Quotes J.W. Patton, ‘The Veterinarian and Commercial Dog Foods’, 28 (3) (March 1933), pp. 111-117.
Description:

‘I note with considerable interest an article “The Veterinarian and Commercial Dog Foods” in the March issue of Veterinary Medicine. It is a subject worthy of much consideration. On page 117 of the article, the writer has done me the honour to quote my instructions for clients for feeding their dogs. He disagrees with these instructions or most of them in a very positive manner. His dogmatic statement as to errors in my instructions is rather surprising in view of the fact that only one month earlier, in an article “Oh Doctor, What Shall I Feed My Dog?” in the February issue of Veterinary Medicine he laments the fact that there has been no public support of scientific investigations of the nutritional requirements of man or have been made by commercial organizations and the results not published.

It would appear that there were but little scientific information on the nutritional requirements of the dog available to the writer of these articles in February: that he must have learned a great deal in one month to be able to say with such assurance that statements based upon an observation of “more than 40 years” in veterinary practice are incorrect.

Let us examine these statements which it is alleged are errors, and contrast the basis for them with the lack of support for the statement that they are errors.

1. “All dogs are carnivorous animals.” The writer of the criticism is referred to any standard work on zoology or advised to examine the dog’s teeth. He is also informed that the implication he sees in the statement is actually not there. The statement is complete as it stands.

2. “Dogs do not digest starchy or vegetable foods.” Here again my critic should be reminded that the statement does not say that dogs cannot digest starchy foods and he is reminded that the space available for these instructions was extremely limited. Obviously specific directions are called for and there is no room for explanations and qualifications. These are given, when necessary, verbally. In my “more than 40 years” practice, I have probably treated very nearly if not fully 50,000 different dogs. I estimate that at the least 20 per cent of the dogs I have treated have been suffering from dietetic errors. Many hundreds of these cases have been the milder forms of dietetic deficiency due to feeding cereals, although the animals were, at the same time, receiving some meat. And regularly I have seen these ailments disappear, promptly and completely, upon correcting the diet according to the feeding instructions on my card. In hundreds of acute cases, I have washed out of the dog’s stomach and intestines rice, barley, wheat, oatmeal and other cereals that had remained in the dog’s digestive organs for periods varying from three to 17 days, and yet were washed out so unattacked [sic] by digestive fluids that the identity of the cereals could be recognized readily with the naked eye.

This seems to justify the statement that “dogs do not digest starchy or vegetable food.” It is not a sudden inspiration of my own, but a statement of fact that has stood the test of “more than 40 years” in practice: and I think, considering the size of my practice and standing of my clients, that I may say it has satisfied exacting requirements.

3. “They should be fed raw meats.” My critic does not object to this statement [166-167] on the ground that it is incorrect, but merely that there is no experimental data to confirm it. That being the case, on second thought, he is probably willing to let it stand on the “authority of more than 40 years” in practice. In general (and that is the way it is made) the statement is sound, although much meat that is lightly cooked is quite as digestible by the dog as raw meat. Some of it, its liver, is quite indigestible if fully cooked. Any raw meat, I believe, is preferable to the same meat if overcooked, and that is the condition in which it is apt to be given to the dog.

4. “Preferably beef.” The large majority of my clients feed at least some beef to their dogs. A radical change in diet, as every practitioner knows, will upset even a well dog. When he is ailing is no time to make such a change except to correct the things that are wrong. This is just one of those things that one learns from “more than 40 years,” in fact from a very few years in practice. If a horse has been accustomed to eating timothy hay and he has suddenly changed to a diet of alfafa, although the latter is far better for a horse than the former, still his digestion will be thrown out of order and for days he will be unfit to work from a change even to a better feed.

5. “Crickets and grasshoppers.” I surmise that this is just a little pleasantry on the part of my critic and need not be discussed. However, for the information of my critic, I will say that I have many times had dogs brought to me that were acutely ill after having been taken to the country for a day or two, and I have washed out of them from a single handful to a double handful of grasshoppers and without other treatment, they immediately recovered. Country dogs, I know, eat occasional grasshoppers perhaps every day in season, but when a playful dog is taken from the city to the country for a week-end and proceeds to fill up on these and other insects, food to which he is wholly unaccustomed, he usually makes a call on some veterinarian the next day.

6. The matter of price. Good chuck meat can now be had at 10 to 12c a pound. If we take a 10c, one-pound can of commercial dog food that is 50% meat and 50% cereal, the meat in it (and I contend that is the part in it valuable to the dog) costs 20c a pound. It is more convenient in the can to be sure, but on the basis of price alone, the meat can be purchased from the butcher cheaper than it can in a can.

I do not wish to be understood in any sense as decrying scientific research or belittling its value. It is highly desirable and I wish we had more of it dealing with the problems of the dog; but at the same time, I wish to point out emphatically that not all the research of value is conducted in the laboratory. Just as valuable discoveries can be made and are made at the bedside, in the barn, in the kennel and particularly in hospitals connected with private practice as are made in research laboratories. The veterinarian who conducts a successful practice in a highly competitive field over a period of years, is in a position to make statements regarding his findings in that field with all the assurance, and I believe with just a bit more assurance, than the laboratory man whose observations are limited to a period of weeks.’ (166-167)

 

Relevant passages from Patton:

‘The subject matter for this article has been accumulating for several years. When these studies on commercial dog foods were initiated one of my earliest observations was the strained relationship between the average dog food manufacturer and certain veterinarians. I have observed in conversation with the average manufacturer of dog food that the veterinarian sooner or later came in for consideration. In fact, any such conversation was often tantamount to hearing a discourse on the activities of “some damn fool veterinary” – these are their words, not mine. I have heard tales of ignorance on nutritional matters; of interest in personal gain; in fact, tales of every sort of personal  grievance a manufacturer could possibly have. I have received letters by the score from manufacturers lamenting hte activities of certain veterinarians who, in one way or another, had interfered with the sale of that manufacturer’s type or brand of dog food. These caustic letters were accompanied in many instances by newspaper clippings, magazine articles or circulars written by some veterinarian. The complaints, basically, were the same. Here is a veterinarian, a professional man, one whose business it is to know, going out of his way to disseminate misinformation which often interferes with the legitimate sale of his (the manufacturer’s) product.

This is not news to any dog food manufacturer nor to the average veterinarian. The dog food manufacturer has become calloused and somewhat bitter towards at least certain practitioners. I would like to inject this question here: Does the veterinarian think that he has a license to set himself up as a little tin god, defy basic nutritional information, dispense misinformation and unjustly condemn any man or his product because of his professional (?) standing, and make him like it? The question is preposterous; statements must rest upon fact, not upon the pretences of the individual making them.’ (111)

‘The above [below] is a reproduction of the printing on the back of a well-known veterinarian’s professional card. This veterinarian has practiced more than forty years. Note the errors. The implication is that dogs are exclusively flesh-eating animals which of course, is absurd. To state that they do not digest starchy or vegetable foods is to absolutely disregard the findings of authentic research and the common observations and experiences of everyone. There is no scientific data or practical experience upon which preference for raw meat over cooked meat can be established. The same applies to the preference for beef over other flesh and fish and even grasshoppers and crickets. Naturally, dog food manufacturers object to the dissemination of such misinformation. So do veterinarians. If followed it would make the cost of feeding dogs so high that their numbers would be greatly lessened – a result as objectionable to veterinarians as it is to dog food manufacturers, and opposed to the best interests of dog owners.’ (117)

‘PROPER DIET FOR ANY BREED DOG

ALL DOGS ARE CARNIVOROUS (FLESH EATING) ANIMALS. DOGS DO NOT DIGEST STARCHY OR VEGETABLE FOODS. AS SOON AS WEANED, THEY SHOULD BE FED RAW MEATS, BEEF PREFERABLY, MILK AND EGGS SOFT BOILED OR RAW MAY ALSO BE ALLOWED. – ½ TO ¾ OF AN OUNCE OF MEAT PER POUND OF DOG SHOULD BE FED DAILY. FEED ADULT DOGS TWICE DAILY, PUPPIES OFTENER.’ (117)