[aimee]

Spy Car,
OK…. so you have no references to cite or share to support your bold statements.

I think you’ll agree that while both Goldens and Labs are sporting breeds most are not engaged in “very intense levels of physical activity”. While you can feed a high protein/no carb/ high fat diet to a dog not engaged in intense physical activity you have yet to provide any references that it confers a benefit to do so.

Sure dogs do not require carbohydrates, people don’t either…..

Simplistically speaking fats are important for endurance, and carbohydrates for intensity. A sled dog’s intended purpose is endurance. A racing greyhound… intensity. If you want to win don’t feed a racing greyhound as you would a sled dog nor a sled dog as a racing greyhound. Working Goldens and Labs need both endurance and intensity.

I don’t disagree that protein and fat levels significantly above AAFCO’s baseline maintenance level are advantageous for dogs engaged in intense physical activity but for a typical companion Golden or Lab they just are not necessary.

[aimee]

Spy Car

Please provide a full text reference link for the study you are citing. If this was a sled dog study really all you can say is that dogs under intense work did better on the higher protein test diet of the levels tested. Doesn’t mean a dog in mild or average work would need the same level. Be careful not to overstate the conclusion.

Jill B,
I’m a Lab person and would have no concerns feeding RC Golden formula. To maintain good weight and muscling I feed Pro Plan weight management which I consider a low fat, mod protein diet similar to the RC formula. All healthy active dogs with great stamina in the field, no injuries and great teeth!

[aimee]

Spycar,

You wrote “Instead of responding to a long and reasoned criticism of SkeptVet’s methods outside the particulars of this one study, you charge me with having a strong bias against SkeptVet,”

Actually what I said was ” “To me it appears that you are starting out with a strong bias against skeptvet….” If I was charging you with having a strong bias against skeptvet I would have said “You have a strong bias against skeptvet” : )

To respond in detail to every accusation you made would take more time and effort than I’m willing to put forth as I don’t think my effort would ever change your opinion. And let’s face it my previous post was quite long and I only responded to one point!

I don’t see your conclusion as being any different from skept vet. You wrote “All that can be said truthfully is that there have been very few studies of coconut oils and there risks and benefits in dogs.” and “Almost zero science to support either harm or benefits to dogs” Skeptvet wrote ” There is virtually no research on coconut oil in dogs and cats, apart from some studies looking at topical use for treatment of parasites. Therefore, the health effects, both risks and benefits, are unknown and supported only by unreliable anecdotal evidence.”

He treats the available anecdotal evidence for harm the same way as he does for benefits, unreliable in both cases. Anecdotal/personal reports are a form of evidence just very weak, unreliable, low level evidence. In science you can’t make strong conclusions from weak evidence and skeptvet maintains this stance and will remind people of that tenet.

I don’t see it as wrong to talk about anecdotal reports They are observations and taken collectively I see their purpose as being a resource from which to form hypothesis for controlled studies.

As I said before, I think it best to look at how his peers evaluate him. The evidence based veterinary medical group had elected him as their president. If he were to be guilty of all you charge him with I don’t see that this would have ever happened. He is a reviewer for recognized journals, and has himself authored peer reviewed articles published in established journals. He has been judged by his peers and elevated to the position that he holds/has held.

Can he come off as a bit cocky at times? I could see that people may interpret him that way but from what I’ve seen his science is sound.

[aimee]

Hi Spycar,

It appears that you still are not understanding the study that Skeptvet refers to. There were three separate experiments: Palatability, Digestability and Weight loss

Let’s look at the weight loss study “Experiment design The experiment was divided into two phases. In the first phase, overweight condition was induced in all dogs by consuming a high‐energy diet (Royal Canin Professional Energy 4800, Aimargues, France) ad libitum for 16 weeks; at the end of this phase, their BW and food intakes were stable. ……The second phase consisted of a 14‐week weight loss period during which dogs were divided into three groups, each receiving one of the experimental diets. ”

It seems that to do a weight loss study the researchers needed some overweight dogs with which to do it. They allowed the dogs free access to a diet by Royal Canin. NOTE All dogs were on the same diet and not on the experimental diets during the weight gain period. And no mention of coconut oil in the induction phase which is called phase one.

You wrote “they free fed the dogs for 16 weeks and it is of little surprise that dogs ate more and got fatter on the more delicious menu option” When you write ” on the more delicious menu option” I read that as you saying the dog had multiple food options. They did not. The experimental diets with various levels of coconut oil were not available to them. There was only one diet in phase one, a min 28% fat diet designed to sustain long periods of activity. The high fat diet led to weight gain in the beagles, a breed recognized for becoming overweight, when it was fed free choice. Note no mention of coconut oil in phase one.

It was after the 16 week free feed when the experimental diets were fed to the dogs for weight loss. This was phase two. The overweight dogs were divided into three groups and each group was fed a different experimental diet in a limited amount. It was this subsequent, phase two portion of the experiment that skeptvet is referring to. He wrote ” One study that added coconut oil to dog food to see if it would help with weight loss found that dogs on the diet with coconut oil lost less weight and had more body fat than dogs on diets with other sources of fat.” The key sections to pay attention to are “added coconut oil to dog food” and “weight loss” The only experiment in which both coconut oil was added to dog food and weight loss was tracked was phase 2 of the weight loss experiment. AND it is clear from the paper that the experimental diets were restricted for this phase of the experiment.

Skeptvet wrote ” dogs on the diet with coconut oil lost less weight and had more body fat than dogs on diets with other sources of fat.”The authors of the study report “Body weight (BW) reduction was lower (C0: 20.1 ± 2.32%, C20: 14.6 ± 1.43% and C40: 15.7 ± 1.23%, p < 0.05) and FM was higher (FM, 18.7 ± 3.42%, 27.9 ± 3.90% and 28.2 ± 2.88% for C0, C20 and C40, respectively, p < 0.05) for diets C20 and C40 than for C0.” Skeptvet simply restated the results. The authors wrote “Body weight (BW) reduction was lower” and skeptvet wrote “lost less weight” The authors wrote “FM was higher” (FM stands for fat mass ) and skeptvet wrote had more body fat. The diets with added coconut oil are C20 and C40.

You seem to have the various phases of the weight loss experiment and the palatability experiment, which was a separate experiment, all mixed up in your head. You wrote.” … he makes a claim that dogs fed “coconut oil lost less weight and had more body fat than dogs on diets with other sources of fat.” This statement refers to the author’s conclusion of phase 2 of the weight loss experiment that skeptvet restated. But then you go on to say “What he leaves out of the summary is that the dogs in the study found the food with more coconut in the mix (relative to vegetable oils) much more palatable than the dogs with foods high in vegetable oil, and these dogs were allowed to eat their fill.” This statement that you wrote refers to the results of a palatablilty experiment, a completely separate experiment from the weight loss experiment. It has no bearing on and is irrelevant to the weight loss experiment which is why skeptvet didn’t include information from the palatability experiment. He wasn’t addressing palatability of coconut oil, he is addressing effects of coconut oil on weight loss. Then somehow you conclude that skeptvet is guilty of ” Not honest science here. No mention by Skept Vet that the study lacked portion control.” It is clear that portion control was present for the weight loss experiment phase he is discussing. Very honest science from skeptvet! ! Then you state ” Big suprise that dogs given unlimited access to food ate more of the delicious food. Good grief.” It isn’t clear to which experiment or experiments you are referring to. It looks like you are referring again to the palatability experiment in which the dogs had multiple food options and unlimited access but you could mean the induction phase in which no experimental diets were fed and the dogs had free access to a Royal Canin product.

I hope you can now see that skeptvet was completely honest in his reporting. He is reporting the author’s conclusions of phase 2 of a weight loss study in which overweight dogs were fed portion controlled amounts of three different diets.

You wrote “You notably ignored all the other problems with Skept Vet’s methods”

Well not really as I said “To me it appears that you are starting out with a strong bias against skeptvet and then proceed to take things out of context, read into whatever he writes your own skewed interpretation and then call him out. Makes no sense to me.”

Bill you can find all kinds of stuff on skeptvet including a recent CV by googling “skeptvet” if you need help let me know!

[aimee]

Spycar

You wrote “… he is not faithful in how he represents the ones that have been done. For example, he makes a claim that dogs fed “coconut oil lost less weight and had more body fat than dogs on diets with other sources of fat.” What he leaves out of the summary is that the dogs in the study found the food with more coconut in the mix (relative to vegetable oils) much more palatable than the dogs with foods high in vegetable oil, and these dogs were allowed to eat their fill. Not honest science here. No mention by Skept Vet that the study lacked portion control. Big suprise that dogs given unlimited access to food ate more of the delicious food. Good grief.”

I’d encourage you to go back and read the study. It appears that you are not understanding the study and then falsely accusing skeptvet of dishonesty. Why would skeptvet report that “the study lacked portion control” when portion control measures are clearly outlined for the weight loss study? Why are you faulting skeptvet for not reporting something that didn’t occur?

In a palatability test the dogs had free access to food for a 5 min interval and they ate significantly more of the diets in which coconut oil was used. For the weight loss study it reports that caloric intake was tightly controlled and adjusted every 2 weeks to maintain weight loss of 1-2%. The energy intake table reports that at the 6 week mark all groups were eating ~ 800 kcals a day. From that point onward both coconut oil groups had caloric adjustments downward to maintain weight loss whereas it looks like the soybean/canola group had to have caloric intake slightly increased. This would have been done in response to the dogs losing more than 2% /week. At the end of the study the two coconut oil groups were eating about 725 kcals a day while the soybean/canola group was at 800 kcals.

To me it appears that you are starting out with a strong bias against skeptvet and then proceed to take things out of context, read into whatever he writes your own skewed interpretation and then call him out. Makes no sense to me.

As I said if you look to his peer review he has scored some pretty high marks!

[aimee]

Hi Amber,

I too would advise against mixing coconut oil into food and then storing it. And as your feeding a puppy be aware of how many calories you are adding. Guidelines from veterinary nutritionists are that no more then 10% of calories should come from unbalanced sources and meeting your dogs nutrient needs is most important during growth. Personally I wouldn’t be adding coconut oil to my dog’s diet but in small amounts it shouldn’t hurt anything.

The skeptvet article is really well balanced and well written.
Perhaps the best to judge skeptvet are his peers, other veterinarians, and in that respect he is highly regarded. He’s served as peer reviewer for multiple journals including the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association and served as president of the Evidence Based Veterinary Medical Association. His own papers have been accepted for publication in peer reviewed journals. He has also been an invited speaker at veterinary conferences both in the states and the U.K. All in all he’s what I’d call a Rock Star. You don’t get those types of positions if you are not credible and reliable and as unbiased as one can be.

[aimee]

I haven’t heard of any dogs on any of those diets having diet related DCM.

[aimee]

Hi Dinamul D,

To your post I’d add that the AAFCO has set the upper limit at 1.8 % calcium for growing large breeds, which they define as above 75 lbs mature weight, and that for both the AAFCO and NRC calcium percentages the energy density of the diet is defined as 4000 kcals/kg DM. Adjustments based on energy density should be made for diets that vary from this.

In regards to NRC levels, the min. calcium for growing pups is 0.8%, the recommended level is reported as 1.2% and the safe upper limit is set at 1.8 %

[aimee]

Hi Crazy4cats,
Good Link!

I think it is important to note that not all diet responsive DCM cases test low in taurine meaning other factors likely in play.

Also somewhat surprising to me was the very high percentage of dogs on raw diets that tested low in taurine. Based on the small sample size it appears that simply feeding a lot of meat/organ doesn’t correlate with normal taurine levels. I guess this shouldn’t be too surprising considering the Wynn study: the cats were fed raw ground rabbit and many developed cardiomyopathy.

Biological systems are complex!

[aimee]

Hi Anon,

Thanks for posting this. This mirrors the turkey outbreak in which numerous people were infected, most through handling turkey for their own consumption. However, two children became ill, one severely with osteomyelitis, through product that was used to produce raw dog food.

I see in this outbreak as well one person reported to have contacted through the raw diet fed to their pet.

This report reminds me of the important work of the One Health initiative. The health of people and animals is interconnected. These outbreaks serve as a call to improve the health of the flocks and the processing of poultry to prevent the problem at the source.
And a reminder for everyone to practice good hygiene and safety measures whenever working with any animal based protein whether intended for people or pets, kibble included.

[aimee]

Hi Reese,

In regards to the diet, the company reports 1075.2mg Ca/25 grams = 4301mg Ca/100 grams food.

We also know that in 100 grams of food there are 412 kcals. Putting that together 4301 mg Ca in 412 kcals of food. Nutrients are usually reported as amount /1000 kcals. In this case there are 10,438 mg/1000kcals of 10.43 grams Ca/1000 kcals.

AAFCO Max Ca is 6.25/1000kcals.

[aimee]

Hi Sandy,

I’ve used to use feline Lean Treats by Butler when training as they held together well and I could make really tiny treats out of them. The canine version would fall apart easily.That is the only commercial treat I can think of off hand.

Currently I use cream cheese to medicate my cat. Spray cheese in a can is another option. I’ve used that for training purposes as it isn’t as messy as cream cheese. I tried it for my cat but he wouldn’t eat it.

Options my vet gave me are cream cheese, spray cheese, marshmallows, mashed potatoes with meat based baby food mixed in for flavoring, and liverwurst ( some have onion check with your vet)

Good Luck!

[aimee]

Spycar,
You wrote ” I don’t think is too much to ask that slaughterhouses treat ingredient intended for pet food be treated respectfully and not to become grossly contaminated and spoiled by pathogens” What makes you think this isn’t already occurring? I think it likely in integrated plants but much more challenging to achieve in independent plants do to the types of materials they collect and the transportation involved.

Sure there may not be a law that prevents an integrated facility from accepting random sourced material but it makes no sense to do so and I don’t know that it is occurring at any frequency if at all.

In regards to by products you wrote: “The problem is how “by-products” are treated at slaughterhouses. They are treated as waste, often kept in hot offal trailers where they spoil and become contaminated and unwholesome and are consequently condemned for human use……”

You are painting with a very broad brush and implying by products are treated differently then muscle meat. At least that is how I read it.

In regards to “often kept in hot offal trailers”, have you found data which reports a percentage of material used in pet food is handled in this manner? What do you consider often?

[aimee]

Spy Car,

I just don’t see it as valid to say “don’t feed by product, it can be mishandled” while at the same time accepting muscle tissue for feeding which can be handled similarly. Both muscle tissue and “by product” fall under the same regulations.

In regards to an integrated vs independent rendering, people voice concerns that roadkill, expired meats, dead zoo animals, bloated dead livestock, offal left in trucks in the elements for days etc are in rendered meals I don’t disagree that this can happen and that some companies may accept this product for pet food.

In an integrated plant my understanding is that outside sourcing isn’t accepted, so no roadkill, dead bloated livestock etc It also makes no sense for me to think that at an integrated plant material is left sitting for days before being rendered.

You seem to be operating from a belief that most material is regularly mishandled and “spoiled”. I can’t say that I’ve ever seen any data that supports or refutes that.

[aimee]

Hi joanne l,

I’ve come to pretty much the same conclusions as you. Any animal based product can be mishandled (muscle or by product) so it seems there is no basis for avoiding by product due to handling concerns.

Personally I buy foods from companies that source from integrated and not independent rendering plants.

[aimee]

I think they are fairly new??? Last time I was looking at the Wal Mart offerings was several months ago and I didn’t see these there. Someone sent me an e mail alerting me to there presence.

For me they validated that a gelatin based chew will melt upon boiling

[aimee]

Was in Wal Mart and found these chews https://www.google.com/search?q=Ol+Roy+chicken+rawhide+free+bright+bones&client=firefox-b-1-ab&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=B0EmwZd-2q9tUM%253A%252C0Ub_5V9TZsYWNM%252C_&usg=AFrqEzf-KdEnDhy7L1RCJ51jTqMpYP-54Q&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwismpqdk4HdAhVOyYMKHc4WC58Q9QEwAnoECAYQBA&biw=1303&bih=694#imgrc=N5ICdpMrU0_0gM:

They look very much as “No Hide” by Earth Animal and have an ingredient line up similar to the old ingredient line up from E.A. Ingredients for the Ol Roy chew Chicken, pork gelatin, rice starch, sugar cane fiber, glycerin, carrageenan salt, potassium sorbate E.A. was chicken, chicken gelatin, brown rice flour, organic egg, olive oil banana and bromelain.

I did some of the same things with these chews as with E.A. No Hide. The material cracked when trying to unroll it and it is fairly easy to tear. Earth Animal product bends but never cracked and couldn’t be torn. I soaked the Ol Roy chew in water. It puffed up a bit and took on a slimy feel and fell apart when handled. Best way for me to describe it is to say it was like wet toilet paper. E.A. product puffs quite a bit after soaking, remains tough and unable to be torn. The Ol Roy product when boiled disintegrated. It left behind a milky water with build up around the pan edges. It started falling apart after about 10 seconds in the boiling water. The Earth Animal material can be boiled for hours and it shrinks and curls and remains tough after boiling. The Ol Roy product is very consistent in how it is rolled and in the thickness of the material and is made of a continuous sheet. The E.A. product varies significantly in the thickness of material the number of pieces in a roll and the shapes of those pieces.

This Ol Roy product behaves exactly as I’d expect a gelatin and flour product to behave. In comparison to rawhide the Ol Roy product appears like rawhide but simple test( soaking in tepid and boiling water) reveal it behaves nothing like rawhide The Earth Animal product looks like rawhide and when soaked in tepid water and boiling water behaves similarly to rawhide.

The Ol Roy treats are made in China, came in a 4 pack of ~4inch chews, sold for about $6.00 and met label weight.

[aimee]

Crazy4cats,

I’m trying to… more letters to write to regulators. This company keeps me busy!

[aimee]

Never did make the coin purse. It is hard to get a good piece. Most the stuff is flimsy thin. I bought one yesterday and hydrated it. This one is really thick I don’t know how it will tan. I really wanted to experiment with dying with RIT dye then that Be Dazzler bling will really sparkle!

Went to the store and had a look at the new labels. The company once again has huge errors. Not only with weight but caloric information. The 11 inch chew is labeled as 99 grams. The caloric information given is 2970 kcals/kg, 82.94 kcals/ounce and ~414 kcals/chew. What is up with that? The chew weight would have to be 139 grams to be 414 kcals (414kcals/2.97kcal/gram) A 99 gram chew kcals should be 2.97 kcals/gram X 99 grams = 294 kcals.

Others are similarly mislabeled. The 4 inch chicken chew is labeled 34 grams and ~152 kcals/4 inch chew. 152kcals/2.97 kcals/grams = 51 grams. The kcals on the label would correlate to the old label weight of 51 grams but the 4 inch size in now labeled as weighing 34 grams.

The 7 inch size used to be reported as 85 grams and now is labeled as weighing 60 grams.
Caloric information is given as 2950 kcals/kg 60 gram X 2.95 kcals/grams would be 177 kcals, they labeled it as 263 kcals. What they are reporting would be if the chew weighed 89 grams.

It appears that they changed the weights as the chews were not meeting label weight but then labeled using old caloric information. This company can’t seem to get the simplest of things correct.

[aimee]

Reese B,

They do have to have mins and maxs. It sounds like they are just taking a chance here. Last time I looked at their labeling it made no sense and sadly there is not enough enforcement of regulations. Significant violations go unchecked. Best we as consumers can do is uncover the bad players warn others and move on.

[aimee]

Hi Reese,

I had a similarly unproductive conversation with Primal many years ago. So much misinformation from the company. I find this to be a common occurrence with many companies who focus on marketing vs nutrition.

[aimee]

Hi Bobby dog,
If you come across others questioning No Hide please post links here. There are a few of us that regularly are in contact with each other but always looking for others to share information.

I heard of some interesting events at the AAFCO meeting in regard to “No Hide” but too early to say.

New labels are coming into the stores in my area and all I can say is WOW! They corrected the weights, changed the ingredient and ingredient order and added and replaced other information. In a prior post I reported that the weights were incorrect and I alerted my state feed control official of same. The smallest chew was labeled 51 grams and now is 34 grams, the middle sized was labeled 85 the largest that was labeled 255 grams is now 99 grams. This change validates that they have been over reporting their weights. The word “safe” has been removed from the label and replaced with the word “healthy”. They added the word “recipe” after the protein flavor. My state feed control official told me that they were in violation of the 95% rule. Some minor changes in ingredient name, banana is now banana powder and vegetable gelatin is agar agar, they added AAFCO statement for intermittent and supplemental feeding. So it appears they have cleaned up a lot of problems.

For me this was the real WOW. They changed the order of the ingredients. The ingredient order used to be protein flavor, gelatin, brown rice flour and now is protein flavor, brown rice flour and gelatin. This is a huge game changer! As it is now written and using the company’s information there is no way to make a “No Hide” Here is an example. Earth Animal reports that the carbohydrate content in the chews are very low. Today their website reports 2% carbohydrate in the case of the Pork Chew, so in a 100 gram chew 2 grams are from carbohydrate. Which would mean no more than ~3 grms of brown rice flour in the chew and every ingredient following rice flour must be 3 grams or less. In essence then Earth Animal is claiming that they made a 100 gram chew using only 15 grams of ingredients. Magical ! Also found this odd because Ryan Yamka their chief science officer, in response to being asked how the carbohydrate content of the chews be so low responded that there is very little brown rice flour in the chew. What are the chews made of then if the lead ingredient is only present in small amount?

[aimee]

Spycar,

Please do not put words in my mouth. I’m not advocating for anything I’m just presenting the published data.

We agree that chewing activity such as that which occurs with a soft edible bone or with other chewing materials is beneficial to dental health. Other factors though also play a role.

Periodontal disease can not be excluded in an awake dog/cat as a complete exam can not be done.

You absolutely can self fund a study or even crowd source funding for studies. It is the design of the study that determines the value.

[aimee]

Spycar,
The evidence is there you just can’t see it. Periodontal disease can exist in the presence of clean crowns. You and your veterinarian are seeing clean crowns. Does you vet measure in mm the depth of sulcus at multiple locations around each tooth? Are full mouth dental radiographs taken? Until the mouth is fully evaluated you don’t know if that dog has periodontal disease.

A PMR diet is modeled after the presumed “natural” diet. We have evidence that dogs and cats eating a natural diet have significant levels of periodontal disease. At this time, based on the evidence, the reasonable conclusion is that PMR fed dogs will have periodontal disease at significant levels. This is the only conclusion that can be made. This is the conclusion of Chandler and other scientists.

I’d recommend that you contribute to the literature. Reach out to the thousands of well networked PMR feeders. Have each one chip in a few bucks and contact a boarded veterinary dentist to design and carry out a study on dental evaluations of PMR fed dogs and cats.

Until that is done the reasonable conclusion is that the PMR dogs and cats will not fair any better in regards to frequency and severity of periodontal disease then the dog and cats eating a natural diet that PMR is modeled after.

Until such study is done we have to use the data we have

[aimee]

Hi Spycar,

It appears that you have made a classic mistake. No one disputes and the studies support that cats and dogs given lots of chewing opportunities via a “natural” diet have less calculus. So yes, anyone can see that the crowns are cleaner, but it is what is unseen that equates to oral health. Periodontal disease, unless very advanced, isn’t seen. It takes probing and radiographs to “see” the attachment loss or bone loss.

You have very strong opinions but you haven’t provided any data. Where is the data that PMR dogs have significantly different degrees of periodontal disease then commercial fed dogs? To “see” periodontal disease the dogs need to be anesthetized and each tooth accessed on all sides for attachment loss or bone loss. To date to my knowledge this hasn’t been done.

But independent of tooth damage and wear we do have multiple studies that all conclude the same thing. Dog and cats eating natural diets have significant amount of periodontal disease. In the feral cat study the prevalence was the same. In the African wild dog study only bone change could be evaluated so the prevalence of periodontal disease would be under reported as the earlier soft tissue changes couldn’t be evaluated.

Furthermore if carbohydrate negatively impacted dental health then we’d have expected to see that reflected in the data. Yet that is not what was seen.

Starting with a conclusion and ignoring data contrary to your conclusion while clinging to your unsupported beliefs is not what science is. In science one make reasonable conclusions based on available data. In this case the reasonable conclusion is that a naturel diet doesn’t prevent or protect against periodontal disease. As further data becomes available that conclusion may or may not change.

[aimee]

Spycar,

Not a lot of research but so far what has been published hasn’t shown a protective benefit of a “natural” diet. The following is an excerpt from “Impact of Nutrition on Dental issues in companion animals” Chandler 2014

“Proponents of natural foods or of feeding raw bones have claimed this will improve the cleanliness of teeth in pets; further claims are sometimes made that feeding commercial pet food contributes to the high prevalence of periodontal disease in domesticated cats and dogs.
However, a study in foxhounds fed raw carcases, including raw bones, showed they had varying degrees of periodontal disease as well as a high prevalence of tooth fractures (Robinson and Gorrel, 1997).
The skulls of 29 African wild dogs eating a “natural diet”, mostly wild antelope, showed evidence of periodontal disease (41 per cent), teeth wearing (83 per cent) and fractured teeth (48 per cent; Steenkamp and Gorrel, 1999).
A study in small feral cats on Marion Island (South Africa) that had been eating a variety of natural foods (mostly birds) showed periodontal disease in 61 per cent of cats, although only nine per cent had evidence of calculus (Verstraete et al, 1996).
In a study in Australia of feral cats eating a mixed natural diet there was less calculus compared to domestic cats fed dry or canned commercial food, although, again, there was no difference in the prevalence of periodontal disease between the two groups (Clarke and Cameron, 1998)

These studies show a natural diet, or one containing raw bones, does appear to confer some
protection against dental calculus, but not against the more destructive periodontal disease. There is also the risk of fractured teeth”

[aimee]

Hi Noelani H.
Thanks so much for posting. It helps me to know that people are finding the posted information valuable. It is easy for me to get discouraged when those profiting off of this product close their eyes to science. I naively thought that the anti rawhide boutique stores selling these would be concerned with the findings of a consumer tested product sent to a forensic lab but they are not. Hope you have better luck at the place you purchased your No Hide from. At a minimum be sure to ask for your money back as the company guarantees 100% satisfaction. Speaking of 100%… a huge brand new display of “No Hide” went up in my local store with a huge sign above it declaring the product is 100% digestible. Earth Animal hasn’t done any digestibility studies in dogs and the digestibility models studies they have done reported variable average digestibility some as low as 56%.

[aimee]

Hi David C,
I’m glad you found the information I’ve posted useful. How much time after ingestion was it before it was vomited back up as solid chunks of material?

Please go back to the store where you purchased it and ask for your money back. The product is 100% satisfaction guaranteed. You have reason not to be satisfied.

[aimee]

Joint replacements as in plural? I wish you an uneventful healing.
I might be able to help I have an aol address for you from 2013.

[aimee]

Back in May I wrote an email to Earth Animal owner Dr Bob Goldstein. The Earth Animal customer service gave me his direct e mail address when I expressed frustration that Chris Moore or Tom O ‘Hare never answered my questions. The customer service representative said Dr.Bob would answer them directly and swiftly. Well I never have heard from Dr. Bob but surprisingly about a month later Dr Ryan Yamka, Earth Animal’s chief science officer, emailed me on his behalf. He didn’t answer the questions either. He considered them answered after repeating the same old information that they had the treats examined and they were reported not to be hide. And then he started asking for private information. He asked about my relationships with other people who have contacted E.A. in regards to the products and he asked for my home address so he could send me information. Creepy!

And so the saga continues.

Meanwhile, Pony Express foods has been importing a lot of dog chews from China. The import frequency has really ramped up. According to import data they imported 28,908 lbs on 5/24, 23,870lbs on 6/8, 22,616lbs on 6/22, and 23,870lbs on 6/29. That’s a total of 99,264 lbs of dog chews in ~ 5 weeks. Pony Express reports this is all sold directly to consumers at a flea market that operates one day a week year round https://www.earthanimal.com/no-hide-statement/ and of course I have no reason not to believe them.

P.S. Superzoo just finished up and Earth Animal is launching a new flavor of No Hide.

[aimee]

Hi Spycar,

Guess you just didn’t look deep enough if you only found one controversial study reporting salivary amylase in the dog. But as I said really I find it immaterial. Dogs don’t retain food in their mouths for long periods of time there would be no selective pressure to maintain it. It just seems silly to me that people trot out the dogs don’t have salivary amylase as a line in the sand type of thing as some studies report dogs have it and not all omnivores do.

In regards to New World monkeys, who do not make salivary amylase, in the herbivore, omnivore, carnivore scheme they are classified as omnivores. It could be said that frugivore is a type of omnivore which is how wkipedia defines it “A frugivore /fruːdʒɪvɔːr/ is a fruit eater. It can be any type of herbivore or omnivore where fruit is a preferred food type.”

But if you want to separate out the different feeding patterns than this descriptions should suit you better. This taken from an overview of the group “Diets also vary widely; some species are nearly completely folivorous (eating a diet of leaves), some are frugivores, and some are omnivores” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK232186/

Overfeeding any macronutrient leads to obesity.

Unfortunately your understanding of the pathophysiology of pancreatitis is incorrect. You wrote “excessive amylase destroys tissue in the pancreas.” Amylase breaks down bonds in starch.. starch is only found in plants. Amylase can not destroy the pancreas because the pancreas is not made of starch.

Dogs don’t become deconditioned via diet. High fat diets support stamina because the cells are filled with fat, the fuel is readily available. If you are going for intensity (anaerobic)that is where carb comes in. Sled dogs, endurance, low intensity exercise do best with high fat diets. Sprinters.. do best with a diet that contains a fairly significant amount of carb.

The activities that most people do with their dogs don’t fall into either extreme, racing greyhound vs endurance sled dog, and a balance of carb and fat is probably best. Dogs are very flexible in their requirements.

P.S. Tooth crowns will be cleaner with chewing activity but oral health(periodontal disease) was found not to be different between dogs and cats eating a natural diet vs a commercial food

[aimee]

Hi Spycar,

I thought we should look at some of the statements you made

You wrote: “Dogs were not shaped by evolution to consume carbohydrates. That’s a fact.”

Actually no… it is not a fact. this is why dogs are classified as omnivores. Now I know you’ll disagree with that fact. So let’s consult an entity which you trust .. the NRC. you wrote “…National Research Council of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. The NRC is the world’s recognized leading authority on canine nutrition.” pg 6 Nutrient Requirements of Dogs and Cats NRC ” Cats originate from a family comprised only of strict carnivores (Felidae), whereas dogs are omnivorous.”

Dogs are absolutely set up to consume carbohydrate. They have sweet receptors in their tongues. Hypercarnivores lack sweet receptors. There is no evolutionary pressure as hyper carnivores are not selecting and eating plant material. On the other hand sweet receptors are very functional and advantage to plant eaters. Sweet plant are generally safe to eat.

Next you wrote “Dogs have no capacity to produce salivary amylase (the enzyme necessary to digest starches/sugars/carbohydrates) all omnivores possess.”

Three parts to this statement “Dogs have no capacity to produce salivary amylase” But yet if you follow the literature salivary amylase is reported in the dog. And like humans the degree found is variable. So either the papers reporting it are wrong or the papers that report it doesn’t exist are wrong or maybe they are both right and depends on who you sample and how you sample. Really though it would be of little benefit as dogs don’t keep food in their mouths a long time before swallowing so it is rather immaterial if they have it or not

Part 2 “(the enzyme necessary to digest starches/sugars/carbohydrates).. Amylase is only important for starch digestion. Simple sugars are handled differently.

Part 3 “all omnivores possess. Where did you get this information from? Certainly not the scientific literature. Some omnivores have salivary amylase and some do not. Monkeys are omnivores. Old world monkeys have salivary amylase, New World Monkeys do not.

You wrote “Dogs, in a trait that is unevenly distributed in the population, have acquired a capacity to produce amylase in their pancreas.” Goodness you make it sound like dog’s can barely squeak out a bit of amylase. They can easily make gobs of amylase. My past dog lost ~ 90 % of her pancreas and yet had no problems with digesting a high starch diet.

You wrote “But producing pancreatic amylase is not the optimal or normal condition for dogs and –as mentioned–the capacity is highly variable.” Where do you get this “not optimal or normal” from? Please cite peer reviewed sources.

You wrote ” To take a marginal capacity (that is a dog’s ability to produce enough pancreatic amylase) a push it to the maximum by feeding dogs highly unnatural carbohydrate-rich cereal-based diets puts tremendous strain on that organ. It is an assault on the pancreas. It sets up a dog to be sick. Often the precipitating event that leads to pancreatitis is the consumption (by a sickened dog) of a high-fat meal that it is unaccustomed to eating. This happens because the pancreas becomes conditioned to spilling the “wrong” digestive enzymes to metabolize fat and in the confusion, those “wrong” enzymes instead attack the tissues of the pancreas causing damage…..etc

That simply is a fantasmical story conjured up by people with an agenda. Cite some peer reviewed papers that support this.. The pancreas has tremendous capacity for enzyme production and makes no sense to say that making lipase is a walk in the park but making amylase is “stressful” What would the mechanism be?

Enzymes become confused?? Really?? Enzymes are very specific in what they can do.

The rest of your “pancreas” story is more of the same..

Let’s revisit your recognized authority on canine nutrition the NRC .. again you wrote “The NRC is the world’s recognized leading authority on canine nutrition.” If carbohydrates are as awful for dog as you claim they are certainly that information would be published by the “world’s recognized leading authority on canine nutrition”. Yet it is no where to be found
in the 30 + odd pages on the digestibility and use of carbohydrates in the 2006 edition of Nutrient Requirements of Dogs and Cats. There is no safe upper limit imposed by NRC on the incorporation of carbohydrate in canine diets ..but there is for fat

Maybe a clue can be found in looking at their recommended levels for fat. Does the NRC recommend high fat levels for dogs? Actually no they do not. The NRC recommended amount of fat for an adult dog at maintenance ( as opposed to reproduction or growth) is 13.8 grams/1000kcals. Assuming 8.5 kcals/gram that is 117 kcals from fat for every 1000 kcals fed or 11.7% fat calories, far below what you recommend.

Recommended amount of protein is 25 grams/1000 kcals, 3.5 X 25 =87.5grams/1000kcals or 8.7% protein calories. 11.7% recommended fat calories +8.7% protein calories =20.4% That leave a lot of room for a lot of carbohydrate : )

Dogs are very flexible.

As you recognize the NRC as “the world’s recognized leading authority on canine nutrition.” and I don’t disagree with you there, I’d advise you to pick up a copy of “Nutrient Requirements of Dogs and Cats” and read it!

[aimee]

Spycar,

I call horse manure on this “The same unhealthful high carb diets can stress the pancreas (by causing an unnatural demand on pancreatic amylase) and that can be a factor in dog’s developing pancreatitis.”

Not a single shred of of evidence for this. Propaganda! I expect better from you!

Ryan,
I’m glad she made it too.. She dies many years ago at the age of nearly 14. She always had a high glucose after that incident, but not so high as to need insulin. A large part of her pancreas was destroyed. She lived out her life on a high carb low fat diet and didn’t have any more troubles.

[aimee]

Spycar

All studies are flawed and this is no exception . There wasn’t a significant difference in amount of weight lost .. controlling calories is still key… but the authors did report a significant difference in % fat lost. ” the low fat diet group lost a significantly greater amount of total body fat than the high fat group.” This outcome is not consistent with your beliefs.

I don’t disagree that people and dogs have different requirements. It is just that people like to drag out the “Dog’s don’t require carbs” mantra as if that is somehow proof that carbohydrate shouldn’t be fed to dogs…Just pointing out the argument falls apart as people don’t need them either.

Maybe you’ll like this one better comparing ad lib access to either high fat or high carb diet full text may tell more but the high fat didn’t satiate the dogs to the point that they didn’t overeat and gain weight

Adult female dogs were fed ad libitum for 25 weeks a high-fat diet (51% of energy from fat) or a high-carbohydrate diet (59% of energy from carbohydrate). Dogs fed the high-fat diet gained more body weight than did dogs fed the high-carbohydrate diet. In both groups of dogs 78-80% of the increase in body weight was fat. The high-fat diet may have been utilized more efficiently for body fat gain than the high-carbohydrate diet; alternatively, it is possible to explain the increased body fat accumulation in dogs fed the high-fat diet on the basis of the small observed difference in energy intake. Dogs fed the high-fat diet consumed slightly more energy (13%) which resulted in the accumulation of more than twice the amount of fat accumulated in dogs fed the high-carbohydrate diet during the 25 week study.

Have you read Schauf’s studies on satiety comparing high fat to high carb? No difference found

Oh my…. you certainly haven’t seen the same high fat raw fed dogs as I have “A dog fed a balanced raw diet will have a dramatically better condition, less body fat and more muscle.” Do you have any references to support that statement?

I’m pretty carb neutral neither for or against. For weight loss I like to see a high percent of calories coming from protein and lower fat levels to allow for the dog to be able to eat a decent volume of food and for owner satiety and the carbs fall where they may.

In general i’m not a fan of high fat diets I see way too much canine obesity as owners don’t control portions, so I’m all for a less energy dense diets.

.

[aimee]

Ryan,
When a dog eats fat the triglyceride level in the blood increases, and then it clears. In normal dogs the triglyceride level really shouldn’t exceed 500 and then it falls back to a “resting” level. Your dog’s triglyceride level was over 2000 Blood triglyceride levels over 1400 are associated with pancreatitis.

My dog had fat metabolism problems and it sounds like your dog also might have this problem. Please talk to your vet. These are not normal dogs .. they can not tolerate fat levels that other dogs can. She nearly died after one meal of 20% fat content. She got into the cat food. Though I knew she had problems with triglycerides and the only thing that kept them in check was a low fat diet I didn’t recognize how life threatening a single high fat meal could be. A single meal and she had necrotizing pancreatitis. She was taken into surgery and the Dr called and told me that there was only a small portion of her pancreas that wasn’t black and dead. He didn’t think she would survive.. her belly swollen with fluid from sterile peritonitis…she was in critical care for days on end. I visited every day thinking it would be her last. bloody fluid draining from her abdomen.. it was awful somehow she lived. It was over 2 months before she had her full strength back.

For dogs that have fat metabolism abnormalities the fat percentage in the diet should be significantly lower than what it was in the diet being fed when the high triglyceride blood level was identified.

Your dog’s level was 2081, a normal dog even after eating a high fat meal shouldn’t exceed 500. Does it make sense to feed a high fat diet to a dog that may be missing key enzymes needed to metabolize fat? Again normal less than 500 … your dog 2081.

Here is an article on the problem https://www.veterinarypracticenews.com/the-benefit-of-low-fat-pet-food-in-dogs-with-gi-disease/

Best of luck

[aimee]

Spycar,

I don’t see anything “scientifically” wrong with saying that not all fat is essential, just as not all protein being fed is essential. Once protein needs are met, the rest will be burned for energy. We need to meet the dog’s essential needs for protein and fat and energy.
Energy can come from protein, fat or carbohydrate.

Dogs don’t have an essential need for carbohydrate. People don’t either. Perhaps you don’t incorporate vegetables, fruits or whole grains in your diet, I do. You may think I will suffer from that choice as carbohydrates are not essential to humans.

In regards to optimal calories from fat I don’t think you’ll find any agreement on that topic. I’ve read that veterinary nutritionists prefer not to go above 40% calories fed as fat. I can confidently say if I had fed my fat intolerant dog the 50-60% calories as fat as you feel is optimal she would have died an untimely death.

You seem to be ignoring the data on this topic : Body composition studies, fat fed dog model, weight loss studies, satiety studies… why is that??

[aimee]

Hi Ryan,

Triglycerides over 2000 yikes! I have some experience with this problem. When triglycerides are this high they can result in a variety of problems. Intestinal discomfort, vomiting, diarrhea, behavior abnormalities, seizures and pancreatitis have all been reported. This is serious stuff! It makes me wonder if the intermittent pain your dog is having is in any way related to abdominal discomfort from high triglycerides.

From what I gather you temporally put your dog on a chicken and rice diet and then the triglycerides were normal. So the good news is that it appears diet responsive. Chicken breast and rice is a low fat diet if that is what you were feeding. To know how much you need to feed you’d feed an equivalent calories to the former diet. Rice is ~200 kcal /cup for steamed white rice and chicken breast is about 120 kcals for 100 grams

What you absolutely do not want to do is follow the well meaning but misguided recommendation from spycar to feed a high fat diet (20% was rec,) low carb diet! This would be a recipe for disaster ..literally.

If a secondary cause (for example hormonal problems) is found and treated than feeding a low fat diet may not be needed. But feeding a low fat diet is the foundation of treatment of primary hypertriglyceridemia.
It looks like your vet is on top of this by recommending a low fat diet. If your dog doesn’t like the first commercial low fat ask for a different one. You’ll need a diet significantly lower in fat than the one your dog was on when the high level was found. Work with your vet.. this is a serious problem!

Some dogs can use commercial diets usually low fat vet diets but others need to work with a nutritionist for ultra low fat diet. Balance it dot com has some semi customized recipes if you need to go that route.

[aimee]

Hi Spycar,

From your response it appears that you misinterpreted my intent. I didn’t say fats are non essential, I said to remove non essential fats. A certain amount of fat is essential to meet essential fatty acids and allow for fat soluble vitamin absorption. After meeting those needs the balance just serves as a calorie source and as such can be trimmed for weight loss.

Are you referring to Reynolds and Taylor’s work? If so seems you are misapplying it here.
As you reported much of the work on metabolism has been funded by pet food companies. A clue that the results of this work doesn’t support a recommendation of preferentially removing carbs and for weight loss is that the weight loss diets made by the companies doing the research are low fat.

Have you read Borne’s paper on weight loss? Keeping the percentage of calories from protein the same and altering the fat and carb content, the dogs on the higher carb, lower fat diet lost more weight and a greater percentage of body fat then those on the lower carb, higher fat diet.

[aimee]

Hi SpyCar,

It is a common internet myth that eliminating carbohydrate promotes weight loss. The key to weight loss is to decrease calories which is best done by eliminating non essential fats as fats have a much higher calorie/gram than do carbohydrate.

Take a look at Romsos’s research. The dogs on the highest carbohydrate diets had the leanest body weights Also in the fat fed dog model decreasing carbohydrate and increasing calories fed as fat ( some overall number of calories fed) resulted in higher fat levels in the dog.

Jan. Please work with a veterinarian for a proper diet for your dog during weight loss.

[aimee]

Hi Drew,

I agree it is early in this investigation. For what it is worth some cardiologists are concerned legumes are playing a large role in this situation and are recommending switching off of them. https://mckeevervetderm.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/543/2017/09/TaurineDef.Goldens.pdf

In regards to taurine my understanding is that heat processing doesn’t destroy taurine per say. The problem with heat processing is related to the other ingredients that made up the food. From NRC 2006 taurine needs are relative to protein and fiber content and digestibility. High heat processing can decrease protein digestibility and can lead to an altered microbe population in the gut which then may metabolize taurine or create peptides which bind taurine and then it is lost in feces. Taurine can also be lost in feces through binding with fiber.

The protein and fiber in legumes may be playing a roll here which is why they are being closely evaluated.

[aimee]

In science one makes reasonable conclusions based on available data and has to be open to new information which may challenge previously made conclusions and lead to a new conclusion being made.

If as a scientist information that counters your current conclusion is cast aside forward progress will not be made.

In this situation it is early in the investigation. What has been found is a correlation between eating foods high in legumes and cardiomyopathy with improvement when the diet is changed. Correlation doesn’t mean causation but it warrants further investigation.

Thank goodness there are veterinarians who acting as good scientists are open to this new information vs casting it aside.

[aimee]

Hi Anon,

The author defined her use of the terms “exotic” ingredient within the article “exotic ingredients – kangaroo, lentils, duck, pea, fava bean, buffalo, tapioca, salmon, lamb, barley, bison, venison, and chickpeas.”

Also note that the case reported was eating a kangaoo and chickpea food which sounds like it could have been Zignature.

Crazy4cats. Like you I have seen this reported associated with legumes. Jack has been on venison and potato for years without issue and gets a cardiac ultrasound every few years d/t his congenital malformation. No problems noted other then those with which he was born.

Personally I’d be more suspect of legume sources but it really is to early to know and likely complicated.

[aimee]

Hi Susan,
Rotation may or may not help depending on how it is done. If the person is stuck in a grain free anti large company mindset they may simply rotate from one small boutique grain free brand to another or change varieties within a brand and still have the same deficiency.

When rotating I think it is best done between types and companies to get the best benefit

Personally I don’t rotate foods anymore. I used to but found that her coat and skin suffered so her base diet stays the same to which I add a variety of fresh foods and canned.

[aimee]

Hi D.O.
Cudo’s to you and your boss for being open minded and willing to test this product yourself. The egg tanning was messy but it did work. I hydrated the product in a non iodized salt solution. Not sure why iodinized salt isn’t recommended but it uniformly is not. Since I did mine I learned that you can also use mayonnaise along with the egg yolk. If I did it again that is what I’d try about 1/2 yolk and 1/2 mayo. After hydrating let it dry out a bit to remove the excess moisture then coat both sides with the egg yolk mayo mix and put it in a zip lock bag. Be generous with the yolk/mayo as it will soak in. Squeeze out excess air, seal and let sit I think it did about 18 hours but most rec 24hours.When you take it out remove the excess then starts the stretching process. Please post back with how it came out for you.

[aimee]

I think rawhide can be an appropriate chew but needs to be matched to the dog. This product though may be purchased by an owner who wouldn’t purchase a rawhide based chew of the same form. Also the danger with this product is that it is a mish mash of pieces inside of a cover sheet. Very easy for a dog to disassemble and swallow one of the inside pieces whole.

Through Freedom of Information Act Test ran was inconclusive. Hopefully FDA will run a more definitive test soon.

[aimee]

Tragically I just learned of a local dog that died at the hands of a No Hide Chew. The dog had swallowed a piece of the chew material and it obstructed the GI tract.

This is so sad and so preventable.

[aimee]

Thanks A.C,
I intend to keep following this issue.

[aimee]

Hi Inked Marie,

It is interesting isn’t it. The fact that the company feels a need to try and refute what I’ve posted in a way seems to validates the information. What puzzles me is that they brought Yamka into their fold and yet published this piece…..

Back in October when I bought my first No Hide and noted that the material did not seem food like I never thought the issue would still be unresolved from a regulatory aspect this late in the game.

What this journey has taught me is that state feed controls are rather limited in what they can do. Branches of government to address these types of problems likely don’t have the manpower they need and so issues like companies selling mislabeled goods are free to do so. Boutique store owners in my area become very angry when you put tanning oil on a product they sell in their stores : )

[aimee]

I found this interesting… Earth Animal has posted a new piece called No-Hiding the Truth on No Hide….. it appears that they are trying to address and refute the information I’ve posted in this thread! Actually I think they just dug themselves into a deeper hole.

Apparently they sent a No Hide to a veterinary pathologist and posted pics of it and rawhide to show how different they are. I agree the material they sent in is very different in appearance from rawhide. It is also very different from the Hide that I sent in. The rawhide stained eosinophilic ( red) and what they sent in stained Basophilic (blue) The off the shelf product I sent in was described as streams of eosinophilic material and theirs is described as lacey basophilic material. The pictures that came with my report look exactly like their rawhide pictures.

What this shows in my opinion is that Earth Animal/Pony Express can make a product that looks like an off the shelf No Hide chew…but that it doesn’t appear that what is being sold at the stores by me is that same product.

Earth Animal also addressed the finding of “collagen-like material” I found this section rather comical for multiple reasons. 1)Earth Animal claims that you should see “collagen-like material” when examining their product under the microscope but then in their microscopic analysis was any found? If it was they sure didn’t post it. Their product was described as “Lacey basophilic matrix with numerous large, multi-lobulated structures that resemble adipose tissue or a polyfilament type of material. Hmm if their product is supposed to look like collagen then how come it didn’t look that way? 2) The reason they gave for looking collagen like is that gelatin is derived from collagen. Animal based gelatin is derived from collagen but is very different structurally which is why it will not look like collagen. It is a mute point though because I sent in a Salmon chew which is purportedly made with vegetable gelatin. Vegetable gelatin is not derived from collagen, it comes from seaweed.. nothing collagen like about it. 3) They go on to say gelatin is high in protein (95%).. true for animal based gelatin but vegetable based is only about 6-7% protein content. 4) Next they report different gelatins have different melting points. I think they included this to try and explain why my No Hide didn’t melt after prolonged boiling. It is true melting points can vary but I haven’t found any above boiling water. Wikipedia says generally they are below 95 degrees F. Agar, which is the gelatin type in the chew I tested, also melts at a temp below boiling water.

I also found this part especially fascinating. They report the FDA investigated their facilities in January. It is now May and the FDA investigation is still an open investigation. If everything was in order I would think it would have been closed by now. On the other hand finding an abnormality could lead to the FDA needing to do further investigation. I have no idea how the FDA works but it is just my thought on the subject.

Will have to see how the FDA investigation plays out. In the meantime I’ve been doing some leathercrafting with my tanned “No Hide” I branched out to adding beads, rivets and mystery braids.

[aimee]

Hi Mary D,

This “I called Honest Kitchen and they had no idea how much of their food would equal a cup of kibble” doesn’t surprise me. In my interactions with Honest Kitchen I found they mean well but have little understanding of basic nutrition such as how to answer your question.

I can help you figure this out if you’d like. All I need is the caloric information for which food you were feeding kcals/cup and which Honest Kitchen product you want to feed. Then we can calculate out the equivalent calories of the new product as a starting point for how much to feed.

The feeding directions on their Preference box were totally inaccurate for my dog and if fed following their recommendations wouldn’t meet her nutrient needs to to mention her caloric needs.

[Author]

Posts