I'm at a free dinner right now with my cousin sponsored by Royal Canine on animal nutrition. I can't wait to share it all with you....

lol. Fun, fun!

Leaving soon. It's been interesting for sure. It was totally a sales pitch. There was a lot of good and factual information but much of it was spun in a way that I don't agree with.

Free dinner! Was it at least good?

Dinner was AWESOME. Ridiculous. Also free beer, wine and soda. Crazy times.

I learned some stuff. He explained the difference between "organic" and "natural". At the crux of it, Organic has to do with before it was killed/picked and natural means no synthetic preservatives were added (but synthetic vitamins and minerals can be).

He tried to speak about the benefits of using corn over potatoes, which I was not happy about, but it did clear up some issues for me on why corn is good/bad. Most companies use crappy corn and that's clearly an issue. He tried to say that good corn was actually beneficial, but I think that's true for humans and not for dogs? (Nutritional Bookworms can help me there)... He also said that potatoes WERE more easily digestible, but they are high on the glycemic index, which means they basically give an immediate energy boost and then wane (like a sugar high). He said you want a carbohydrate that is a slower process to digest giving lengthened energy (again, nutritional bookworms... is this even necessary for dogs)?

I was surrounded by a bunch of people who don't understand grain-free. He also tried claiming that grain-free was silly because you're just replacing one carb with another. I wanted to smack him... to ME (and maybe I'm wrong and if so please correct me) the issue with grains is that they shouldn't make up the BULK of our dogs' diets like they are in so many other foods. If they are there, they should be easily digestible and in as low of a dose as possible because the nutrients they provide are not necessary to a dog's diet.

OH- the other thing he said was he tried to claim that chicken and chicken by-product were better than chicken meal and chicken by-product meal.... If we were eating raw, SURE... but if we're talking in our kibbles... no. I want to see a meal higher on the list than the chicken. Further, he was all proud that Royal Canine uses by-product but requests the companies take out the head, beak and feet... and a woman asked why since there was so much nutritional value in them.... and his answer was "You're right, but the general public doesn't see it that way because they think it's gross."

He steered clear of any sort of raw diets like prey model raw. The talk was basically debunking all the "fad" dog diets and subltely pushing Royal Canine as a top-rated diet. I made two comments and that was it. I wasn't there to argue with the man. I don't know enough and I was there for the free food.

Whether it's a fad or not, I'm sticking with grain-free. In treats, it doesn't matter to me, but a whole diet inclusive of grains is too much for my two and that's just a proven fact. It was interesting. I learned some things, but definitely didn't agree with the way that he spun things. I wish I had known more about corn so that I could have asked a more intelligent question cause he spent a long time defending it.

ETA: Changed post title to better reflect topic

I was at PetSmart a couple days ago and they had a "Hill's Guy" (as he called himself) trying to get people to switch their dogs over to Hill's food. He was complimenting how great my pup looked, how beautiful his coat was, even asked me if he was over a year old (I was like no, he's 4 months lol). Anyway, he asked me what I fed Hayden and I told him raw and he looked at me like I was stupid and said "you mean to tell me you don't give him his fruit and vegetables"?? I said "no, just pure protein" and he went on this big rant expressing how Hill's was so much better than feeding a natural diet, etc. I didn't bother arguing, just walked away. Is Hill's a good food?

The problem with corn is that there's too much of it in dog foods. It should never be in the first 5-7 ingredients and if it is in there, it should be lower than the fat ingredient (often an oil or actual meat fat.) Most products are stuffing it in the first 1-3 ingredients which is a kibble based on a veggie, not a meat! Dogs are carnivores! Corn wouldn't be such a controversial ingredient if they weren't using it to fill their foods with a cheap source of calories and energy.

To me personally meat content is more important than any "fad." Dogs are carnivores, end of story. To stuff a food full of starches, carbs, and grain is BS.

Hayden_69 wrote:

Is Hill's a good food?

Hills is the same quality as Royal Canin. It's a veterinary diet. Overpriced and low quality.

I'm torn on the carnivore vs. omnivore argument. I've heard many a respectable people called them omnivores. Wolves in the wild do scavenge on anything they can get their hands on...which would technically qualify them as omnivores... but I do understand that the bulk of their diet and what they would want to survive on if they had enough of it is meat and bone... so I'm torn.

I may sound really dumb here, but what is the difference between chicken meal, chicken, and chicken by-product. Our trainer just told us to always use chicken and chicken by-product, not chicken meal. I've tried to research it, but I am totally lost...

While I never like to propose that grains should be fed, as we all know some are worse than others. Corn I never like to see in a food, it's a common allergen and dogs don't really digest it...in fact, neither do people which is why I never buy corn for us either. Corn, like carrots for example, usually just passes right through them which makes it a worthless filler in my eyes. If you're going to pay for a filler it might as well be something they can actually derive something from like a potato.

Koda wrote:

He also said that potatoes WERE more easily digestible, but they are high on the glycemic index, which means they basically give an immediate energy boost and then wane (like a sugar high).

This is true, however when you pair a decent amount of meat with a lower amount of potato they balance each other out in a sense when it comes to energy. I.e. the meat will offer longer term, sustained energy while the potato will essentially give a shorter term, burst of energy like the sugar high he mentioned.

Koda wrote:

He said you want a carbohydrate that is a slower process to digest giving lengthened energy (again, nutritional bookworms... is this even necessary for dogs)?

I would beg to differ. Dogs have short and simple digestive tracks designed to process raw meat, bones, and organs in a relatively short amount of time. Consider that raw digests in about 4 hours versus kibble which digests in about 8-12 hours. Which were dogs designed to eat? I think we all agree that would be raw. So if dogs are designed to digest raw in about 4 hours then why would we want to slow down the digestion process with things that they're not naturally meant to eat and are harder for them to digest?

As for grain free foods, I have issues with just touting that people switch to grain free. Yes, it may have a higher chance of alleviating allergies but there are TONS of grain free foods that I would not recommend. Those that I would not recommend are the types with either meat not as the first ingredient or meat as the first ingredient but that being the only meat in the food.

Koda wrote:

He also tried claiming that grain-free was silly because you're just replacing one carb with another.

Depending on what grain free food you are looking at, the guy would be right in that statement. But a "better" grain free food will be very meat heavy and low on the carbs, certainly not a trait of any Royal Canin food.

Koda wrote:

Further, he was all proud that Royal Canine uses by-product but requests the companies take out the head, beak and feet... and a woman asked why since there was so much nutritional value in them.... and his answer was "You're right, but the general public doesn't see it that way because they think it's gross."

This is where things get a bit sticky. Parts like the head, beak and feet are fine to feed and encouraged when feeding a PMR diet. They are not as nutritious as muscle meat, bones, and organ which is why even in a PMR diet they would only make up a smaller percentage of the diet. The problem with them being included in by-product meal in kibbles is not that they aren't "good" but the fact that the consumer has no idea what percentage of the by-product meal is made up of the head, beak and feet. If the majority of the by-product meal is those items without much nutritional value (and really, how nutritious can by-products even be to begin with?) then that doesn't make for a nutritious product. Of course, what's the point in nit-picking by-products anyway, we don't want them in our foods regardless.

Koda wrote:

I'm torn on the carnivore vs. omnivore argument. I've heard many a respectable people called them omnivores. Wolves in the wild do scavenge on anything they can get their hands on...which would technically qualify them as omnivores... but I do understand that the bulk of their diet and what they would want to survive on if they had enough of it is meat and bone... so I'm torn.

Technically, dogs are considered omnivores because they can scavenge, survive, and supplement their diets on non-meat foods to a certain extent. I personally, as do many others (especially those who espouse PMR), consider dogs to be carnivores for all intents and purposes. Cats on the other hand are true obligate carnivores. When you consider that dogs' digestive systems cannot break down plant cell walls what would that indicate to you? In order for a dog to derive nutrition from plant matter, the plant cell walls must be broken down by some other means. This is why any plant matter fed to dogs would have to be either cooked or ground into a paste to break the cell walls so that they can derive nutrition from it. In kibble the plant matter is cooked, in a BARF diet the veggies are blended into a paste, and of course the diet most natural and suited to a dog which is PMR does not involve the inclusion of plant matter at all. Under ideal circumstances a dog or wolf would primarily subsist on animal matter. All things considered that makes dogs pretty strongly classed as carnivores. However having that minor ability to be able to survive on broken down plant matter will keep them technically classed as omnivores.

Tiff&Kya wrote:

I may sound really dumb here, but what is the difference between chicken meal, chicken, and chicken by-product. Our trainer just told us to always use chicken and chicken by-product, not chicken meal. I've tried to research it, but I am totally lost...

AAFCO's definition of...

Meat by-products:
"The non-rendered, clean parts, other than meat, derived from slaughtered mammals. It includes, but is not limited to, lungs, spleen, kidneys, brain, livers, blood, bone, partially defatted low temperature fatty tissue, and stomachs and intestines freed of their contents. It does not include hair, horns, teeth and hoofs. It shall be suitable for use in animal food."

Meat meal:
"The rendered product from mammal tissues, exclusive of blood, hair, hoof, horn, hide trimmings, manure, stomach and rumen contents except in such amounts as may occur unavoidably in good processing practices."

Meat:
"The clean combination of flesh and skin with or without accompanying bone, derived from the parts or whole carcasses."

Ideally you'll want to avoid any and all by-products, they aren't very nutritious and you have no idea what they are or where they are from.

Meat and meat meal are what you want to see in your dogs' food. Meat meal more than meat because meat meal is exclusive of water and will contain a higher meat content. Meat contains a great deal of water and will drop that ingredient further down on the ingredient list when the water content is removed to make it into a dry food. Now when feeding raw then meat is preferred over meat meal because in a raw diet you actually want the water content. In simpler terms, meat meal is like fresh meat except with the water removed making it more concentrated.

In the above I refer to "meat" instead of chicken because using the term meat will apply to any meat source be it chicken, lamb, duck, venison, and so on.

Ok thank you!! That DOES help clear things up. I have always steered away from meals, but will start looking into it now. (I buy solid gold bc the first ingredient is bison). This definitely helps my confusion!

Huskyluv wrote:

Ideally you'll want to avoid any and all by-products, they aren't very nutritious and you have no idea what they are or where they are from.

So, perhaps I'm getting my facts confused, but don't by-products technically contain the liver and other organs which ARE nutritious? At the talk at least (and I know that it's skewed, but still), he said that "chicken" or meat is only the muscle tissue... and that by-product contained a lot of the organs which are healthy. Is that not true? Because I know the liver and other organs ARE nutritious, but are they not contained in by-product? Or is it just that by-product is unreliable so we avoid it in kibble form?

Koda wrote:

So, perhaps I'm getting my facts confused, but don't by-products technically contain the liver and other organs which ARE nutritious?

... and that by-product contained a lot of the organs which are healthy. Is that not true? Because I know the liver and other organs ARE nutritious, but are they not contained in by-product? Or is it just that by-product is unreliable so we avoid it in kibble form?

Yes, by-products CAN contain good things such as the liver and other organs. However the problem is you don't know what parts or how much of the good parts versus less good parts there are when all they list is "by-products". That could be anything. If you notice on good foods they have things listed out such as beef liver or lamb lung in the ingredient list so you know what your dog is getting. By-products is like a grab bag where you have no idea what you're getting.

Koda wrote:

At the talk at least (and I know that it's skewed, but still), he said that "chicken" or meat is only the muscle tissue...

According to AAFCO meat refers to meat, skin, and possibly bone which would obviously be more than just muscle meat.


Basically, the way I see it is that meat by-products are like "mystery meat". It may be chock full of good stuff and it may not. I don't like what I feed my dogs to be a mystery, I like to know exactly what they are eating...good or bad. If I want organ meat in their food I'll look for food that specifically lists organ meat on the label so I know what organ they are getting and also have an idea of how much of it is in the food based on where it falls in the ingredient list.

Thanks, Val! That definitely clarifies things! I was confused when he brought that up because I remembered having discussions on by-product being bad, but when he said it contained good stuff I got very confused. I should have read up before the lecture, but again... I wasn't there to argue with the man either

Yeah, even I have to come home and look things up when I hear different food reps say something that doesn't seem quite right. And you did benefit from the dinner, after all it sparked a wonderful discussion here and I'm sure several people are learning from all this.

Val, everything you post to do with nutrition is so informative and easy to understand, so thank you If I'm ever proven wrong - ill just blame you :p

Oh & Tori, thanks for sparking the convo - Im always trying to make sure what I am feeding the little guy is the best he can get - I guess the only way to go one better than orijen would be to start feeding him raw! But with raw - he never keeps it in his bowl and it gets all over his face and paws and that smell just lingers

Erinc wrote:

Val, everything you post to do with nutrition is so informative and easy to understand, so thank you If I'm ever proven wrong - ill just blame you :p

I'm glad I can be of some help sometimes.

Erinc wrote:

I guess the only way to go one better than orijen would be to start feeding him raw! But with raw - he never keeps it in his bowl and it gets all over his face and paws and that smell just lingers

Technically, there are prepared food options that are better than Orijen but not quite as good as raw. Freeze-dried raw foods like Ziwipeak, Stella & Chewy's, and Nature's Variety's freeze dried patties are a few prime examples. As if there aren't enough food choices out there!

You're SO smart, Val!

Believe it or not, there was once a time before I got my first dog that I thought Pedigree was the best food. It was when I started researching pet nutrition and realized how terribly mistaken I was that I flung myself into years of self education. And it's paid off more than I will probably ever know as it's helped not just me but those I've coached and subsequently those that those people have coached. Just paying it forward.

The nicknames are in place for a reason... just sayin'

Thanks for the great conversation everyone!

I'm in training!

cmanding wrote:

I'm in training!

Id say you helped me plenty in the past so that training is clearly paying off