Scams

File: 2215208-front-1.jpg (334KB, 2000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

334KB, 2000x2000px

Holy shit they even have them for cats. And people fall for this shit

>>2438478
They're the only brand in my area that sells food meant for 15+ years old cats. My 19 year old has been doing a lot better since I put him on that brand and actually has solid poops again. Works for me.

I have an allercig cat. My vet has his office full of Royal Canin stuff. If he had other brands and leaflet then I would say his opinion is okay but he had only Royal Canin. Now I'm trying new food - Hill's. For my opinion the ingredients look much better and it's made for allergies. A lot of food for allergies have too much protein sources, making hard to find what is bad for cat, and they have chicken which is highly allergic. I could buy food from fish only but it's not from fish farm but from ocean so they're full of metals, radioactive etc.
But last time it was other doctor which said Royal Canin isn't best and said Hill's looks better.
But my parents were like "so we are going to waste Royal Canin? We paid for it". I told them "if you bought a cigarette and start couching and feel bad, you won't throw away cigs because you paid?" And I call them stupid and irresponsible ;p.

op do you suggest that different breeds do not have different needs?

>>2438735
My peepee retard cat had recurring blockages on Hill's C/D and has been incidence free for two years on Royal Canin Urinary SO.

>>2438741
I'm suggesting that all domestic dogs have, more or less, the same digestive tract that works the same way. they all make energy from meat, they can all make energy from certain grains, they all benefit from vitamins. There is no breed specific difference, besides some breed is more prone to allergies. Their tracts may look different, be different sizes, but that doesn't matter if they work the same. Might need smaller kibble for smaller dogs, that's about it. Have you even looked at the ingredients for them? They are sub par, lots of fillers. I think it's a way to scam people to buy a 'breed specific' food for their dog based on 0 biological evidence.

>>2439001
>based on 0 biological evidence.
much like your assessment of royal canin?

>>2440600
the evidence is that they are so similar that they are still all considered the same species

>>2440600
People have looked into it, it does seem to be a bunch of bullshit

>http://truthaboutpetfood.com/breed-specific-nutrition/

Different sized pets require different sized food.

A malamute in Alaska needs more calories than a great Dane in texas.

Their kitten food is the best though. The fosters love it and my adult cats will tear the house apart trying to get it.

>>2440687
Ingredients would not affect how much you are supposed to be giving them, though. Royal Canin is implying that every single breed needs a different formula for food. Obviously they will all have different feeding instructions anyways, you wouldn't feed a great dane one cup of food a day even though that may be fine for a small breed. But that has nothing to do with ingredients.

>>2439001
>>2440757
First of all, you said it yourself in your own post, different breeds of dogs have different allergies.

Second of all, different breeds of dogs have different genetically inherited illnesses. If your dog breed is prone to chronic dry skin, then you want a diet that caters to treating chronic dry skin as much as possible. If your dog breed is prone to bad hips and joint problems, then you are going to want a diet that caters to treating hip and joint problems.

This shit isn't rocket science.

>>2440765
These diets don't even cater to said issues though. Have you even looked at the ingredients? The ingredients also change drastically based on country. Hell the only thing that would help with hip issues, like lack of salt and sugar and grains, are in them anyways. So that's a load of shit

>>2438220
OP is fucking retarded. RC is the only shit my persian can eat and not end up sick or with terrible hairballs.