From Tommy R. Willard to Watt
Sent Apr 3
All of my life as a professional animal nutritionist, I have wondered why there has not been an interest in our pet food industry to define "optimum nutrition". I know that some think that the Natural, Raw or Organic Diets define "optimum", but they do not - NOT EVEN CLOSE. The industry as a whole has settled for developing formulas and products to meet 'minimum' standards as defined by most nutritional guidelines. This comes, from my time at least, from training in graduate school. Possibly, part of the problem is the belief of the "blind gut theory, which was also popular in my early years. From my experience, I know that this idea does not hold true when defining nutrient requirements for high performance animals, and in fact, not even for the "average" ones.
I have worked with racing sled dogs and horses as well as obligate carnivores, such as black footed and domesticated ferrets, cats and zoo animals. Furthrmore, I have found that very high producing dairy cattle, working canines and other physiologically stressed animals require more than "minimum" nutrient foods. The quality and concentration of these"minimum" diets do not come close to meeting the metabolic nor nutritional needs for high performance animals. Ingredient selection, considering source and quality, are as important as the actual nutrient profile of the diet. By producing foods that meet the lowest common denominator for nutrients, seldom allows even the average animal to reach its genetic potential, much less the high performing or working ones.
I have found that by providing working and high performance animals with a higher quality and concentration of nutrients from select ingredients, not organic or natural per se, that the performance,skin and hair coat, activity level and overall looks of even the average pet or animal, exceeds what most would consider acceptable.
I would like to see if some of my colleagues have the same or different experience.