I have heard (don't know for a fact) that years ago Hill's (who makes Science Diet, which vets HEAVILY push and is very expensive) cornered the market on sponsoring veterinary nutrition classes.
This is very important and so I will repeat it as a general caution (and again, ask people to read the info on libel, please, in the Getting Started section!): it's a good idea not to post rumours and hearsay on a public board,especilly if the comments are potentially defamatory. People need to do their own detailed research first please -- make phone contact with reliable sources and confirm them directly (eg here, vets or the companies involved), if comments have any implication for the reputation of a person or company. First off, this is how a lot of misinformation circulates as fact on the web and I always encourage people NEVER to believe what they read on the web (and that includes self-appointed dog food rating websites that refuse to publish who they are and what their own connections are. Anyone can set up a website and say whatever they want -- it is important to verify the reliability of the source of the information). Sometimes posts about companies or individuals can be libellous and defamatory -- leaving individuals and people like me, who run boards, open to prosecution. Many people are not aware that if, for example, Hill's felt this comment was defamatory, and wished to take you to court for defamation,
you would have to either get a lawyer and spend thousands for your defense, OR pay damages that could figure in the tens to hundreds of thousands as an out of court settlement. When you post a comment to a board it is legally the same as publishing in a newspaper because of the audience your comment receives and thus everyone who posts is theoretically as open to being sued as any journalist or newspaper.
In summary: it is fine to have a discussion on the merits of good diet. It is not OK to jump from there to post rumour and hearsay about what companies, professionals or individual people do or do not do without confirming this as FACT.
Even then I may pull comments because I do not wish to go to court to prove someone else's facts are facts. In the case of things I have posted about individuals (eg questionable puppy sellers) this is my own decision based on published fact about these people and I also have legal advice and support for the website and do not take such decisions lightly.
On a separate issue -- I think it is very, very important to separate out what MOST dogs can eat with no problems and what a tiny proportion cannot eat. Grains do not at all bother the vast majority of dogs or cats, and wild canids DO ingest grain rgeularly by eating the stomachs of dead animal as well as eating grass, something most dog owners and cat owners regularly obeserve! Grain is used as a binder for most food and treats so is extremely common and I have seen many people who avoid grains turn around and feed diets with, say, pasta -- which many of us who homecook include for our dogs and causes no problems at all for the vast majority. But many who avoid grains actually then feed other things just as likely to cause reactions in susceptible dogs and cats, believing them to be healthy choices.
If you read he information on allergy on UC Davis's vet school website, you may be surprised that several ingredients people believe are amngst the healthiest for dogs are *just as likely as grain* to set off reactions -- including milk products and eggs! That means YOGURT -- which a lot of people add to their dog's diets daily!! -- and eggs -- which are in a lot of raw diet mixes -- are just as 'bad' as wheat or corn or soy.
See for example:
http://board.cavaliertalk.com/showthread.php?t=17749
where I have an article that notes:
The most common proven allergens in the dog are beef, chicken, milk, eggs, corn, wheat, and soy; in the cat, fish and milk products.
Many raw and holistic diets are based on beef, chicken, eggs, dairy.
I've never had a dog with any issues with corn, wheat, or soy.
I agree that a quality food is important but this can be defined in many ways. Grain to me makes little difference in the food unless the animal is showing clear signs of allergy or intolerance. What I look for is a good quality protein source and no artificial colours or preservatives.
One note on Hill's: it makes sense that many vets carry a range of their products because many carry their prescription diets -- as far as I know only two companies in the US and Europe make prescription diets for animals that must be bought through vets, and these are Hills and Royal Canin (which bought a smaller company that sells these last year). Thus Hill's has a strong existing relationship with many vets. Some vets also sell other foods but as this isn't their primary area of business, and storing food is a pain and requires a big storage area if you start to carry a broad range of products; that is a more likely reason why vets continue to offer pretty much just Hills. I can buy dry food at wholesale ad breeder prices myself, and can say that there wouldn't be much profit per bag for vets for the hassle of carrying it either -- it isn't like most items where retailers double or more the wholesale cost. The margin on food is more like 20%, very tiny. Quite a few Irish vets also offer Burns, a very good food. Burns donates foods to rescue as does Pedigree. All these foods are nutritionally complete though some are not what I would choose to feed. I don't like Hill's myself because I prefer better protein sources but it is certainly a better food than many from a supermarket. Yet I know many cavaliers that have lived to old age on supermarket food (as did our family pyrenees, with never a single health issue in 13 years, an ancient age for a Pyr), and many fed on good foods that have succumbed early to disease. Feeding is probably one of the most contentious areas of dog care. I often think if we put a fraction as much time into improving our own diets we would all be far healthier ourselves! :lol:
