Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Pegasus

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7
General discussion / Re: Veterinary Nutrition Specialists
« on: Nov 17, 2016, 15:38 »
Looks a good course but if I remember rightly it's part owned by a dog food company

General discussion / Re: Veterinary Nutrition Specialists
« on: Nov 17, 2016, 12:35 »
Its good to know about the course you are sitting, sounds very interesting. My only query would be - 'what conclusion does the course come to regards feeding a manufactured dog food?'  - does this come down to actual brands or is it blanket recommendations?

'my qualification is independent from the pet food industry' - good stuff, but that's why I mentioned the indirect research aspect -  I've read many scientific studies for various food related stuff then read at the end the research was carried out with sponsorship from a dog food manufacturer. I think it would be hard to set up a course totally independent  from any influence of the pet food industry.

General discussion / Re: Hydrolysed dog food
« on: Nov 16, 2016, 16:08 »
I know that hydrolysed isn't new , I was just wondering if anyone had been told by the vet to look for a hydrolysed food - I'm being cynical basically!

'No %ages of ingredients is one of my 'pet' hates.' Ive been told many times this is 'so competitors can't copy our food' ::)
'BHA & BHT are antioxidants that stop the fats going rancid and are ok in small doses' - I think you'll find it's you vs the internet on that one - I'm surprised the ingredients list mentions them as I believe they could've just left it at 'EU Approved additives'
'I wonder if the production line could skew results?' I've asked the question of cross contamination to a very large manufacturer and got a very positive response.

General discussion / Re: Hydrolysed dog food
« on: Nov 16, 2016, 14:44 »
My enquiry was more about whether 'hydrolysed' was a new buzz word from vets (passed on through certain food reps perhaps?) It was also that when I was looking at foods containing hydrolysed eg this one - Rice, rice protein, hydrolysed salmon protein, pork fat, minerals, vitamins and trace elements, powdered cellulose, sunflower oil, psyllium husk.
Antioxidants: EC approved additives: BHA, BHT. - If salmon were thought to be the allergy trigger then the diet should exclude salmon as a protein source - I always recommend exclusion diet as way of determining allergy trigger.
Other thing about the food above, I can understand the 'taking away' of potentially bad thing but to add in BHA & BHT - are these controversial ingredients added because the protein source is hydralysed?

Must agree with what Rhebden writes about the article.  I must admit, a few years back I went looking for qualifications in nutrition but to no avail apart from full degree courses where nutrition was just a part. I think it would be difficult to set up a suitable course without some compliance from the dog food industry whether directly sponsored or indirectly using research carried out on behalf of them.

General discussion / Re: Veterinary Nutrition Specialists
« on: Nov 15, 2016, 17:14 »
The point I was trying to make was the idea that if a dog food is labelled as 'complete' then this is a legal term ie expert nutritionalists have deemed this food to meet all a dogs needs. (I'm referring to manufactured foods rather than raw etc.) If there were a recognised course in nutrition, would it have to follow the reasoning that all foods are equal? I think a course could teach what a dog needs but perhaps not how those needs are met, certainly not without conjecture. I suppose it's the same as the 'Super Size Me' film, technically a MacDonalds meal is perfectly balanced nutritionally but in reality....

Had quite a few customers in recently where the vet has recommended 'Hydrolysed dog food' - now they don't recommend a particular food but have told the people to go and look for said type of food. Now the only foods I can see that contain hydrolysed proteins are the foods that are, ahem, heavily promoted by vets. Looking at the ingredients of these foods, the hydrolysed component is often way down the list of other pretty dubious ingredients - on one, the first three ingredients are wheat, maize protein, animal fat and the hydrolysed component is 10th. I understand the concept of hydrolysed dog food but if the component is only a small part of an otherwise not very good (my opinion) dog food, then is it effective? Any suggestions or insights welcome!

General discussion / Different Country, different food?
« on: Nov 15, 2016, 15:23 »
Curiosity on labelling - was messing around with something and noticed ambiguity in labelling - bag of Royal Canin Mini has ingredients listed for 24 countries including EU, Australia, South Africa Korea Russia etc but in the English list - for GB/IRL/RSA/AUS the analytical content is labelled differently for RSA and shows different numbers.
So decided to look up on t'internet -  the only web site mentioned on the pack is
Royal Canin Mini Adult ingredients
Chicken meal, brewers rice, brown rice, corn, corn gluten meal, chicken fat, natural flavors, wheat gluten, dried beet pulp, vegetable oil, brewers dried yeast, fish oil, potassium chloride, calcium carbonate, salt, fructooligosaccharides, sodium tripolyphosphate, DL-methionine, choline chloride, L-lysine, magnesium oxide, vitamins [DL-alpha tocopherol acetate (source of vitamin E), L-ascorbyl-2-polyphosphate (source of vitamin C), biotin, D-calcium pantothenate, pyridoxine hydrochloride (vitamin B6), vitamin A acetate, niacin supplement, thiamine mononitrate (vitamin B1), riboflavin supplement (vitamin B2), folic acid, vitamin B12 supplement, vitamin D3 supplement], taurine, trace minerals (zinc oxide, zinc proteinate, ferrous sulfate, manganese proteinate, copper sulfate, copper proteinate, manganous oxide, calcium iodate, sodium selenite), L-carnitine, rosemary extract, preserved with natural mixed tocopherols and citric acid.

But if you go on the website the ingredients are list like this
COMPOSITION: dehydrated poultry protein, maize, maize flour, animal fats, maize gluten, vegetable protein isolate*, wheat, hydrolysed animal proteins, rice, beet pulp, minerals, fish oil, yeasts, soya oil, fructo-oligo-saccharides.
ADDITIVES (per kg): Nutritional additives: Vitamin A: 22500 IU, Vitamin D3: 1000 IU, E1 (Iron): 42 mg, E2 (Iodine): 4.2 mg, E4 (Copper): 13 mg, E5 (Manganese): 55 mg, E6 (Zinc): 164 mg, E8 (Selenium): 0.11 mg, L-carnitine: 50 mg - Preservatives - Antioxidants.
ANALYTICAL CONSTITUENTS: Protein: 27% - Fat content: 16% - Crude ash: 5.6% - Crude fiber: 1.3% - Per kg: pentasodium triphosphate: 3.5 g - EPA and DHA: 2.5 g.

to me that's two totally different foods - only seeing this as a problem because the writing on the packaging is tiny and the logical thing to find bigger type face would be to visit the website listed on the packet. Also why such a difference in the US food and the other 24 countries?  - yikes just looked into it further - the US one is double the price of UK per kilo (if my maths and conversion is right)
Does anyone know of any other foods that differ so much between countries?

General discussion / Re: Veterinary Nutrition Specialists
« on: Nov 15, 2016, 14:15 »
I agree it's a shame there isn't a recognised nutritional qualification for dog foods but could this be because if a dog food is labelled 'complete' then it meets the overall needs of a dog - therefore all foods are the same? (no they're not but legally they are).
Perhaps it is more useful for someone to be aware of different foods/brands/types and be able to offer opinions on these. I again advocate a good local pet shop!

Arden Grange weaning/ puppy can be used from around 3 weeks of age and it is also suitable for pregnant and lactating bitches. It's a really tiny kibble and you can add water to make a 'porridge' consistency.
Good luck

Good article with some really glaring errors. Firstly, she seems to dismiss all kibble foods as being the same (low quality) - this site alone shows that clearly this is not the case. 'Also avoid vegetable protein' - taken as a stand alone quote, does this mean avoid vegetables? The confusing bit is the way in one article she advocates a 80:20 diet (80% meat and bones 20% veg & fruit) then moves to a 3:3:3 diet (33% meat 33% carbs 33% fruit & veg). I don't have access to the recipes but the article does say to avoid dairy (twice) and yet the previous poster states they have made oat biscuits with cheese.
Other things that annoy me, just because I'm a pedant - the dog food in the bowl is a cheap supermarket type food, the puppy isn't chewing a rawbone - it's rawhide, brown rice is listed on good ingredients but it doesn't state whether it is cooked or raw, oh and (say this quietly) a Union Flag on the label doesn't necessarily mean it's made in the UK

Don't know how you would score it for an algorithm but I would like to see the way a food is labelled given priority. After ingredients, people ask 'why isn't the label more clear?' more often than any other thing. Fair note to the other posters, but I have had very few customers whose first concerns were ethics or how the food was made.
In particular to the labelling, I feel there is too much positive/negative labelling. As David said in previous post, saying a food is 'human grade meat' implies that other foods not carrying this label are not human grade (when in fact all are). Other labels similar are 'vet approved', 'developed with vets' and to some extent 'naturally sourced' (can you unnaturally source something?). 'Made in England' is one I have a problem with too - are all the ingredients from England?
The biggest labelling bug bear I have is 'prescription diet'
On the positive side of this, I would like to see a food score more if it adds information on the label that is not a requirement. Information I would like to see - Calorific value. Kibble size. A 'once opened use by' guideline.

Dog treats / Re: Not made in China
« on: Mar 14, 2016, 16:32 »
Labeling on treats is not the same as dog foods as treats are a 'complimentary food'. Dog food doesn't have to carry a label as to where it is made but you can tell by the factory number. Quick glance, most of ours do say where they are made. As to the 'jerky' scare - everything I've read is a cut and paste job of the original US article. I'm sure if anything is legitimately happening in the EU then there would be recalls and the pet industry would be the first to see the recall notices.

General discussion / Re: Food for thought
« on: Mar 14, 2016, 16:08 »
I don't think it is a labeling requirement for EU dog foods to state how long the dog food needs to be consumed by, once opened. 'Best Before' is a requirement. Quick look and a couple of the foods say to use within three months of opening - so for me if they are stating that, even though they have no legal obligation to so, they are confident of their product. You can freeze kibble if your dog is really sensitive to storage mites. Cold pressed has a shorter shelf life in the bag, so I don't know if this is a reflection once it is opened. Other thing, is that the article is for US dog foods, not EU dog foods so the standards are different

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7