# Gluten meals vs meat/meat meals



## Unosmom (May 3, 2009)

After doing some reading and trying to find studies of digestibility of corn/wheat gluten vs meat meal, I've only come up with one which was done on cats. It compared digestibility of chicken meal, meat meal and corn gluten meal
Evaluation of meat meal, chicken meal, and corn gluten meal as dietary sources of protein in dry cat food



> Not only the quantity but also the quality of protein in diets is important for maintaining the health of cats, because the quality affects the utilization of nutrients including protein. Our previous study revealed that cats fed a dry diet containing Meat Meal exhibited higher digestibility and utilization of nutrients than those fed a diet containing Corn Gluten Meal, suggesting the superiority of Meat Meal as a protein source for dry cat food (5). However, inclusion of Meat Meal in cat food has been prohibited since the occurrence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in Japan in 2001. Hence, protein sources that are safe and nutritionally equivalent to Meat Meal are required for the production of commercial dry cat food. In the present study, the nutritional value of Chicken Meal was compared with that of Meat Meal and Corn Gluten Meal using adult cats. The results showed that dry-matter digestibility and N utilization of Chicken Meal are intermediate, as compared with those of Meat Meal and Corn Gluten Meal. These results suggest that Chicken Meal is superior to Corn Gluten Meal and may be an appropriate substitute for Meat Meal, as a protein source of dry food for adult cats.


The rest of the studies were done on cattle, swine, poultry and fish, I couldnt find anything canine related. 

Then I started reading on the biological value of different foods, I know that plan proteins are considered incomplete because they are missing key amino acids. In order fill in the gaps, a lot of pet food companies use meat byproducts to make up for the missing amino acids. The problem with byproducts is that you have no idea whats actually in it. 
For example, liver, kidney, heart, gizzards, kidney even testicles are sold for human consumption. So what makes up pet food byproducts? definitely not meat, possibly some organs but who knows? The truth is, unless the manufacturer lists the exact organs used to make the food, it can include just about anything and the nutritional value ranges from batch to batch. Sure it can include some nutritious organs, but most likely not. 

So back to biological value of plant protein, I know this is highly overused, but I find it to be good resource guide


http://orijen.ca/downloads/ORIJEN_White_Paper.pdf

Essential Vs. Non Essential Amino Acids



> 1. NON ESSENTIAL AMINO ACIDS –
> these amino acids can be produced in
> the body. Since the body is able to
> manufacture these amino acids, they do
> ...





> PLANT PROTEINS such as grain, corn, and
> vegetables are classified as ‗incomplete,
> proteins‘ as they lack both essential amino
> acids, and a proper overall balance of amino
> ...


Certain protein sources are simply better than 
others by providing a richer blend of amino 
acids. Better proteins have what‘s referred to as 
a high Biological Value (BV).
The Biological Value (BV) is a scale of 
measurement used to determine what 
percentage of a given nutrient source is utilized 
by the body. In short - BV refers to how well the
body can actually use the protein. The 
theoretical highest BV of any food source is 
100%.

*
TABLE 1, PROTEIN RATINGS BY 
BIOLOGICAL VALUE (BV)
FOOD PROTEIN RATING*

Eggs (whole) 100
Eggs (whites) 88
Chicken / Turkey 79
Fish 70
Lean Beef 69
Unpolished Rice 59
Brown Rice 57
White Rice 56
Peas 55
Whole Wheat 49
Soy beans 47
Whole-grain Wheat 44
Wheat Gluten- 40
Corn 36
Dry Beans 34

Sorry for the long post. To conclude, unless I'm missing something I cannot see or will accept that any type of plant protein, gluten meal, etc is a superior or even similar to digestibility and bio-availability of meat protein, not matter how much pet food industry would like me to believe.


----------



## mythbuster (Jan 23, 2012)

Unosmom said:


> Sorry for the long post. To conclude, unless I'm missing something I cannot see or will accept that any type of plant protein, gluten meal, etc is a superior or even similar to digestibility and bio-availability of meat protein, not matter how much pet food industry would like me to believe.


Orijen white papers are not a good reference for nutritional information. They are completely skewed to sell their grain free message. It's true, meat protein supplies a complete amino acid profile, but that doesn't mean it supplies all the amino acids you want in the proportions you want. An amino acid coming from a plant protein is identical to the same amino acid protein coming from a meat protein. By combining different ingredients, it is possible to create a complete amino acid profile AND supply individual amino acid requirements of an individual. No company uses a single plant protein as the only source of amino acids in a diet. You need to look at the 'BV' of the diet as a whole, not of the individual ingredients.


----------



## Unosmom (May 3, 2009)

But if meat provides complete amino acid profile, why go through the trouble of creating a new one by combining inferior ingredients? 

I dont see how orijens white paper is biased if its based on actual scientific facts and studies. I have yet to see a legitimate study that makes sense thats not written or funded by either Hills/Purina or Agricultural society. In fact, through researching, I was surprised to see numerous studies done on corn, wheat soy and various glutens as a food source to livestock, but nothing concrete on the long term effect of feeding grain based foods to cats and dogs. Theres an article that I received in the mail the other day from a vet tech journal, writing about all the amazing properties of corn and myths. When I checked the references 5/6 were studies performed on either humans or cattle. Obviously there was no mention of it in the actual article. 
I need to find another quote from a vet that is studying the effects of grains on the villi in the small intestines of dogs, they seem to have similar effect to what people with celiac disease experience.


----------



## biancaDB (Nov 3, 2011)

Good post!


----------



## mythbuster (Jan 23, 2012)

Unosmom said:


> But if meat provides complete amino acid profile, why go through the trouble of creating a new one by combining inferior ingredients?


incomplete does not equal inferior. When you combine different ingredients with different amino acid profiles, the profile of the diet becomes complete and can be adjusted according to individual needs. For example, if you have a dog with dry flaky skin, it is beneficial to increase the amount of sulfur amino acids provided in the diet. Corn gluten is rich in sulfur amino acids. By combining ingredients, you can produce a SUPERIOR product. 
The white paper is completely biased, like someone using statistics to prove a point... they take partial quotes from different studies and put them together to 'prove' their case. It is not accurate at all. 


Unosmom said:


> I need to find another quote from a vet that is studying the effects of grains on the villi in the small intestines of dogs, they seem to have similar effect to what people with celiac disease experience.


Celiac disease is caused by a sensitivity to gliadin, which is found in wheat gluten, not in corn or potato or rice gluten. Irish Setters are the only breed recognized to be predisposed to this condition. Just like celiac disease in people, you only need to avoid it if you have a sensitivity to it.


----------



## Unosmom (May 3, 2009)

Ok,.. but again, why go through the trouble if meat and other animal products contain all the essential nutrients? Also, if corn and its derivatives are so digestible, why do they give dogs giant smelly turds compares to those eating meat based kibble? I've been pet sitting for over 12 years now and the last 3-4 years or so, every dog that I've watched that is on grocery store food including science diet poops 3-4 times a day and the "output" isnt pretty, large and smelly. Even when my dog was on grain free food, he only went 1-2 times and it was 1/2 the size. Right now he's on raw and its 1/3 the size. Honestly, sometimes I could care less what the latest study may be trying to tell us, the best one that we dismiss the most is right in front of us.


----------



## greyshadows (Jan 30, 2012)

I have to agree with mythbuster on this one. Of course Orijen is going to make their food look the best and they do look like they take statistics from other sources to make their point, just as all the other research from Hills, P&G etc. I don't include corn or grains in my dogs diet because my vet tells me that the breed I own does not tolerate it well. I believe we should feed the best food we can afford to feed our dogs that comes from a reputable company not some of these companies that are out there to empty yuppies wallets. I also cook for my dogs when I can (chicken,carrots and eggs). Growing up my parents had three dogs who they religiously fed the big 50pound bag of Dog Chow or even worse the cheapest supermarket kind they found at the time. All three dogs lived to over 15 years old and never had any medical problems. Now I won't go that far, I try to feed somewhat healthy but who knows, we have all heard the stories about the 100 year old human that lived a hard life contrasted with the health nut who died at 50 from a heart attack. So all we can do is try to feed decently, exercise and love them!


----------



## The Expert (Jan 25, 2012)

Unosmom said:


> why go through the trouble if meat and other animal products contain all the essential nutrients?


So I have kind of skimmed through everything, the one thing that stopped me from reading the rest was coming across the plants are imcomplete proteins. Actually besided egg, all ingredients do not have a complete amino acid profile. Egg actually is not 100% either, it is just as close as we can get. If you are talking about plants meaning more specifically grasses and seaweed, then yes they are VERY imcomplete. However, if you are refering to grains (often classified as plants), these are just as complete as meat. A grain is like an egg, it has almost all the essential nutrients it needs to grow. It has many amino acids present in it that ir requires to start it initial growth to the surface. Once it reaches light it is a whole new ball game. As for meats, differnt species will put certain amino acids in their muscle. This is why companies use differ sources, grains are actually higher in cysteine and methionine (two very critical amino acids for the body - sulfur amino acids). They are actually found in higher levels in grains. 

your next comment on big poops - when you see larger poops in grocery store brand is due to bad formulation and quality. They typically use the very fibrous parts of the plant hence why you see large poops. With this poor formulation you typically have to feed alot more, and that is why - not very digestible. Anything you can get in a grocery store is 100% garbage!! They use very poor quality ingredients that a pet cant do anything with so it just comes out the other end and is a waste of money. The reason it stinks? because it is not promoting a proper micro-flora so it ferments in the colon and creates that smell. Protein typically is the culprit of this, these companies do not cook it properly and ruin the protein (you can cook food properly where you can save the proteins - just costs more and cheap companies are not willing to do it). 

Please keep in mind, smaller poops are not always better (within reason). I hate refering back to a wolf as they are wolves and are very far removed due to the amount of selective breeding, but look at wolf poop - it isnt that small either. They know they need fibre - every animal does in order to maintain a proper micro-flora. So they eat hair (to act as bulk) or they eat grains and grass. Size of poop is something we deem improtant in size. It really is not that improtant, larger just means to use money wasted. But use as humans can sometimes become consumed by certain thoughts and take things to far. I am not saying that any dogs poops are too small just that we do need to consider why some "bulk" is important. 

I would not recomend orijen for any information, this one company scares me with the stories I have heard. I really really would not recomend this diet! I also would not always recomend getting nutritional information off of a pet food website. Many companies will skew the information to push their diets, think about why would they say something that disproves what they are pushing? You are best to look at published data on digestibility or from AAFCO or NRC. 
(I didnt read through the whole thing as I was short on time, sorry if I said something that was already said! )


----------



## Unosmom (May 3, 2009)

Like I said, I tried my best to find studies oriented towards companion animals, but there arent that many to begin with. Majority are geared towards livestock. I certainly weigh in other possibilities, but unless you can find concrete evidence that plant protein is superior, I will have to side with Orijen and common sense. 
I'd also like to point out that my dog has not done well on super high protein, he has a pretty slow metabolism so when I fed him Orijen, I had to feed him only a cup a day which is very little for a 60 lb dog. He wasnt happy and started counter surfing. I then switched to Acana, which I believe is around 34% protein and he was eating just under 2 cups a day and doing really well. He's now on raw and even on this diet, I have to adjust his ratio to what you'd feed an overweight dog, because otherwise he packs on weight. 

In regard to animals living 15 years on dog chow, yes some do and others dont. Some people live to be 90 smoking 3 packs a day, genetics are a huge contributing factor. When people tell me that their dog lived past a certain age, I'm always curious to know what shape the dog was in , in its later years. A lot of pet owners are oblivious to what a healthy animal is. Since I pet sit, I've come across my share of fat, smelly dogs with rotten teeth and dull dry coats. Since they dont have any obvious health issues like cancer, the owner thinks they are perfectly healthy. When I was a kid and we had pets, I never paid much attention to things like skin condition (unless it was something severe) or breath, definitely not dental health. It was considered pretty normal for dogs to be smelly and shed a ton.


----------



## mythbuster (Jan 23, 2012)

Unosmom said:


> Ok,.. but again, why go through the trouble if meat and other animal products contain all the essential nutrients?


Because it's not just about supplying all the essential nutrients, it's about supplying them in the appropriate amounts. You get a fixed amino acid profile by using one ingredient source. If you want to boost a certain amino acid, you need to add a different ingredient that is rich in the amino acid you are targeting. 

Also, think about sustainability. We are fortunate to live in North America where we are blissfully unaware of the food shortages occurring all over the world, but it will catch up with even us. There are some companies that are actually dedicated to finding alternate nutrient sources to provide nutrition for our pets. That's AWESOME! 

As I've stated previously: It is the nutrient parameters and digestibility that determine the quality of the nutrition. Protein provides amino acids. Protein can come from meat or it can come from plants. Once broken down, the origin of an amino acid is indistinguishable to a dog (or cat, or person, or......). What does that mean? Take methionine. Methionine is a sulfur amino acid that is good for skin and coat. It is abundant in fish, eggs, corn, and wheat. A methionine molecule coming from corn is IDENTICAL to a methionine molecule coming from fish. Both molecules perform the exact same function in the body. Bottom line? INGREDIENTS DON'T MATTER; it is the nutrients that the ingredients supply that determines whether or not a diet is nutritious and 'biologically appropriate'. So, if a company wants to create a diet that is rich in methionine, it can do so using a variety of ingredients that offer complementary amino acid profiles. I would never suggest to provide lesser nutrition in the name of sustainability. But if we can provide equivalent, or even superior nutrition AND use sustainable resources while we're at it? **** yes.


Unosmom said:


> Also, if corn and its derivatives are so digestible, why do they give dogs giant smelly turds compares to those eating meat based kibble? I've been pet sitting for over 12 years now and the last 3-4 years or so, every dog that I've watched that is on grocery store food including science diet poops 3-4 times a day and the "output" isnt pretty, large and smelly. Even when my dog was on grain free food, he only went 1-2 times and it was 1/2 the size. Right now he's on raw and its 1/3 the size. Honestly, sometimes I could care less what the latest study may be trying to tell us, the best one that we dismiss the most is right in front of us.


For one thing, I would not call a grocery store food a good diet. For another, to address this: "if corn and its derivatives are so digestible, why do they give dogs giant smelly turds compares to those eating meat based kibble?" It depends on the quality of the ingredient and how the diets are made. Undigested protein increases bacterial fermentation in the colon, which leads to softer smellier poops. Ultra high protein diets are often worse for this than moderate protein diets, especially if they are using less digestible meat sources! My dog's eat diets containing corn, they poop once a day (or twice if we go on a good walk), their poops are small and easy to pick up. They smell like roses. Okay, they don't smell like roses, but they don't smell as bad as some spots I walk past at the dog park! They certainly don't have giant smelly turds compared to ANYONE else, and in fact, I would much rather pick up their poop than the other ones I see.


----------



## Unosmom (May 3, 2009)

Ok, so even with "super premium " foods like Science diet thats been backed by a ton of so called scientific and high digestibility studies, they still have large poops.


----------



## The Expert (Jan 25, 2012)

Unosmom said:


> Majority are geared towards livestock


Blame animal acitvists on this one!!!! coming from a research background, they have slowed down ANY type of animal study!!!! I am not 100% against animal care people, as trials do need to be validated. However, the public is against any sort of invasive testing due to media making it sound mad scientist. This is why you cant find much - a researcher has to be daring and patient enough to want to determine. Cats, dogs, horses and rabbits are held on a very high petistool and reseachers basically can only look at them. As for livestock, we can do whatever the heck we want - hence why livestock nutrition is making so much progress and pet nutrition is falling very far behind. Along with the animal care, this has bumped up the cost to house them, so this is why only large companies do research, they have the money to do it. Some private sources do have money and do study as well, but it is rare. Just some food for thought on invasive (I am not all for cutting them open and looking inside either, just so every one doesnt think of me as a mad scientist). But replacement milk in puppies was determined by taking a bunch of genetically similar dogs and puppies that were just born. They fed some mothers mik, and others milk from differnt species. As the puppies developed they would euthanize some along the way and analyze how the digestive tract developed (something you could not do without killing them). This is how they determined that goats milk was the closest to mothers milk. This one trial as saved countless dogs lives. This trial toda never pass due to the rules put in place. So unfortunatly this is why there is no information on anything with dogs and cat and nutrition. 




Unosmom said:


> I'd also like to point out that my dog has not done well on super high protein, he has a pretty slow metabolism so when I fed him Orijen, I had to feed him only a cup a day which is very little for a 60 lb dog. He wasnt happy and started counter surfing. I then switched to Acana, which I believe is around 34% protein and he was eating just under 2 cups a day and doing really well. He's now on raw and even on this diet, I have to adjust his ratio to what you'd feed an overweight dog, because otherwise he packs on weight.


 That is why I do not agree with Orijen, even in the wild they do not eat a SUPER high protein diet. A carcass is 65 - 75% water, that only leaves 25 - 35% dry matter for everything else, so when these diets start giving a very high protein value, the pet cannot deal with it all and it usually causes alot of issues (poorly formulated - formulated for consumers not pets - which many companies do).


----------



## mythbuster (Jan 23, 2012)

Unosmom said:


> Ok, so even with "super premium " foods like Science diet thats been backed by a ton of so called scientific and high digestibility studies, they still have large poops.


Again, depends on the diet, the fibre level, the dog, etc.... If you feed a diet high in fibre, even if the nutrients are highly digestible, the stool will be larger. 

I don't use Science Diet, so I can't speak from personal experience, but MY DOGS eat food containing corn, and THEIR poop is not large and smelly.


----------



## The Expert (Jan 25, 2012)

Unosmom said:


> Ok, so even with "super premium " foods like Science diet thats been backed by a ton of so called scientific and high digestibility studies, they still have large poops.


Fibre........ I would bet any money it will be way smaller than the grocery store brand. In a raw diet if you didnt feed any hair and they didnt eat any grass, nothing should come out. Anything that came out was not digested (so poor quality), so yes that poop should be SUPER tiny, anything that came out is wasted. Premium companies have fibre present in order to allow proper movement and give an optimal fecal score. This score was developed in order to promote health. I know that bone is fed and some Raw fed dogs can have white poop, but I dont think this is necessarily better. This can be very abbrasive on the intestinal tract (colon) and can be too dry which has issues in itself. Everything in moderation


----------



## Unosmom (May 3, 2009)

Thanks for the feedback, I do appreciate both sides of the story. I also agree that from an economical standpoint, its not feasible for all pet food to be made from choice cut meat and fresh veggies, if that were the case, a bag of food would cost an average of $100 if not more and obviously not an option for most pet owners. With that said, I do believe that both canine and feline diets should be meat not plant based. I dont necessarily think corn is any worse then potato, but it shouldnt make up the bulk of the food. Theres also a major lack of regulation in the pet food industry which allows some disgusting matter to be processed into the pet food including diseased animals.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

Ingredients don't matter? 

Really? 

Yes when you break down proteins the amino acids that you're left with are identical. BUT the last time I checked proteins aren't hydrolized before being made into foods regardless of where they're coming from. Sure, there are diets that have hydrolized proteins in them for "allergy" reasons but the majority don't. So dogs are given whole plant proteins to break down. The proteins themselves froTm plants differ very greatly from those of animals. There's no getting around that fact. 

How taxing is it on the body to break down proteins from plants versus proteins from animals? 

What about all the carbohydrates that are also added to foods that accompany the protein parts of plants? Carbohydrates are broken down into simple sugars. Is this good for the body? Pancreas?


----------



## mythbuster (Jan 23, 2012)

DaneMama said:


> Ingredients don't matter?
> 
> Really?


yes, really. 
The quality, digestibility, processing, and nutrients provided by the ingredients matter. The overall nutrient profile of the diet matters. The quality control practices of the company matters. The research supporting the diet formulations matter. The name of the ingredients do not matter. 


DaneMama said:


> Yes when you break down proteins the amino acids that you're left with are identical. BUT the last time I checked proteins aren't hydrolized before being made into foods regardless of where they're coming from. Sure, there are diets that have hydrolized proteins in them for "allergy" reasons but the majority don't. So dogs are given whole plant proteins to break down. The proteins themselves froTm plants differ very greatly from those of animals. There's no getting around that fact.
> 
> How taxing is it on the body to break down proteins from plants versus proteins from animals?
> 
> What about all the carbohydrates that are also added to foods that accompany the protein parts of plants? Carbohydrates are broken down into simple sugars. Is this good for the body? Pancreas?


animal and plant proteins are digested by the same enzymes in the same way. Different proteins have different digestibilities, but it doesn't "tax" the body to break down one or the other, if it can't digest a protein, it passes undigested into the colon where it ferments and gets passed. Corn gluten and wheat gluten are MORE digestible than chicken protein, and all three are much more digestible than lamb. 

you can add plant gluten without adding the carbohydrates at the same time, however, complex carbohydrates are broken down slowly to provide energy. It's not like eating a bowl of candy. The pancreas produces the enzymes required to break down carbohydrates. So yes, providing highly digestible energy is good for the body.


----------



## Unosmom (May 3, 2009)

> Corn gluten and wheat gluten are MORE digestible than chicken protein, and all three are much more digestible than lamb.


can you provide your sources, because I couldnt find any other then a cat study which proves otherwise.


----------



## mythbuster (Jan 23, 2012)

Unosmom said:


> can you provide your sources, because I couldnt find any other then a cat study which proves otherwise.


The NRC discusses digestibility of protein and bioavailability in general, if you want references that are viewable online I couldn't find a whole lot, there is this: Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids (Macronutrients) (scroll to the bottom), and I could find this: http://www.soymeal.org/pdf/domesticpets.pdf discussing digestibility of soy compared to meat protein. Don't forget, different types of corn/wheat will have different digestibilities as well, so if you want to know the digestibility of the ingredient in the food you're feeding, you have to ask the company for their digestibility info.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

Do you have any access to studies done on the digestibility and bioavailability of RAW meat proteins compared to soy/corn/gluten/etc? It seems that all of your sources are dealing with low quality meat meals (poultry by-product meal and meat and bone meal).


----------



## mythbuster (Jan 23, 2012)

DaneMama said:


> Do you have any access to studies done on the digestibility and bioavailability of RAW meat proteins compared to soy/corn/gluten/etc? It seems that all of your sources are dealing with low quality meat meals (poultry by-product meal and meat and bone meal).


Meat meals are not low quality meat sources. There are not a lot of references that are available online, but I would start with the NRC if you'd like a base understanding of nutrients etc. It's amazing how I keep getting called to provide references (and I provide them), but no one ever offers up references that support the contrary.


----------



## Jenny (Dec 7, 2010)

mythbuster, which dry food are high quality in your opinion? What do you feed your dog?


----------



## mythbuster (Jan 23, 2012)

Jenny said:


> mythbuster, which dry food are high quality in your opinion? What do you feed your dog?



The first step in choosing a commercial diet for your pet should be to find a company that you trust. You will not find this information on the bag of food. I’ve posted these questions a couple of times, but I’ll post them again:
1. Do you have a Veterinary Nutritionist or some equivalent on staff in your company? Are they available for consultation or questions?
2. Who formulates your diets and what are their credentials?
3. Which of your diet(s) is AAFCO Feed Trial tested? Which of your diets meet AAFCO Nutritional requirements?
4. What Testing do you do beyond AAFCO trials?
5. What specific quality control measures do you use to assure the consistency and quality of your product line? What safety measures do you use?
6. Where are your diets produced and manufactured? Can this plant be visited?
7. Can you provide a complete product nutrient analysis of your best selling canine and feline pet food including digestibility values?
8. Can you give me the caloric value per can or cup of your diets?

Once you’ve found a company that you are comfortable with, choose a diet from within their product line that meets your pet’s nutritional needs.

This is what I feed my dogs: 
Maxi Joint and Coat Care 28 / Maxi / Dog Diets / Pet Store Exclusive Diets / Home - RoyalCanin
And they do fabulously.


----------



## MollyWoppy (Mar 19, 2010)

Ok, I have a basic question, one that confuses me. I'm just a typical consumer, probably simpler actually but I'm not interested at exploring dog nutrition at a cellular level. 
What I don't understand is that Royalcanin was one of the companies that recalled a lot of product because of the 2007 melamine scare. I haven't looked into the scale of their particular recalls, if/how many dogs and cats were made sick or died, but don't you worry that they knowlingly put those chemicals in their food? That the scientists let this happen and if, on the off chance they had no idea that it was happening, why wasn't it picked up during their quality control safety measures?
I'm not trying to argue, its just something I simply can't get my head around.
I was feeding my dog a food that was on the recall list and after reading about the coverups and misleading of the public whilst untold dogs and cats suffered, I'd never trust any of those companies with my pets health again, maybe I hold a grudge too long?


----------



## Jenny (Dec 7, 2010)

mythbuster said:


> This is what I feed my dogs:
> Maxi Joint and Coat Care 28 / Maxi / Dog Diets / Pet Store Exclusive Diets / Home - RoyalCanin
> And they do fabulously.


I was certain (!) that you feed Royal Canin, because you seem to like corn, corn gluten meal, wheat etc. 
By the way, have you asked, what are natural flavours in that food?

I would never feed my dogs Royal Canin! :wink:


----------



## Caty M (Aug 13, 2010)

Molly I don't think RC knowingly put melamine in their food, rather it was a Chinese supplier who added it to boost protein levels. A few months later it happened with baby formula with a different company (dairy this time). RC and a lot of companies used that supplier.


----------



## MollyWoppy (Mar 19, 2010)

But shouldn't the ingredients be tested for chemical's like that? Especially when they are imported and you are adding them to your quality product? Maybe I'm taking a too simplistic view of the whole thing but I don't understand how it could happen when there are meant to be quality control and safety procedures in place. It's like the baby formula, I'm guessing its the Walmart one, they source the cheapest possible ingredients to put in their food, all in the name of saving a buck or two. Why aren't they picking up things like this until it's too late?


----------



## Caty M (Aug 13, 2010)

I think (or rather hope) that a lot of companies DO have testing procedure now.. I bet the recalls cost a LOT of money. Any supplier can adulterate materials.. so it's best to choose companies that you trust. For me that's smaller, family owned businesses. They have MUCH more to lose if something major goes down.


----------



## MollyWoppy (Mar 19, 2010)

Caty M said:


> I think (or rather hope) that a lot of companies DO have testing procedure now.. I bet the recalls cost a LOT of money. Any supplier can adulterate materials.. so it's best to choose companies that you trust. For me that's smaller, family owned businesses. They have MUCH more to lose if something major goes down.


I totally AGREE!


----------



## mythbuster (Jan 23, 2012)

MollyWoppy said:


> Ok, I have a basic question, one that confuses me. I'm just a typical consumer, probably simpler actually but I'm not interested at exploring dog nutrition at a cellular level.
> What I don't understand is that Royalcanin was one of the companies that recalled a lot of product because of the 2007 melamine scare. I haven't looked into the scale of their particular recalls, if/how many dogs and cats were made sick or died, but don't you worry that they knowlingly put those chemicals in their food? That the scientists let this happen and if, on the off chance they had no idea that it was happening, why wasn't it picked up during their quality control safety measures?
> I'm not trying to argue, its just something I simply can't get my head around.
> I was feeding my dog a food that was on the recall list and after reading about the coverups and misleading of the public whilst untold dogs and cats suffered, I'd never trust any of those companies with my pets health again, maybe I hold a grudge too long?


The melamine disaster was a tragedy that affected thousands of pets and pet owners. It impacted both prescription and retail diets, and if you’ll recall, human baby formula. It happened because a product supplier intentionally added melamine to their wheat gluten to falsely elevate the protein level. Until it happened, it never occurred to anyone that something like that could ever be possible. It wasn't caught in "quality control measures" at the time because no measures existed to catch that sort of thing. The affected diets weren't all made 'at the same place', they had a common supplier, who intentionally sabotaged an ingredient.

It affected the larger food companies because the supplier of some ingredients was the same for different companies. It happened because these companies were lied to by the supplier. The fact that some companies were not affected does not mean that they were better, it means they were lucky. The affected ingredients were not cheap. They were sabotaged. Unless you are going to personally harvest every ingredient that goes into a diet and personally deliver it to the production facility, suppliers are a necessity. Every pet food company relies on suppliers. 

Every pet food company, whether they were affected or not, should have taken it seriously enough to develop methods to ensure nothing like that will ever happen again. Avoiding all the producers on the affected list doesn't guarantee safety in the future, and there is the potential to miss out on the opportunity to feed an animal exceptional nutrition because something devastating happened in the past.


----------



## mythbuster (Jan 23, 2012)

Caty M said:


> I think (or rather hope) that a lot of companies DO have testing procedure now.. I bet the recalls cost a LOT of money. Any supplier can adulterate materials.. so it's best to choose companies that you trust. For me that's smaller, family owned businesses. They have MUCH more to lose if something major goes down.


They may (or may not) test for melamine now, but remember, melamine was a substance that never should have been anywhere near food. No one was looking for it. How do you look for something if you don't know it exists? I know that Royal Canin has implemented a test called near infrared spectroscopy on all of their incoming raw material as well as on their finished product. This produces an image that is completely unique, like a snowflake. If they test an ingredient and it doesn't match it's "snowflake", they don't accept the ingredient into their facility. I'm not aware of any other company in the world with this level of quality control.


----------



## mythbuster (Jan 23, 2012)

Jenny said:


> I was certain (!) that you feed Royal Canin, because you seem to like corn, corn gluten meal, wheat etc.
> By the way, have you asked, what are natural flavours in that food?


Natural flavors, aka "digest" is simply a concentrated flavor to increase palatability (which is important if you're making a specific diet that may not be palatable but is very necessary for health, for example, if you have a dog with pancreatitis, it is imperative to feed a low fat diet. Low fat is generally less palatable than high fat. So the options are: feed high fat and die, or make low fat taste better so the dog will eat it and not die. 

To make natural flavor, they basically boil down (digest) ingredients to make a concentrated flavoring. Just like if you've ever made gravy the real way: you boil the giblets to flavor the water and use the drippings from the pan, gravy has a much more concentrated flavor than the meat. 


Jenny said:


> I would never feed my dogs Royal Canin! :wink:


Good for you. That's all I will feed. And my dogs thrive.


----------



## greyshadows (Jan 30, 2012)

Mollywoppy, I agree wholeheartedly with you on the melamine poisonings. As I just went to fda.gov and reviewed the list of pet foods, there aren't many brands that aren't listed, maybe Halo, Champion and some Purina brands. So then what do you feed your dogs? I also see now they say chicken jerky could be contaminated and several more brands are now recalled due to aflatoxin. Then I thought to myself I better start feeding my dogs what I eat but there are so many recalls with our foods too! Now I guess we should all consider farming and cattle ranching!:wink:


----------



## Serenity (Dec 30, 2011)

Cat or Dog.... Corn is a NO NO... not to be gross or inappropriate but have you seen what happens after we eat corn and go to the bathroom? What makes anyone think its any better for their pet?


----------



## MollyWoppy (Mar 19, 2010)

mythbuster said:


> Every pet food company, whether they were affected or not, should have taken it seriously enough to develop methods to ensure nothing like that will ever happen again. Avoiding all the producers on the affected list doesn't guarantee safety in the future, and there is the potential to miss out on the opportunity to feed an animal exceptional nutrition because something devastating happened in the past.


You see, this is why I won't knowingly feed my animals or people in my household anything imported from, or with ingredients imported from certain countries. How do we know that the exact same thing is not happening right now with another undetected substance? A substance that the dog food suppliers have no idea they should be looking for? Thats my worry.


And, yeah, greyshadows, you are right, unless we feed both ourselves and our animals items we have grown or raised organically ourselves, then you can never assume you are safe. You can only do your due diligence on which ever dog food you choose and hope like hell they are as ethical as you think they are.
I feed Mol raw, and Windy the cat gets Champion and Fromm, both smaller companies which weren't involved in the melamine recalls.


----------



## mythbuster (Jan 23, 2012)

Serenity said:


> Cat or Dog.... Corn is a NO NO... not to be gross or inappropriate but have you seen what happens after we eat corn and go to the bathroom? What makes anyone think its any better for their pet?


what you're seeing is the shell of the kernel. the inside of the kernel is very digestible. and whole kernels are not put in dog food, it is ground first. Do you see the same thing if you eat corn flakes, cornmeal, or corn flour?


----------



## mythbuster (Jan 23, 2012)

MollyWoppy said:


> You see, this is why I won't knowingly feed my animals or people in my household anything imported from, or with ingredients imported from certain countries. How do we know that the exact same thing is not happening right now with another undetected substance? A substance that the dog food suppliers have no idea they should be looking for? Thats my worry.
> 
> 
> And, yeah, greyshadows, you are right, unless we feed both ourselves and our animals items we have grown or raised organically ourselves, then you can never assume you are safe. You can only do your due diligence on which ever dog food you choose and hope like hell they are as ethical as you think they are.
> I feed Mol raw, and Windy the cat gets Champion and Fromm, both smaller companies which weren't involved in the melamine recalls.


Did you know that 90% of the vitamin C supplied to the entire globe comes from China? Have you ever taken vitamin C? 

And what happens if someone is dumping toxic waste in the water near where Champion catches their "fresh caught fish off the coast of Vancouver island" and they don't realize it? What measures do they have in place to ensure that those toxins aren't going to make it into their pet food? 

I can understand wanting to avoid a company that was involved in a recall, but if the company you choose isn't being proactive about looking for these things you're basically going 'from the pot into the fire'.


----------



## mythbuster (Jan 23, 2012)

MollyWoppy said:


> You see, this is why I won't knowingly feed my animals or people in my household anything imported from, or with ingredients imported from certain countries. How do we know that the exact same thing is not happening right now with another undetected substance? A substance that the dog food suppliers have no idea they should be looking for? Thats my worry.


That's exactly my point..... Something like the NIRS test will pick up that "something" is not right about the ingredient, even if they aren't looking for the specific contaminant. If the NIRS doesn't match, the ingredient gets rejected. 

Looking for mycotoxins and bacteria is great, but if you need to look for a specific bacteria or toxin in order to pick it up in testing.


----------



## Jenny (Dec 7, 2010)

mythbuster said:


> Natural flavors, aka "digest" is simply a concentrated flavor to increase palatability (which is important if you're making a specific diet that may not be palatable but is very necessary for health, for example, if you have a dog with pancreatitis, it is imperative to feed a low fat diet. Low fat is generally less palatable than high fat. So the options are: feed high fat and die, or make low fat taste better so the dog will eat it and not die.
> 
> To make natural flavor, they basically boil down (digest) ingredients to make a concentrated flavoring. Just like if you've ever made gravy the real way: you boil the giblets to flavor the water and use the drippings from the pan, gravy has a much more concentrated flavor than the meat.


Natural flavors to increase palatability? Royal Canin says: ROYAL CANIN uses natural flavorings made from such natural ingredients as chicken liver, which are prepared according to recipes that are kept strictly secret. This process takes the aroma and taste of the natural ingredients and concentrates them into an extremely appealing powder or liquid which can be dusted on the outside of the kibble.

Where are these natural flavorings really made from? Maybe rats? They are natural, too...


----------



## mythbuster (Jan 23, 2012)

Jenny said:


> Where are these natural flavorings really made from? Maybe rats? They are natural, too...


maybe, that's a very reasonable assumption...... :shocked:
(that's sarcasm... if it's not translating well in print....)


----------



## Boxerdogz (Feb 15, 2011)

I looked into raw food for awhile but I decided its not better than any other way of feeding, plus it has extra risks. However I dont know where I stand on commercial vs home cooked. I do currently feed commercial diets (I rotate). I know experts say ingredients dont matter, nutrients do, which makes sense. But its so backwards from human nutrition which emphasizes fresh whole foods. Why is this??


----------



## Caty M (Aug 13, 2010)

It's not backwards. Whole, fresh foods are best for dogs, too. Raw or homecooked ARE the best ways of feeding.. in every way other than convenience. There are extra risks with kibbled foods, too.. Recalls upon recalls...


----------



## Caty M (Aug 13, 2010)

mythbuster said:


> maybe, that's a very reasonable assumption...... :shocked:
> (that's sarcasm... if it's not translating well in print....)


Well, I'd suspect the worst of any company using unnamed meat meals. Not sure if Royal Canin does but I know SD, purina etc do.


----------



## mythbuster (Jan 23, 2012)

Boxerdogz said:


> I looked into raw food for awhile but I decided its not better than any other way of feeding, plus it has extra risks. However I dont know where I stand on commercial vs home cooked. I do currently feed commercial diets (I rotate). I know experts say ingredients dont matter, nutrients do, which makes sense. But its so backwards from human nutrition which emphasizes fresh whole foods. Why is this??


because in human nutrition you get the most nutrients from fresh, whole foods. The 'processed' diets for people are made for flavor and convenience, not for nutrition, so they're full of sodium and devoid of healthful nutrients. Pet diets that are formulated for optimal nutrition based on research and clinical trials are the exact opposite of the processed diets available for people in the grocery store.


----------



## Boxerdogz (Feb 15, 2011)

mythbuster said:


> because in human nutrition you get the most nutrients from fresh, whole foods. The 'processed' diets for people are made for flavor and convenience, not for nutrition, so they're full of sodium and devoid of healthful nutrients. Pet diets that are formulated for optimal nutrition based on research and clinical trials are the exact opposite of the processed diets available for people in the grocery store.


The assumption being made here though is that we *know* all there is to know about nutrition which we dont. On the human side we are still learning about phytonutrients, etc that are beneficial and found in whole foods. Even if a supposedly perfect and nutritionally complete human chow were made I doubt any human doctor would recommend ONLY eating that.


----------



## mythbuster (Jan 23, 2012)

Boxerdogz said:


> The assumption being made here though is that we *know* all there is to know about nutrition which we dont. On the human side we are still learning about phytonutrients, etc that are beneficial and found in whole foods. Even if a supposedly perfect and nutritionally complete human chow were made I doubt any human doctor would recommend ONLY eating that.


The only way to learn is to research and make improvements based on what you find. Pet nutrition is way ahead of human nutrition in the discoveries that have been made BECAUSE they can study animals on the same thing being fed every day. Dogs are not small people. Their digestive system is not made to change foods every day; it is shorter than a humans, and has 1,000 times less bacteria in the gut.


----------



## Jenny (Dec 7, 2010)

mythbuster said:


> Pet diets that are formulated for optimal nutrition based on research


So do you think, that commercial dry food (such as Royal Canin) is the best and most optimal for dogs?


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

Gee, maybe we should just draw up the nutrients in a syringe and squirt it into our dogs' mouths every day. Since all that matter is nutrients, not ingredients, you know.


----------



## mythbuster (Jan 23, 2012)

Jenny said:


> So do you think, that commercial dry food (such as Royal Canin) is the best and most optimal for dogs?


Yes I do. I feed Royal Canin, I recommend Royal Canin, and I believe in Royal Canin. Everything they create is based on what studying dogs has told them dogs' need. I trust the science, and I trust their quality control above any other company.


xellil said:


> Gee, maybe we should just draw up the nutrients in a syringe and squirt it into our dogs' mouths every day. Since all that matter is nutrients, not ingredients, you know.


orrrrrr, feed a diet with the nutrients in it.


----------



## whiteleo (Sep 7, 2008)

mythbuster said:


> Yes I do. I feed Royal Canin, I recommend Royal Canin, and I believe in Royal Canin. Everything they create is based on what studying dogs has told them dogs' need. I trust the science, and I trust their quality control above any other company.
> 
> SEE, I TOLD YOU THIS PERSON WORKED FOR A KIBBLE CO! Nothing you say now will convince me otherwise with that statement!


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

whiteleo said:


> mythbuster said:
> 
> 
> > Yes I do. I feed Royal Canin, I recommend Royal Canin, and I believe in Royal Canin. Everything they create is based on what studying dogs has told them dogs' need. I trust the science, and I trust their quality control above any other company.
> ...


----------



## mythbuster (Jan 23, 2012)

xellil said:


> whiteleo said:
> 
> 
> > He has been touting Royal Canin a long time. I would be extremely surprised if he weren't involved with the company.
> ...


----------



## PDXdogmom (Jun 30, 2010)

whiteleo said:


> mythbuster said:
> 
> 
> > Yes I do. I feed Royal Canin, I recommend Royal Canin, and I believe in Royal Canin. Everything they create is based on what studying dogs has told them dogs' need. I trust the science, and I trust their quality control above any other company.
> ...


----------



## Jenny (Dec 7, 2010)

mythbuster said:


> Yes I do. I feed Royal Canin, I recommend Royal Canin, and I believe in Royal Canin. Everything they create is based on what studying dogs has told them dogs' need. I trust the science, and I trust their quality control above any other company.


Many companies have done researches. What makes you think Royal Canin's studies are better or more reliable than others'? 

Nowadays dogs seems to have more cancer, sterility and allergies than earlier. I'm sure it's partly because of commercial, processed foods and their preservatives. If your pets' safety is really your first priority, you should feed them natural food and avoid commercial foods. :wink:


----------



## greyshadows (Jan 30, 2012)

I agree it seems our pets have more problems but I wonder if that's true. Maybe we just have better veterinary care and are more aware. I mean my grandfather had dogs all his life and he never ever took them to a vet, in fact I don't know if any were near him in his early life. He fed them whatever was around at the time, dog food(I only remember Purina) and leftovers. If the dog got sick and died he just buried them in the backyard! Even my parents rarely went to the vet. I had no idea dogs even had allergies until I had my own! Now I follow dog issues online and in magazines and have never heard of some of their diseases.:shocked:


----------



## Serenity (Dec 30, 2011)

Just from personal exp I think its all of the line breeding/inbreeding that has been done over the years.... Mutts seem to be healthy and can eat almost anything with out any issues and are fine. The pure breds are usually the ones with the health issues... Any one every notice that?


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

Serenity said:


> Just from personal exp I think its all of the line breeding/inbreeding that has been done over the years.... Mutts seem to be healthy and can eat almost anything with out any issues and are fine. The pure breds are usually the ones with the health issues... Any one every notice that?


Oh, without a doubt. I've owned alot of dogs in my life but very few purebreds. Of course, none of the purebreds were "high quality." 
The dalmation keeled over dead at 3. 
The Great Dane was mentally retarded and had horrible hip dysplasia. 
The only dog i've ever had that died of cancer was a lab.

the mutts have generally lived a long time and had few, if any, health issues. My last dog before these two was a 70 pound dog of indeterminate breed who lived to 17 with never a vet visit for illness until the last few months of his life, when his back legs started to quit working.

And dogs SHOULD be garbage guts - I don't know why all these dogs get sick on a pea size piece of liver or a little chicken fat. I don't know that it's a purebred thing (my two purebreds are garbage guts) but it sure is weird.

Maybe years of dry dog food has ruined their digestive process.


----------



## mythbuster (Jan 23, 2012)

Jenny said:


> Many companies have done researches. What makes you think Royal Canin's studies are better or more reliable than others'?


There is a lot of good research out there, and there is a lot of bad research out there. When I look for research, I want to see peer reviews included. I also like RC because I've used their products and seen them work in my own animals and in my patients. I think Hills has done some good research, but when it comes to their products I feel like they have tunnel vision; they treat one issue and forget there is a whole dog (or cat) attached to the issue their treating. It's the combination of research, product line, AND quality control that makes me choose RC above anyone else. The kicker for me is the quality control. like I said. Show me another company using NIRS or something equivalent. The thought of another melamine disaster is terrifying to me. I never want to go through that or see any of my patients go through that again, and RC is the only company that I am aware of that has anything in place that will catch something like that, whether they're looking for it or not.


----------



## whiteleo (Sep 7, 2008)

Personally when it comes to food and it's quality it all comes down to money...Back in the day, it wasn't so expensive to actually use good quality products, but as time has gone on and things have gone more complex and expensive the food that is now bad , may very well have been fine back in its day because it actually used decent products. JMO


----------

