DIS nothing on diets

By Mary Straus

A study in the June issue of the journal published four veterinarians from the school of veterinary medicine at the University of California, Davis, of the American Veterinary Medical Association, titled "evaluation of recipes prepared home maintenance diets for dogs." I don't think that all WDJ readers be surprised to hear that their results were not positive.

There is no shortage of books (and online articles), but many of the recipes that contain incomplete diet, they offer on home-prepared diets for dogs.

The authors have prepared a vested interest in diets made contrast to everyone, even without the help of the veterinary nutritionist. The fact that three of the authors are part of the veterinary school nutrition support services, and one the company that an addition manufactures balance, however, is owner of DVM consulting, Inc., to compensate made diets extensively by veterinary nutritionists with the limited ingredient itself is published in the study.

The study analyzed 200 recipes. Of these 133 of 2 veterinary textbooks and 9 pet care books (of which two also by vets were written), and the remaining 67 recipes came from 23 different sites. All recipes analyzed were written 129 by veterinarians and 71 by Nonvets.

The nine not textbooks in the study examined there was only one that I would recommend, and it's not from a veterinarian. (Full disclosure: my name has other books, but I do not defend it.) The recipes are not mine, but write, I the introductory text, with info on supplements, which are not part of the recipes, and therefore probably not considering when they were analyzed.)

The authors of the study are clear about their goals and expectations, stated: "current recommendations, that home prepared diets are best evaluated and formulated by a veterinary nutritionist." You go on to say: "we believed that most of the recipes would fulfill non essential nutrients, and that written by Nonveterinarians a higher number of defects as recipes of vets would have written recipes. We expect all recipes to require that at least an assumption for the preparation of diet and dietary analysis would be necessary."

They found what they were looking for. The study says, "overall most (190 / 200 [95 %]) recipes at least an important nutrient concentrations, AAFCO or the NRC [National Research Council] led [Association of American feed control officials] guidelines and many (167 [83.5 %]) unfulfilled recipes had several shortcomings.])" Also, found that "most (184 [92 %]) recipes contained vague or incomplete statements that required one or more assumptions for the ingredients, the method of preparation, or supplement type products.)"

WE ARE AGREE... UP TO A POINT
There are many nits that I could choose from with this study, but the bottom line, the authors, have a point.

Most home-prepared dog food recipes (in books and online) are incomplete, many seriously so. Instructions are often so vague that it is impossible to determine a prescription nutrients. For example, recipes "Minced meat" may contain, without specifying the percentage of fat. As many recipes use "Chicken," without known, dark meat or light meat, or if the skin is removed. When grains are used, some recipes do not specify whether the feeding amount before or after the cooking is. These factors strongly influence the caloric and nutritional value of recipes. And of those who say, add additions, many say "add a complete and balanced vitamin-mineral supplement," with no further evidence only. Maybe you tell a certain amount of bone meal, without use, realizing that different brands can vary considerably in how much calcium and phosphorus, which they contain. And some of the better books are usually - at least they say calcium and supplements Add. Many recipes do not include either.

DEFECTIVE
If I analyze home prepared diet recipes at the request of the owner of the dog, I am not worried that NRC guidelines exactly comply with the diet, but it should be in the same ball park. Diet is not an exact science. I was suspicious that the study could easily claim that almost no prescription of each individual policy exactly fulfilled, but if the deficiency is not I think a concern.

However, that was not the case for many recipes. Not only lacked a number of nutrients in many recipes, but "some flaws were so strong that concentrations of nutrients not 50% of the NRK RA [recommended allowance] has reached."

For example, 61 percent of the recipes were low in vitamin D, and 95 percent of those polled less than half of NRC-featured review. Zinc, copper, choline, and EPA/DHA were also more than half of the recipes too short. Of those who were deficient, 55 percent had less than half the RA of zinc, 43 percent had less than half the RA of choline and 39 percent had less than half the RA of vitamin e. In other words, the recipes were lack of these nutrients significantly, not just a little.

That doesn't surprise me, that how it fits, what I found, when I analyzed many homemade diet recipes. Let's look the nutrients were not only short, but seriously deficient, most recipes, which analyzes them and compare them NRC recommendations per 1,000 calories for adult dogs, who will assume the time NRC a dog weighing 35 pounds is required for:

For a comprehensive list of nutrients you continue on page 2!

For more information