you that smaller companies probably are given a bit of a pass in that context.

Triglycerides are not normally part of a standard blood panel. Cholesterol in the blood is clear but triglycerides in high numbers give a cloudy appearance to the serum. The lab usually enters the appearance of the sample on the blood report.so look for that and see if the word lipemic appears. Lipemia is normal after eating but lipemia in a fasted sample would be a potential concern.

It could be that the roots of the high fat advice for seizers was based on the ketogenic diet use in people as a treatment for seizures. .A family friend’s story successful experience with a ketogenic diet was made into a movie “First Do No Harm” with Meryl Streep. However, dogs are less likely to enter a state of ketosis through diet compared to people. I believe using MCT oil was found to be a partial workaround, but my understanding is that a significant proportion of the total fat in the diet has to be MCT and this would not be easily achieved simply by adding MCT to an otherwise C and B diet.

[aimee]

Hi M& C,

I think you’ve got it! The best way to compare foods is on a caloric basis. This takes into account water, fiber, ash and energy density. You’ll note on this site there is a table for each diet and that the macronutrients are given in an as fed. dry matter, and caloric basis.

AAFCO requires that for any diet over 4000 kcals/kg DM a conversion factor be applied. If the diet you are feeding is 5000 kcals/kg that conversion factor is simply 5000/4000 X the number in the table. So many times, I’ve found that companies overlook this. Recently, I got a nutrient analysis table for a diet labeled for ALS. The Ca content was listed as 1.3% DM and AAFCO’s min is 1.2%, so that looks good right? Well, they also reported the kcals as 5400/kg for that diet. Calculating through 5400/4000 X 1.2 = 1.6. The diet needs to have 1.6 % Ca to meet AAFCO min and they are reporting 1.3%. Got ‘ghosted” after inquiring about the apparent discrepancy.

AAFCO writes a model food law which most states adopt in some form, but they do not do any type of regulation. There is no oversite by AAFCO. Oversite is done by your state feed control official and the FDA. IMO for all practical purposes, oversite is nonexistent in most areas. It seems to me that areas that effect humans, like pathogens in food, are monitored via spot check cultures of foods. Some foods may be tested to see if they meet their GA.’s, but overall, no one is checking to verify information on a label is correct.

In regards to high bone content in foods, it could just be a reflection of what sourcing the company has access to and an acceptance of high fat and mineral content in the products available to them.

I didn’t see calorie content listed for the diet to see what mineral content is on a caloric basis. But I found their marketing very oft putting and reckless. They write “Turkey meat is one of the leanest proteins available making it a great option for pets that are sensitive to fat content, such as those with pancreatitis.” which can be true esp turkey breast. BUT their turkey diet is a whopping 35% as fed fat diet! Using their information and doing some rough calculation that would mean ~63% of the calories are coming from fat! This appears to be a very high fat diet being marketed as being appropriate for dogs with fat intolerance. For me that makes me see red and would earn them a spot on my not recommended list.

Just as an aside.. did you mention your dog is having seizures? I’m asking because you mentioned a 5000kcal/kg diet and to reach that high of caloric density fat has to be significant component of the diet. I might get my details wrong on this because it is awhile since I read the literature. But as I recall some dogs have low levels of tissue lipase. This results in prolonged clearance of fat from their blood and the outcome is high triglycerides. High triglyceride can trigger seizures.

A friend’s dog was having horrible cluster seizures several times a month, was seeing a vet neurologist and on 3 different drugs. Her reg. vet noticed that on each blood panel gotten back from the neurologist, the triglycerides were high, and the sample was always reported as “lipemic,” meaning visible fat in the blood. The reg vet called the neurologist and the neurologist said paraphrased “yeah they are high, but not high enough to cause seizures.” The reg vet told her there is no downside to trying a lower fat diet. So, the diet was changed, triglycerides returned to normal, and the dog went from having multiple cluster seizures a month to never again having another seizure. Apparently, the dog didn’t read the medical book.

[aimee]

Hi M & C

I’ve gone down many a rabbit hole over the years. Hunting down accurate information can be a frustrating endeavor. Here is my take on NRC. NRC numbers are based on high bioavailability, something that in the real word doesn’t necessarily occur. AAFCO takes the info from NRC and pads the numbers to account for bioavailability.

AAFCO tables are by kg DM, assuming 4000 kcals/kg and they also report nutrients/ 1000 kcals . NRC does this too, but NRC also provides amounts based on body size. For example, NRC rec 3.28 grams of protein/ kg bw to the .75 power.

AAFCO tables are in Mins and Maxs. NRC has 4 columns: min, adequate, rec and safe upper limit. For many nutrients a SUL is not given because there is not sufficient research as to where to draw that line. For adult dogs there is no reported SUL for CA or Phos. For growth the SUL is 1.8% with a 4000/kcal/kg DM diet. This was based upon large breed puppy growth.

Currently I believe AAFCO table for MAX Calcium is 2.5 % EXCEPT in the case of growth of large breed puppies in which case it is 1.8%. This is why an AAFCO statement may say formulated to meet all life stages except growth of large breed puppies.

The point I was trying to make, and didn’t explain well, is that when AAFCO sets its tables it assumes that the dog is eating an average amount of calories but doesn’t define what this amount is. They leave it up to the manufacturer to determine feeding recommendations. This is a huge weak link.

It is known that when calories are calculated, any individual dog can vary by 50% from this number. So, for example, if calculated calories are 500, one individual may need 250 and another 1000.

When diets just meet AAFCO min there is an underlying assumption that the dog will be eating 500 kcals. But for those dogs that only need 250 kcals that AAFCO min may not meet the dog’s nutrient needs on a weight basis as given by NRC.

I think FEDIAF addresses this by having two data sets with one being for “inactive ” pets, but I haven’t checked to verify this. I believe this is what Susan Thixton is trying to petition the FDA to address.

That may be the easier way to address this because actually determining caloric needs is fraught with a lot of variation. But I see it as imperfect as well because it still leaves it up to the manufacturer and I’ve found considerable errors with this approach. I’ve found multiple instances in which when using the nutritional information provided by the manufacturer and using the manufacturer’s feeding recommendations the dog would not consume enough nutrients to meet NRC rec. or sometimes even min. values.

I have only found this in high cost, small company products. IMO feeding amounts are set low to make the food look more affordable. IMO, one of the most egregious examples I’ve come across was in a freeze-dried product made by a company that apparently did have by a PhD in animal nutrition on staff. So apparently even having someone with an appropriate background in nutrition in the company doesn’t insulate the consumer from errors of this type.

On the other end of the spectrum, I’ve seen companies who boost all nutrients to well above AAFCO min to better cover these “easy keepers” AND have feeding recommendations that will meet the animal’s nutrient need.

I’ve seen as a rule of thumb that if your dog needs to eat 80% or less of the recommended amount you need to switch foods to something with a higher nutrient density. The problem is that assumes the original feeding recommendations are accurate and unfortunately, they in many cases, are not.

[aimee]

Hi M &C,

Glad to hear that you ‘re aware of what the final mix ends up being. For any nutrients that are near the AAFCO levels you might want to look at level on a metabolic body weight basis. I say this because if you have an “easy keeper”, meaning energy needs lower than average, the diet may meet AAFCO but the nutrient intake may not. I’ve had to use a fortified diet meant for weight loss for my easy keeper to make sure all her needs were met.

I’ve been “ghosted” by many a company. I find a discrepancy, ask a question and they just disappear….. Have you ever read the thread in the forums in which I wrote about by experience with the company that makes No Hide? It is a long one and I have been updating it for over 4 years now.

[aimee]

Hi Crazy4cats!

Yes, I too was disappointed that I couldn’t download the AAFCO OP chapter. I took screenshots of the pages with definitions that were of the most interest.

I also notice the forum issue. Even though I click the “keep me logged in” box it keeps logging me out and the side bar then reflects posts from months ago instead of the recent conversations.

[aimee]

Hi Mutts and Cats,

Meat ( striate muscle) other than protein, is very devoid of nutrients. I think it is good that you are looking at overall content because I suspect the mix you are making with half calories coming from necks and meat is not meeting nutritional needs. Are you comparing your final mix to NRC recommendation on a metabolic weight basis or some other parameter?

IgE tests for food allergy are like flipping a coin. Dogs can react to items they test “negative” for and not react to items they test “positive” for. Overall, I think the test has little value and I think the money spent on them could be put to better use.

[aimee]

Mutts and Cats,

Like you, I hate when I can’t make sense of things. As I recall mineral analysis is fraught with error so there are limits in the methodology that could account for some of the discrepancy.

I think there is movement away from thinking that the 1.2:1 ratio is most important and moving towards actual amounts as being more important. I’d suspect a lot of interplay here but yes I’m overall not a fan of high ash/mineral diets and I won’t feed them. I don’t know that there is a lot of literature on this in adults. As I recall there is a paper looking at high calcium diets in adult dogs and no adverse effects were found during study duration and there is research in cats with high phosphorous which appeared to result in kidney damage in adult cats.

Based on the ingredients, I think I found the diet you are discussing. If so, it
appears to be labeled as being formulated to meet AAFCO. With mineral content that high they would seem to be in violation of that statement. Did you bring this up to the rep and what was the response? If a company gave me that type of data in a food labeled to meet AAFCO, it would be reason for me to choose a different company.

I have seen companies claim to meet AAFCO through feeding trials when they have foods this high in mineral content. I don’t like to see companies using a feeding trial to get around the profile. I think AAFCO is trying to close the loophole a bit on that at least in relation to growth. In one case the company told me they never did any feeding trials but they just label that they did one, telling me AAFCO said it was Ok for them to do so. I contacted AAFCO.. they disagreed… Lot’s of nonsense out there..

[Author]

Posts