Pet Food Safety: Canidae is safe - Case closed!

You may or may not recall my comment written back in January titled Pet food safety: Beware of the Internet reporting untrue stories, there’s nothing wrong with Canidae and Wellness. In it I reported of rumors circulating on the Internet and consequently everywhere else about an apparent class action lawsuit going on against Canidae. Since then a few weeks have passed (already?) and I have received many calls and inquiries. While many pet owners called me to share that they never had and still, even after the changes made last year have absolutely no problems with the Canidae food and their pets are just as fine as can be, there were just as many inquiries expressing concerns. Even pet food retailers have contacted me and told me about how much they are suffering from way reduced sales due to these false stories. In my original article I was making a point of the fact that I do not understand people making false claims on Internet blogs and forums thereby hurting many people involved in the business. And I had at that point also found that there simply was and (still to this day) is no such a thing as this apparent class action suit. At one side I hate to bring this up again and would like to put the case to rest, because I believe that as more as is being talked about it as more the false rumors work in the favor of those irresponsibly spreading them. They get the attention they want. At the same time I would like to put the case to rest with a closing, which can be considered a satisfactory closure and will allow us to move on with our lives. Needless to say that I was extremely pleased when I received the following letter in my e-mail yesterday:
“Information on CANIDAE's Reformulated Products

From the Desk of John Gordon and Scott WhippleAt CANIDAE All Natural Pet Foods, we constantly strive to provide the highest quality and safest products to our consumers.In May 2008, we set out to enhance the safety and quality of our Lamb and Rice dry pet foods. We had two overall goals: to improve our formulations using the safest, highest quality ingredients available; and to find a partner who could manufacture our products to exact safety, quality and consistency standards. One month later, in June 2008, we introduced the improved All Life Stages (ALS), Chicken and Rice and Platinum dry pet foods. These products are among the safest, highest quality products available to pet owners today.When we introduced the reformulated products, we took steps to inform consumers, retailers, distributors, and breeders about the change and about our products' advanced safety, quality and consistency. The information was also prominently featured on our website. We have worked closely with pet owners to address the transition, and the vast majority of our customers switched to the new diets without issue. It is also important to note that at no time has our product testing indicated any safety issues with our products.As you may have heard, we have recently been sued over the improvements we made last year to our dry formulations. The lawsuit was filed by a single person who claims that the improvements were actually unsafe cost-cutting measures. Rest assured that these allegations are completely untrue, and we fully expect that this lawsuit will be shown to have absolutely no merit.The truth is that, beginning in May of 2008, we improved our dry formulations to make them better and safer for pets. The new formulation is actually more expensive to produce than our previous version, but our consumers expect us to continue to strive for better, safer, more nutritious products, and that's what our improved formulations deliver.Our reformulated products include higher quality ingredients than before. Coupled with advanced manufacturing processes and rigorous safety testing, CANIDAE foods are among the safest, highest quality products a pet owner can buy.We receive positive feedback from our customers on a daily basis. We are committed to providing high quality products that are thoroughly tested in the plant and by third parties to assure safety and consistency.
As always, we will continue to place the best interest of pets at the heart of every decision we make.
Respectfully,
John Gordon & Scott Whipple
Founders and Owners of CANIDAE Pet Foods

CANIDAE Commitment to Pet Food Safety
CANIDAE All Natural Pet Foods was founded out of love for our own pets and animals. In today's environment, and as pet owners ourselves, we understand consumer concerns when it comes to the safety of the food we choose to feed our beloved family pets.All CANIDAE products are made using only the finest human grade, natural ingredients, grown and raised in the United States and manufactured with the strictest testing and quality control procedures in place. Our production facilities already surpass future AAFCO and FDA standards. By meeting these newer pre-process and post-process monitoring guidelines with state of the art equipment and procedures, our manufacturing facilities enable us to produce a safer, higher quality product with specific procedures in place to assure the health and well being of your pet.To assure the safety of our products, CANIDAE has strict protocols which require that all formulas are tested in-line during our production runs and cleared by a second supervisor every 30 minutes. Additionally, there are 141 ingredient tests and 10 finished product tests that are performed. A sample of each finished goods batch is also sent directly to our research and development center where they are tested again, this time by a third party lab, for known toxins and potential risk hazards including but not limited to:Melamine Cyanuric AcidSalmonellaToxinsChemical ResidualsBacterial ToxinsCANIDAE Pet Foods are safe.
All CANIDAE products meet or exceed AAFCO (Association of American Feed Control Officials) nutrient profiles and are manufactured in USDA and FDA approved facilities. CANIDAE products consistently receive superior Silliker Good Manufacturing and Food Safety Audits scores of 95% or above. CANIDAE's manufacturing capabilities also include the U.S.D.A. Organic Certification.CANIDAE is committed to providing the highest standard of excellence for nutritional benefit, palatability, product safety, and customer satisfaction. We understand the level of trust that you have come to expect from us and our products and it is our responsibility and commitment to deliver on that trust!”

I would say this should do to put the case to rest. It does once again, though I was already convinced back in January, provide me with enough confidence to continue to recommend the Canidae brand to pet owners as a reliable and healthy pet food alternative. There is indeed nothing wrong with Canidae ! “Rumor mill operators”, go and find yourself different and new victims, stay away from pet food, everybody here has been seriously hurt enough many times in the past and worried way beyond acceptable levels. Better yet, find yourself a new hobby. If you hurt yourself, that’s fine with us, as long as you leave everybody else alone.

Selecting a commercial Pet Food Part 2: Pet Food Shopping Check List & Guide lines to feeding your companion animal

Selecting a commercial Pet Food Part 2: Pet Food Shopping Check List & Guide lines to feeding your companion animal
In part 1 of this series we talked about pet food ingredient standards and the problems pet owners are facing when selecting a commercial pet food. Today we will discuss issues you may want to consider when putting together your shopping list before you go shopping for pet food the next time.
The most reputable manufacturers of “super premium” and “natural” foods agree with holistic veterinarians and other experts that the very best diet for your animal companion is one that you make yourself. A homemade diet, carefully balanced nutritionally and using organic foods, is closest to what Mother Nature intended. However, many of us do not have the time or energy to do home cooking, especially for multiple animals or large dogs.
For those of us who rely, partially or entirely, on commercial foods for our animals, API has prepared a checklist to use in selecting a good-quality diet.
Our extensive research has revealed that the pet food industry is extremely secretive. Manufacturers will not disclose very much information about the sources of ingredients, how they are processed, their quality control standards, or, in some cases, even where the food is made. Because the forty odd manufacturers we contacted failed to provide us with accurate information, this API checklist gives you as a consumer the best chance of selecting the best foods among the choices available.
When selecting a commercial food for your animal companion, make sure the label has an “AAFCO guarantee,” preferably one that references “feeding tests” or “feeding protocols” rather than Nutrient Profiles.
Never buy a food containing “by-product meal” or “meat and bone meal.” These rendered products are the most inexpensive sources of animal protein. The contents and quality of these meals can vary tremendously from batch to batch, and are not a reliable source of nutrition for your animal.
In general, avoid foods that rely on by-products as the sole source of animal protein. By-products consist of organs and parts either not desired, or condemned, for human consumption. An occasional can of by-product-based food may be okay, since, in the wild, carnivores do consume the whole prey including the organs, but these foods are not acceptable as a steady diet.
Look for a named meat or meal (“lamb” or “chicken meal,” for example, instead of the generic term “meat”) as the first ingredient.
Avoid generic or store brands. These may be repackaged rejects from the big manufacturers, and generally contain cheaper — and consequently poorer quality — ingredients.
Unless specifically recommended by your veterinarian, avoid “light,” “senior,” “special formula,” or “hairball formula” foods. These foods may contain acidifying agents, excessive fiber, or inadequate fats that can result in skin, coat and other problems.
In general, select brands promoted to be “natural.” While they are not perfect, they may be better than most. Several brands are now preserved with Vitamins C and E instead of chemical preservatives (such as BHA, BHT, ethoxyquin and propyl gallate). While synthetic preservatives may still be present, the amounts will be less.
Check the expiration date to ensure freshness.
When you open a bag of dry food, give it a sniff — if there is any rancid odor at all, return it immediately for an exchange or refund.
Store dry pet food in a sealed non-porous container (a large popcorn tin is ideal) in a cool, dry place. Canned food is best removed from the can and refrigerated in a glass or ceramic container.
Guidelines for Feeding Your Animal Companion
Change brands or flavors of dry food every three to four months to avoid deficiencies or excesses of ingredients which may be problematic for your animal.
When changing dry foods, mix 1/4 of the new food with 3/4 of the old food, and increase the new food a little each day. Some finicky animals may need a more gradual change over two or more weeks. Never let a cat skip more than one or two meals; return to the old food if necessary.
With any new food or supplement, watch for subtle changes in your dog’s skin and coat, appetite, energy level, mood, itchiness, discharges or odors, body weight, and the size and consistency of stool. If negative changes occur, try a different food. If the change persists, consult your veterinarian.
If your animal companion is on a prescription diet, check with your veterinarian periodically (at least every 6 months) to make sure the diet is still correct. Many conditions resolve over time, and a diet that was needed for a younger animal may be inappropriate when she is older.
It is usually preferable to feed one or two meals per day rather than leaving food out all the time. However, some medical conditions require more frequent feeding. Check with your veterinarian about recommendations for your animals.
Feed some canned food, which generally contains more animal protein and less grain than dry foods. Plain dry food does not clean the teeth and is not an essential for either cats or dogs. Cats in particular need at least 50% of their diet in the form of wet food to reduce the workload on the kidneys and keep the urine dilute. Cats with a history of bladder or kidney disease should not be fed any dry food.
Supplement all commercial pet foods with other foods, such as organic meats and steamed, pureed or finely grated vegetables (most cannot be very well digested by carnivores raw). Dogs may be supplemented with tofu and cooked grains; however, cats should receive minimal carbohydrates in the diet. (Plant products tend to raise urine pH and may predispose cats to urinary tract disease.) If you are supplementing more than 15-20% of the diet, however, you will need to consult one of the many available books or websites for information on balancing vitamins, minerals and other nutrients.
Other helpful supplements that are especially important when feeding commercial food include probiotics such as acidophilus, digestive enzymes, and the antioxidant vitamins E (alpha tocopherol) and C (either Ester C, calcium ascorbate, or sodium ascorbate).
Consider making at least some of your animal’s food at home. This lets you control the quality of the ingredients. There are many excellent books, articles, and websites available for more detailed guidelines on ingredients, proportions, and preparations. Even one or two home-made meals a week will be a significant improvement over feeding solely commercial pet foods.
Your veterinarian only sees your companion once a year. Since you are with her every day, it is essential that you monitor her general health and how she is responding to the food she’s eating. Changes in appetite, coat quality, weight, stool, urine, or water consumption may signal a problem with the food, or a more serious medical problem. Report these or any other unusual changes or behaviors to your veterinarian.
Stay tuned for the continuation when in the conclusion of this series we discuss vegetarian foods and shed some light on pet food labeling.
Contributed by and © 2004-2009 - Born Free USA united with Animal Protection Institute - All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
Recommended reading:
Celeste Yarnall. Natural Cat Care. Journey Editions. ISBN 1-8852-0363-2.
Celeste Yarnall. Natural Dog Care. Journey Editions. ISBN 0-7858-1123-0.
Kate Solisti-Mattelon and Patrice Mattelon. The Holistic Animal Handbook: A Guidebook to Nutrition, Health, and Communication. Beyond Words Publishing Co. ISBN 1-5827-0023-0.
Richard H. Pitcairn, D.V.M., and Susan Hubble Pitcairn. Dr. Pitcairn’s Complete Guide to Natural Health for Dogs and Cats. Rodale Press, Inc. ISBN 0-87596-243-2.
Donald R. Strombeck. Home-Prepared Dog & Cat Diets: The Healthful Alternative. Iowa State University Press. ISBN 0-8138-2149-5.

The Hazards of a Health Fetish Part 2 Pottenger’s Cat Study

In part one of this series I introduced you to a man you constantly hear about when the discussion is about raw food. Dr. Francis M. Pottenger, Jr., MD was an original thinker and keen observer whose imagination, integrity and common sense gave him the courage to question official dogma. Dedicated to the cause of preventing chronic illness, he made significant contributions to the understanding of the role of nutrition in maintaining good health.
In his classical experiments in cat feeding, more than 900 cats were studied over 10 years. Dr. Pottenger found that only diets containing raw milk and raw meat produced optimal health: Good bone structure and density, wide palates with plenty of space for teeth, shiny fur, no parasites or disease, reproductive ease and gentleness.
Today I want to take a closer look at his summarized findings in his cat study. Ron Schmid, ND, writes in “Francis M. Pottenger, MD and "The Hazards of a Health Fetish":
"In the first series of experiments, one group of cats was fed a diet of two-thirds raw meat, one-third raw milk, and cod-liver oil. The second group was fed a diet of two-thirds cooked meat, one-third raw milk, and cod-liver oil. Within the ten-year period, approximately nine hundred cats were studied. The amount of data accumulated is large. “
The cats receiving raw meat and raw milk reproduced in homogeneity from one generation to the next. Abortion was uncommon and the mother cats nursed their young in a normal manner. The cats had good resistance to vermin, infections, and parasites. They behaved in a predictable manner. Their organic development was complete and functioned normally.
Schmid goes on: "Cats receiving the cooked-meat scraps reproduced a heterogeneous strain of kittens, each kitten of the litter being different in skeletal pattern. Abortion in these cats was common, running about 25 per cent in the first generation to about 70 per cent in the second generation. Deliveries were in general difficult, many cats dying in labor. Mortality rates of the kittens were high, frequently due to the failure of the mother to lactate. The kittens were often too frail to nurse."
Based on this quote, one might reasonably conclude that the problems observed were due to differences in the nutrition provided by raw versus cooked meats. We see here how a true statement in the "Health Fetish" article ("Pottenger observed many diseases in cats fed raw milk and cooked meat") may be placed in a context designed to lead the reader into making false conclusions.
The next half-truth is even more subtle: "Smaller experiments in the same article showed that a diet of one-third raw meat and two-thirds milk (pasteurized or not) did not provide adequate nutrition for the cats." Further examination of Pottenger's article is required to understand the deception involved.
Again quoting Pottenger: "We did three other series of feeding experiments. In these series we used the following kinds of milk: raw milk, raw metabolized vitamin D milk, pasteurized milk, evaporated milk, and sweetened condensed milk. Roughly, our results corresponded with those of the previous experiments; animals on raw milk and raw meat reproduced a homogenous strain, the usual causes of natural death being old age or injuries from fighting.
"The male cats fed on [raw] metabolized vitamin D milk (from cattle fed irradiated yeast) and raw meat showed osseous disturbances very like those on pasteurized milk. . . . Young males did not live beyond the second month, and adult males died within ten months. . . . The cats fed pasteurized milk as their principal item of diet, and raw meat as a partial diet, showed lessened reproductive efficiency in the females, and some skeletal changes, while the kittens presented deficiencies in development. . . . Later, we made a comparative study of several types of milk on white rats, the general results of which coincided with those found in the cats."
A lot of detail is being presented here. What I am going to take home as being the important “bottom line” is that Pottenger’s comprehensive 10-year investigative study on and with about 900 plus cats was quite comprehensive and due to the large amount of data collected definitely can be considered as being a representative foundation. His experiments dealt with the outcome of various types of feeding, specifically raw or processed food. The end results of his study are definitely pro raw feeding. While cats receiving raw meat and raw milk had basically no reproduction difficulties, had good resistance to vermin, infections, and parasites, behaved in a predictable manner and their organic development was complete and functioned normally, the other group being fed processed food showed quite the opposite: Cats reproduced a heterogeneous strain of kittens, each kitten of the litter being different in skeletal pattern. Abortion in these cats was common, running about 25 per cent in the first generation to about 70 per cent in the second generation. Deliveries were in general difficult, many cats dying in labor. Mortality rates of the kittens were high, frequently due to the failure of the mother to lactate. The kittens were often too frail to nurse."
Maybe now I can say “See, I told you so”. Maybe this time you are going to believe me since Dr. Pottenger is definitely an authority on the subject matter. Stay tuned whan in the concluding part 3 we look at some of the doctor’s word games to learn if we can silence the last doubts about his findings.
Contribution in part by Ron Schmid, ND: “Francis M. Pottenger, MD and "The Hazards of a Health Fetish"” (www.price-pottenger.org Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation Source: Reprint by Animal Food Services, Inc. (AFS))
Image/Photo: Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation
References:
1. Hotchkiss, Thomas. A Personal Memoir of Francis M. Pottenger, Jr., M.D. The Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation, 1975.
2. The Oxford Encyclopedic Dictionary, Oxford, 1991.
3. Potter, M., Kaufmann, A., Blake, P., and Feldman, R. "Unpasteurized Milk - The Hazards of a Health Fetish." The Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 252, No. 15, 2048-2052, October 19, 1984. 4. Pottenger, F.M., Jr. "The Effect of Heat-Processed and Metabolized Vitamin D Milk on the Dentofacial Structures of Experimental Animals." American Journal of Orthodontics and Oral Surgery, Vol. 32, No. 8, 467-485, August, 1946.

Recall Alert Update 02/23/09

Please check the Recall Alert for important updates posted today as the list of peanut butter related recalls of pet products possibly contaminated with salmonella keeps growing.

Raw Feeding: The case for and against raw fish and specifically, what about sardines?

The topic of feeding our pets raw food is subject to great controversy in general. Even more so when it comes to more detailed issues and questions such as feeding raw fish. Is it safe? Not related to the question of pet food safety such as cleanliness in raw food handling, but to the issue of is it good or bad for a dog’s health in general?
There is good news and bad news. Let’s get started with the negative: Feeding certain species of raw fish can result in a thiamin deficiency in a dog, which in turn can lead to loss of appetite, reflexes and nerve control, seizures, and in severe cases, death. The problem is most common if raw fish is fed regularly. Thiamin or Vitamin B1 was one of the first water soluble vitamins to be identified. It is required for the normal function of muscles and nerves because it converts glucose to energy and should be provided to a dog at a minimum of 0.01 mg/lbs dog weight daily. Sources for this vitamin are meat, vegetable, fruits, and milk. Thiamin deficiency is often found in pets that are fed substantial amount of raw fish. Herring, smelt, and catfish contain large amounts of thiaminase. Thiaminase is an thiamin destroying enzyme. Clinical signs for thiamin deficiency are anorexia, ataxia, vomiting, short convulsions, dilation of the pupils and ventroflexion of the neck. Affected animals can die unless treatment with thiamine is administered. In most cases a complete recovery can be expected in treated cases unless severe central nervous system has occurred.
Therefore pets should not be fed raw fish exclusively. Cooking fish prior to feeding will destroy the thiaminase enzyme, i.e. feeding cooked fish poses no problem. Obviously, cooking also reduces the risk of any parasitic infections being passed onto your pet from the raw fish. Equally obvious is the fact that with cooking, i.e. heat processing, we loose the benefits we wanted to gain by feeding raw. More a safety issue requiring observation during feeding is the fact that fish bones can be an obstruction risk to your dog.
But now to the positive side of it:
Variety in the diet is essential for your animal’s health. Every pet has its preferences, and it is important to listen to those too. Whole researching this topic I visited many of the plentiful available raw feeding sites on the Internet and have not come across any that would recommend against feeding raw fish. That is of course exclusive of those species included in the aforementioned list of thiamine deficiency causing herring, smelt and cat fish.
Of course there is an entire army of, let me call them less educated, people out there making their case against feeding sardines. Like I found this real dumb comment on one of the blogs: “Why would you even consider feeding sardines to a dog? I mean, seriously. Think about it. no, do not feed your dog sardines! It is wrong on every level. A good quality dog food (I prefer Purina one) is sufficient. But no sardines! Yuck! Fish breath! If you want to give him fish oil for his coat, then go to the pet store and get dog-approved fish oil capsules. Yuck! What are you thinking???!” Such ignorance, whether it was written by a child or under the influence of something maybe not so healthy for the writer, simply doesn’t need any serious pet owner’s attention and as one blog participant commented, there is really nothing more to say but “Whoever said PurinaOne is a good quality dog food needs some help, I pity their dog.”. Let’s close this case right here, my point is, don’t listen to everything you see out there in cyber space. I have to say though, that I found way more intelligent comments on other blogs, all resulting in a throughout positive attitude and all in agreement that feeding the right raw fish is a positive thing to do.
I went on to other sites and it appears as if everybody is pretty much on the same page. There is nothing wrong with feeding raw fish. Except when it is fish rich in the Vitamin B destroying thiaminase, which appears to be applicable to some 50 species of fresh water and not to salt water fish. Jane Anderson, a breeder of Great Danes, boxers, Portugese Water Dogs and other breeds reports that she feeds the dogs at least one serving a week. The fish on average weigh between 1 and 2 lbs. The types of fish she says depends on whichever is most economical that week and could be blackfish, whiting, red fish, mullet, sardines, mackerel, etc.. She sometimes feeds eel if available and on occasion prawns, shark, and crab. If raw prawn shells are available, these are fed to both the cats and the dogs. She claims that her dogs love the fish heads. While for dogs that haven't experienced fish, the whole experience can be a bit overwhelming, her preference for fish is that it is fresh, whole, with scales and fins intact, and the guts still in. This then provides the dog with the ever so important "whole" food requirements. She comments with regards to canned fish that canned is only an option if whole raw fish is not available. After all, it is processed food and nothing compares with raw whole, fresh fish. And about fish bones: “some people worry about fish bones. As long as the fish is fed raw and preferably in its entire form, bones should not be an issue. I have fed fish to my dogs for over 10 plus years, and I have both top quality show dogs and companion animals. If I didn't think fish was a fabulous food source, I certainly would not feed it. I introduce fish to puppies from 4 weeks of age. I mash whole fish into their dinner and they learn from an early age to appreciate this food type. I recommend introducing fish as early as possible to dogs.” And she closes with a word of warning: “Before you go out and buy fish to feed your dog, remember it does take some dogs some time to get used to it. I'd recommend starting off with a small amount of fish at a time. Cats usually take to fish very easily.”
Some other sites are reporting of salmon poisoning, which has been recorded in cats, which contracted the disease from eating raw salmon or trout. This disease occurs within 2 weeks of the ingestion of infected food and causes the following signs: Depression, fever, lymphadenopathy or swelling of the lymph nodes, oculonasal discharge, haematemesis or vomiting blood, diarrhea, death, about 90% in untreated cases. Some fish are particularly high in oil content, and pansteatitis or yellow fat disease is caused by the intake of too much fat in the absence of adequate antioxidant. Red meat tuna has been reported to be particularly involved as a cause of this in cats. The cause of the disease is accumulation of peroxides, the end product of rancidification of fat, in the cats adipose tissue causing yellow brown discoloration.
And finally I ended up back at one of my old friend’s sites. This time it was Steve Brown, co-author of “See Spot Live Longer”, who comments under “Sardines and Eggs: Natural, Affordable Omega-3 Treats for Your Pet”. Though, surprisingly to me, he does not address the sardine as a raw feed item but in its canned form in oil, he says about the nutritional advantages: “The benefits of including long chain omega-3 fatty acids in the diets of humans, dogs and cats are well documented. Fatty acids play a major role in the functioning of the immune system and the maintenance of all hormonal systems in the body. Protection against heart disease, progressive retinal atrophy and support for brain development in the womb are just a few of the many benefits seen when these critical fats are included in our diets and those of our animals. Puppies must be supplied with sufficient DHA before birth in order for their brains and nervous systems to develop properly. If the diet of the mother is deficient in DHA, her body will supply it for the puppies as best she can, but she may never recover her optimum level, and puppies may not get enough. Puppies that do not eat enough omega-3 fatty acids will never reach their full potential. Omega-3s are critical to the functioning of the immune system and the endocrine system. Dr. John Bauer, a leading veterinary nutritionist, wrote, "Omega-3 fatty acids are critically important in pet neuromuscular development, skin health, and coat quality." (1) Dogs and cats need about 1-1.5 grams of long chain omega-3 fatty acids per 100 pounds of body weight.
The evolutionary diet of dogs and cats contained a much higher percentage of omega-3 fatty acids and fewer saturated fats than today's domesticated plants and animals normally provide, just as the diet of humans is radically different in this respect than that of early man. It's our opinion that long-chain omega-3s are essential, just as they are for humans. Pet food regulators are in the process of establishing minimum requirements for omega-3 fatty acids, but most dry and wet foods to don't contain these nutrients. Fish oil is an excellent source of both DHA and EPA Fish oils can be excellent, but they spoil easily, and quality varies considerably. Distilled oils have no contaminants, but they are highly processed foods. We use whole foods whenever we can to obtain nutrients in as close to their natural state and form as possible. In this case, it's easy! Sardines: Omega-3s in Their Natural State: Sardines are an efficient and economical way to eat omega-3s (EPA, DHA) for all of us. They may be far more popular with cats and dogs than with humans, for whom sardines are often an acquired taste! Sardines are the best choice because of the omega-3s they supply, and they don't have the heavy load of contaminants carried by larger fish either. They are small fish or immature members of a larger species, thus sardines have not had time to pick up heavy metals in their short lives.
You can add a few sardines to provide the fatty acids needed, or you can make a once a week complete meal of them. Bones are included, and the mineral ratios are perfect: Sardines are real food in its whole form. However, this isn't a meal you would want to feed your pet every day! Sardines are one of the most popular treats at our houses. They often don't make it to the bowl. They're shared among the humans and animals as a snack, a perfect high fat, high protein boost to the day. Real food is always better than any biscuit in our dogs' view!
Feeding Considerations: Be aware how much food you are adding to your dog or cat's dish when adding sardines. Reduce your animal's meals accordingly. For small animals, food adds up quickly.”
For those readers interested in the nutrient data for sardines I visited the USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference to find out that there only Atlantic sardines in canned in oil form, drained solids with bone or Pacific sardines in canned in tomato sauce form are available for nutrient data review. Sardines contain the following nutrients: Protein ((amino acids: Tryptophan, threonine, isoleucine, leucine, lysine, methionine, cystine, phenylalanine, tyrosine, valine, arginine, histidine, alanine, aspartic acid, glutamic acid, glycine, proline, serine), water, lipid fatty acids, ash, minerals (calcium, iron, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, sodium, zinc, copper, manganese, selenium), vitamins (Vitamin C, thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, pantothenic acid, Vitamin B6, folate, choline, Vitamin B12, Vitamins A,E,D,K.

You of course have to draw your own conclusion. But I figure that with what I have learned here, sardines, because of their calcium, Omega-3 fatty acids and Vitamin A and D content are a great way to provide yet another type of raw food to my pets therefore helping me in my quest for variety and for some reason I have the feeling the experience of eating a real whole sardine will be a fun food for them as well. That is for feeding whole sardine. One other option available is feeding one of the readily prepared ground raw sardine formulas. For example, Primal makes 2 varieties: One is called the Sardine Grind and contains 100% sardine meat, finely ground bones as calcium source and organs, containing 10% organ meat featuring a 1.4 to 1 calcium to phosphorus ratio consisting of wholesome hormone, antibiotic and steroid free ground meats, meaty bones and organ meats for those pet owners who prefer to add their pets’ favorite fruits, vegetables and necessary supplements. The second one, a Sardine Mix, is made of 80% sardine and 20% produce, calcium source is finely ground sardine bone, the calcium to phosphorus ratio is 1.37 to 1 and has a 10% organ meat content. This mix consists of wholesome ground hormone, antibiotic and steroid free meats, meaty bones, organ meats and finely ground certified organic fruits and vegetables for those pet owners who prefer to tailor their pets’ individual supplemental needs. Main ingredient for both products are whole sardines including bones and innards and the manufacturer says about sardines that they provide superior levels of Amino and Essential Fatty Acids. In addition, finely ground fresh sardine bones allow for optimum levels of calcium. As I pointed out earlier, Primal too does not consider sardines to be a stand alone diet and recommends these products for supplemental feeding only.
References/sources:
(1) Bauer, John. “Fatty acid metabolism in pets.” Feed Management, March 2000.
Steve Brown and Beth Taylor “See Spot Live Longer”
Feeding fish to your cats & dogs by Jane Anderson
Foods to Avoid Feeding Your Dog Veterinary & Aquatic Services Department, Drs. Foster & Smith
NJ Boxers.com Unofficial Boxer Site for All Official Boxer Lovers dedicated to BARF

Pro’s & con’s of information sharing on the Internet: A tool to separate false rumors about pets and pet food from the truth?

Elizabeth the other day sent me a link to a site called Snopes.com. The link supposedly was dealing with the rumor going around that there was a fatal incident of a dog licking the kitchen floor after the dog’s owner had cleaned it with a Swiffer Wet Jet. Elizabeth, because she hears it from me almost every day, knows how furious I get about unsubstantiated rumors on the Internet and that I am sort of on a mission to fight a battle I most likely can’t win. You may or may not recall my reporting on the Swiffer incident Consumer Affairs: Dog dies because of Swiffer Cleaner? Related to the general problem of people spreading rumors and their followers letting them snowball into horrific Internet disaster news I also wrote Case file Pet Food: Pro's and Con's of information sharing on the Internet and as a follow-up FDA and DogsWell Breathies Chicken Treats for Dogs: More pro’s and con’s of information sharing on the Internet. Both comments mainly are related to the consequences following such false info, which is what I am concerned about as it affects not just our but many other businesses and gets too many pet owners worried for no reason. I deal with this every day: Every rumor has to be investigated and the truth has to be found. Because based on these rumors I sure enough get plenty of calls from concerned pet owners wondering what I know about these stories. We all together waste plenty of valuable time, which could be used more effectively with the real objectives like in my case the health of everybody’s pet. Additionally it can hurt the business, because once a product is bad mouthed it sure has some negative side taste attached to it and that reflects in sales. To make sure you don’t think I make this up, I can tell you that I had actually pet food store owners calling me to confirm such impact and wondering if they should take legal action to fight the problem.
Anyway, I clicked on Elizabeth’s link and got upset because the 1st pop-up told me to buy 1 pair of shoes to get another one for free, the second one invited me to find my class mates and the third one showed me the opportunity to find a partner for a life time. Into the recycle bin went the link and for me the case was closed. Until my wife brought it up for discussion during dinner and told me that this Snopes site is actually dealing with the same problem: Clarifying and wiping out unsubstantiated rumors. Off I went for another try. Still pop-ups (so don’t say I didn’t warn you, I will give you the link at the end of this story), but this time I made it onto the site just find out that our biggest competitor is advertising with them. Additionally, a Science Diet ad and another ad of a law firm soliciting people who got bit by a dog just made me somewhat skeptical and so far the site certainly had not earned a lot of credibility with me yet. But then I read the actual comment and I sure ended up changing my mind. Their story begins with the actual rumor, in this case the message about the, let’s call him “Swiffer dog”. Then they analyze the story and are doing actually a pretty good job.
They start out criticizing the rumor itself, the fact that the story is anonymous, i.e. there is no way to do any follow-up and further investigation. I believe that is actually a good indication that something smells funny. I faced a similar problem when I looked further into the rumor of an apparent Canidae class action law suit, initially there was not even a law firm listed though they solicited complaints from pet owners having problems after feeding this brand.
Then the person who comments on the message describes in detail the results of his/her investigation. It turns out that they looked into MSDS sheets, investigated the ingredients of the product in question and looked at manufacturer responses. Overall it looks like someone has actually done his home work and I found the outcome to be interesting and informative, especially since it helped the effort to get the issue off the table.
In conclusion the site mentions that the Animal Poison Control Center (ASPCA) responded to the incident as follows:
“Veterinary toxicologists regard allegations of liver failure and death from household cleaner as unfounded.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE (Urbana, IL) May 6, 2004 -- Veterinary toxicologists at the ASPCA Animal Poison Control Center have reviewed the claim described in a widely distributed email alleging a relationship between the use of Swiffer Wet Jet and liver failure in a dog. The email alleges that exposure to the ingredients in Swiffer Wet Jet caused a dog's death.
The Swiffer Wet Jet system contains water (90-100%), propylene glycol n-propyl ether or propylene glycol n-butyl ether and isopropyl alcohol (1-4%). These ingredients are safe to use around pets when used according to label directions and would not cause liver damage at product concentrations. Propylene glycol n-butyl/propyl ether differs significantly from ethylene glycol, the potentially toxic ingredient present in most antifreeze products. Ethylene glycol is frequently implicated in causing renal failure in dogs following antifreeze ingestion. Propylene glycol n-propyl ether and propylene glycol n-butyl ether are very safe ingredients at levels used in cleaning products and do not cause kidney or liver failure.
The ASPCA will continue to monitor this situation and will post any additional information as it becomes available. Please call 1-888-426-4435 if you have any questions or have a pet that you suspect is experiencing problems, or visit us at http://www.apcc.aspca.org.”
Well, I checked the ASPCA site for any follow-up comments, there is nothing there. Note also that the press release dates back to May 2004, almost 5 years ago. Yet the issue comes up over and over again. I had the other day a customer calling me being very concerned about something bad she read about the Innova food I had recommended for her puppy, that incident dated back two years ago and though totally unsubstantiated, still comes up and causes trouble.
So here we go, another case of a false rumor distributed over the Internet comes to a close. The result is clear: A lot of excitement about absolutely nothing. The sad part is that actually and unfortunately it doesn’t come to a close, because once it’s out there in cyber space it is there to stay as we see from the dates in this case. It will come up over and over again.
Coming back to Snopes, the person commenting on the case in closing is wondering why people do things like spreading false rumors. Like in the case of the Swiffer dog, was it emotions in reaction to the fatal outcome? Finding excuses to distract from other facts, which may actually really have caused the fatality but are directly attributable to the pet owner’s wrong doing? Or is it just people holding for whatever reason a grudge against certain companies? Well, I don’t have the answer to this question either. And rather than wondering why this constantly happens I wish we could come up with a way to stop this ….. One idea to help the problem I have though. I think it is a good idea to not always share everything what comes across our desktop. There is a lot of people out there who immediately when they see or hear something on the Internet feel they have the obligation to share with the rest of the world. I’d say first look, then think, then look deeper, think again and then share. Like it was definitely the case with the Swiffer dog, the problem often turns from a snowball into an avalanche because people thought it was necessary to share the news. And nobody really cared about the facts behind it.
Snopes may be helpful in finding out the truth, but at the end of the day I would say they don’t want rumors to disappear either since they make a living with them. Plus it will much depend on how fast they can react to cases, I cannot see them being much faster than we would be by ourselves. I checked their site, they have quite a collection of that kind of material on their site in any area of public interest and also plenty of pet related stuff. Maybe in future I take a look there first and maybe their work can save me some time in what I will do anyway: My own investigation to make sure I know what I’m talking about.
Here’s the link I promised, turn on your pop-up blocker and snope away: Swiffer Wet Jet.

Dog Food: FDA tags on ingredients? Growers don’t have separate fields for dogs and people.

One of the tasks I like the most about my job at the store is talking to pet food manufacturers. Especially when I can talk to the owners. See, since the companies I trust when it comes to pet food are usually small to at the best medium sized businesses, they give you their honest, untainted opinion about the issues on hand. And because most of them are also the founders of their companies, they typically are very passionate about their product and you find out the real reason why they got involved in this business. Typically they are pet owners themselves and have had their fair share of bad experiences with commercially produced and mass marketed pet food. While all of them are in business to make money, their main objective, unlike presidents and CEO’s of companies traded on Wallstreet, is still their product and less market shares and profits.
Recently I had a chance to once again catch up with Mark Hayward, founder and owner of Timberwolf Organics. We discussed the subject of myths and misconceptions of dog foods. I (PFE) asked: “Mark, many pet food manufacturers make certain claims about their pet food. These include phrases such as human grade, antibiotic and hormone free and meat based, to name just a couple of them. What’s your take on this? Are these just true facts or just misleading marketing claims, or should I better say, false statements? I knew I am going to get him going again on this subject. Here is what he (MH) told me:
“We all know about these manufacturer claims about pet food. It got to a point where a pet owner does not know what to believe anymore. Let me say this up front: Many are really half true and that could be construed as being misleading.
It is a fact that federal labeling law precludes pet food manufacturers from including "misleading" statements on their bag. For example: Some say that they use only antibiotic and hormone free chicken, lamb etc. That is not exactly true. It is against federal law for chicken to be labeled as hormone free. That's because growers may not use hormones on chickens. To label your chicken as hormone free would imply that your chickens are the only ones that are hormone free when in fact they all are! What happens with other animals used for human consumption is that they must test free of hormones, antibiotics or pesticides before slaughter. It usually takes three to five days to clear their systems of any chemicals. Those animals that are earmarked for slaughter are kept free of chemicals for several days and then butchered. When I think of "antibiotic and hormone free" I think of an animal that has been raised chemical free, not just for a few days. A play on words perhaps but it borderlines on fraud. What the consumer needs to do is ask if it is Certified Organic, "pasture grazed only" or imported from a country that restricts the use of chemicals if that is what he wants. Of course he will pay a lot more.
Another one is: "Our meat comes from USDA inspected plants".
All slaughter houses that process for human consumption must be USDA inspected.
One natural dog food company claims: "Digest is the full guts including the manure".
Not true. It is made from whatever it is named for (chicken digest, liver digest etc.) and is digested by enzymatic activity and then dried. We do not use digest in our formulas but there is nothing wrong with it.
A natural food supplement maker that lists molasses as the second ingredient claims: "We use molasses because it is a nutrient not a sugar.
Molasses contains many nutrients and is technically not a sugar but it contains 60% sugars by weight and 20% water. Maybe it is not thought of as a sugar in Fufu Land but most of the world uses it as a sweetener. Dogs love sugar and it’s added mostly for palatability. If sugar must be used to help preserve a product, then molasses would of course be better than sucrose or dextrose, but only if it’s necessary.
The same supplement maker also claims: "Our product contains natural enzymes and probiotics that are naturally present in food".
Even if that were true, because you are only adding 1 teaspoon of supplement, it would only contain enough enzymes to assist in digesting that one teaspoon. If you ask them what the enzyme levels are they will not tell you. That is because they are so low they cannot be measured. If you want to replace the enzymes lost in the food due to processing you must add enough to assist in digesting the full amount of food you are feeding. However, this is expensive to do.
My favorite is "Made with only 100% human grade ingredients."
One quick way to determine if this is not true, other than cost, is if the food contains any "meals". Guess what? There is no such thing as human grade chicken meal or lamb meal. I don’t know of any restaurant where you can say, "Waiter, may I have some beef meal to go with my baked potato?" Or "May I have my chicken meal on a bun please?" The meat starts out as human grade because remember it’s from an inspected plant, but does not receive an inspection sticker because it’s not intended for human consumption so cannot be labeled as human grade. There are different grades (classifications) of meals however and are graded or classified by protein content, ash content and price. Some are of very high quality. For example, our lamb meal is imported from New Zealand and is a special low ash, only 8% and high protein, 70% lamb meal that we have classified and most of the bone is filtered out. All lamb, chicken, beef meals contain a lot of bone because it’s made from what is left over from cutting away steaks or boneless chicken breast for example. It’s the most expensive and probably the best lamb meal in the country as it’s made from the organs and contains a lot of blood, which gives it a very complete amino acid profile. Most lamb meals are high in ash and are low (50%) in protein. We searched six different suppliers before finding the current suppliers for chicken meal and for lamb meal. Is it human grade? Come on, man, I'm listening?”
PFE: “No, you just said that there is no such thing as a human grade meal. Already then. But how about foods that list meat?"
MH: “Good question, pretty clever! Let me tell you: First, only a handful of mills have the equipment to add meat. Some companies may list meat but actually use meal. Of those that actually can add meat it’s not quite what you would expect. It’s usually mechanically deboned and mixed with water to make a slurry that is pumped into the extruder. The most you can use in a formula is limited to about 30% but can be as little as 3%. What starts out as chicken with 78% moisture is now perhaps 90% moisture cooked down to 10%. That 30% you started out with is now about 3.3% or less dry matter. To get the protein up you must now add corn gluten meal or another protein source. Corn gluten meal is a good protein source, it’s high in the sulfur containing amino acids, but a lot of people, myself included prefer an animal based protein which means you must add animal meals which means it is not 100% human grade.”
PFE: "What about the other ingredients?"
MH: “The brown rice I get in looks just like the brown rice on your supermarket shelf, it’s clean and looks indistinguishable. The only difference is that it doesn’t have a FDA tag on it. Our oats are of exceptional quality. Higher in linoleic and alpha linoleic acid than locally grown oats because of the cold, probably grown organically as well and they’re the same oats that are supplied to food processors. Growers don’t have separate fields for dogs and people. The point I’m trying to make is that I have trouble believing that a company would pay five times as much for the same ingredient just to get that FDA sticker. Let me give you an example: I buy a chicken fat from a company that supplies soup manufacturers etc. If I buy a tanker of fat it doesn’t have to have an FDA tag and my price is $.11 per pound. If I buy less it must have an FDA tag and the price goes to $.58 per pound. Same product. That chicken fat is apparently human grade but I cannot call it that. A lot of my ingredients are human grade, some even certified organic but at the end of the day I cannot make the claim 100% human grade because it ‘s not, but neither can any other company unless maybe they are charging $2 to $5 per pound.
Another example is that if a truck load, that’s 40,000 lbs of frozen whole broilers were purchased for half a buck per pound, and if a custom chicken meal were produced, it would be exorbitant in cost. Chicken meal is made from chicken meat, usually mechanically de boned, that is put into a vat and is brought to the proper temperature and pH and then enzymes are added. The meat is broken down into a liquid and either spray dried or roller dried into a fine powder. Now go back to the truck load of chickens at half a buck per pound. It takes several pounds of chickens to make one pound of chicken meal. So let us say 7 pounds times .50 equals $3.50 plus the rendering charge. Let’s assume $4.00 per pound okay? I am using about 50% chicken meal so $4.00/2 is $2.00+ per pound of dog food my cost. Just for ingredients. Not including herbs, oils, probiotics etc. Does any of this make sense to you?
One natural dog food company uses poultry meal but lists on their ingredient label chicken meal, turkey meal. AAFCO allows listing animal meals by particular animal if you know what animal was used in making it. If the meal is made from more than one animal or a composite you may list all the animals used in making it. What they mean however is "chicken/turkey" meal for poultry or if you know the exact percentages than you may list them where they should appear in order of weight on the label but not chicken meal, turkey meal as the first two ingredients. Chicken meal and turkey meal gives the impression that the food is meat based when in fact it is not.
One question you can ask a dog food company to determine if it’s meat based or grain based is "what percentage of your formula is animal meals?" or "what’s the percentage of protein that is animal based?" or "how many pounds of animal meals are used per ton of your formula?" They probably will not tell you or say, "That is proprietary." We use 48 to 52% chicken, lamb or fish meals by weight or 900 to 1100 pounds per ton! Put another way, 91% of our protein is animal based. That is meal not meat. If someone tells you they use 1000 pounds of meat per ton that is equal to only 200 pounds of chicken meal or ten percent. Another way is to look at the calcium content. Chicken, lamb and meat meals are usually 4 to 5% calcium, special graded low ash meals with lower levels of calcium can be used but are up to 3 times as expensive, so if a company claims to be using 50% animal meals by weight and their calcium is only 1.2% then you know something somewhere does not add up. Or maybe they are using new math. The only reason we disclose this is that it’s very expensive and not many other companies will do this and those that do will have to raise their prices. Of course someone may tell you they use a high amount but if so the kibble should be very dark. Our Lamb, Barley and Apples kibble is almost black.
Now that you have listened to me, at least you'll know what is in the food. If I decide to put in goat's eyes, tongue of wren and pickled fish pan fried in roasted sesame oil you'll know it. None of my formulas contain 4D animals, simple or white carbohydrates, dextrose or other sugars for palatability enhancement, soy, BHT, BHA or Ethoxyquin. I personally have sold and used a lot of specialty and super premium foods and have seen more positive results and heard more positive feedback with this food than any other. I invite you to go to my testimonials page and read some of the testimonials.”
PFE: “Thank you Mark, this was quite interesting. As always, when talking to you, I have learned a lot”
MH: “I hope I have answered some of your questions, but don't take my word. Call the FDA or AAFCO or some feed ingredient suppliers and see what they say.”
If you want to find out more about Mark’s line of pet food go to Timberwolf Organics.