The-Truth-About-Pet-Foods

Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association,
Volume 199, pages 731-4
Comparison of procedures for
assessing adequacy of dog foods
Thomas L. Huber, PhD; Dorothy P. Laflamme, DVM, PhD; Linda
Medleau, DVM, MS; Karen M. Comer, DVM, MS; Pauline M.
Rakich, DVM, PhD
Summary: “Dog foods with similar claims for nutritional adequacy were
tested by chemical analysis and the American Association of Feed
Control Officials’ growth trial. All foods were similar chemically (the
same percentages of nutrients), however, dogs given one regionally
marketed food had lower growth rate and food efficiency as well
as suboptimal PCV and hemoglobin values during the growth trial.
Pups fed this diet also had clinical signs typical of zinc and copper
deficiencies. We conclude that American Association of Feed Control
Officials’ approved feeding tests provide valid assessment of pet food
quality, and procedures involving only chemical analysis or calculated
values may not.”
Diets used: Various “complete and balanced” premium processed pet
foods.*
Dr. Wysong’s comments: The reason foods showing the same chemical
analysis can create different nutritional results is that chemical analysis
is not surety. As a means of measuring optimal health it is crude.
These were approved “100% complete” pet foods causing nutritional
disease. How can the authors claim that feeding trials prove adequacy
better than NRC analytical values when:
a) foods “proven” by feeding tests have killed thousands (see
above)
b) feeding trials are the basis for establishing invalid, according to
the authors’ conclusion, NRC chemical analytical or calculated
values
The bottom line is that “100% complete” is not that at all, regardless
of the “test” being performed.
PAGE 75