#or anything vaguely related to a terrier

[squidaped-oyt]

Getting very very tired of the 'I want a dog' conversation coming up with my mum every time she sees a cute dog on TV for 5 seconds

[kitsuleif]

Okay, but what would happen if Nintendo wins? We know it is a patent lawsuit, not a copyright one, so it's not about creature designs. I'll come back to the linked article in a second. Most likely, PocketPair would have to pay a fine and change the mechanics they infringed the patents of. Or they'd have to pay a fee to keep using these mechanics. And no, we don't know exactly which patents they might have infringed upon. We can only speculate, but from all the patents that Nintendo has filed, the catching mechanic from Arceus Legends would seem like the most likely candidate. Patenting mechanics as vague as "I throw a ball and a creature gets caught in it and can be resummoned at a later time" is a rather scummy move, though. Just like it was scummy from WB to patent the Nemesis-mechanic of Shadows of Mordor, or from Bandai Namco to patent loading screen minigames. And other games use a similar catching mechanic to Pokémon, but instead of balls, they use discs, or cubes or whatever. So PocketPair could just change it to... I don't know... nets to catch the Pals instead of spheres as a result of the lawsuit (if that's really why Nintendo is after them). So the Pal designs would stay the same.

Remember Nintendo's big announcement in January when the whole topic came up?

"We intend to investigate and take appropriate measures to address any acts that infringe on intellectual property rights related to the Pokémon." That would be a copyright lawsuit. That they didn't go for copyright, but for patent infringement now, 8 months later, is a good indicator that their lawyers couldn't find anything. No stolen assets, no stolen designs. Or they found so little that they advised Nintendo not to go that route because it wouldn't stand a chance in court. But Nintendo is like that creepy neighbor's Jack Russell Terrier. If they have their eyes locked on a target, they want blood! And they'll bite until it's dead. And if they paid those lawyers that much money, they want a lawsuit to happen. But of course, they want the best chance at winning that they can get. How do they do that? They file new patents this year that got approved in August, and now, a month later, we got the lawsuit coming? That's either a big coincidence (doubt it), or those patents are the ones that they are going for. Do they have the right to do this? I mean, sure... but at this point, they are looking like manchild Elon Musk throwing a tantrum about whatever new hot Elon Musk drama just dropped, just because there is a new game that looks a bit similar to theirs and that is scary successful, and now even has a deal with Aniplex and Sony Music Entertainment Japan for merchandising and maybe even an animated show in the future. Is Palworld flying a little too close to the sun with their designs? Maybe. But only a handful of Pokémon are actually trademarked, and none of the Pals look similar enough to those, so they are in the clear there. Which brings me back to the article (hey, I promised I'd come back to that): It sucks. Like, outright. "Therefore, Palworld's biggest fear in this lawsuit could be Nintendo pointing out the game's alleged copies of Pokémon's creature designs."

No. That would be a different lawsuit which they haven't filed (yet). "While some of Palworld's designs are original, others could be argued as copies of their inspiration, which would make stopping Nintendo's lawsuit incredibly difficult."

Again, completely different lawsuit. And then the part about the "former employee". Only having a twitter-Link as a source, with a self-proclaimed former employee speaking ill about the company... what does this remind me of... Oh, I know! The guy who faked evidence that Palworld was using stolen models, because he hated how successful it was and how it glorified animal abuse.

Not saying it can't be true, but I stopped trusting random internet users with no sources for their claims. At least when it's about this topic.

I know, the debate has been pretty heated from the very beginning. But maybe, we shouldn't jump to conclusions based on fake evidence, out-of-context quotes from the CEO (you know, the whole "AI created these" that was also debunked) and general rage? I love Pokémon. Heck, I wouldn't be a writer for a small Pokémon fan website if I didn't. I just hate what happened to the more recent games. A soulless, buggy mess that felt like it wasn't crafted with any kind of passion. Yes, I'm talking about Scarlet/Violet, but also about Sword/Shield. SwoSh was actually the last mainline Pokémon I've played. And then came Palworld. It showed, how beautifully crafted a monster catching game could be, if done correctly and/or differently. And I loved playing it in the early days of it's Early Access release, which was still less buggy than the fully-priced titles of Game Freak's triennial slop.

And I do believe, those two franchises can coexist and even benefit from each other. Palworld can be the more mature approach that apparently a lot of older Pokémon fans wished for (hence the massive success), while Pokémon could go back to games that are crafted with the passion of old games, which somehow got lost when they made the jump to 3D (the glaring problems started with the 3DS era, but got all more visible on the Switch). Either way, however the lawsuit ends, it will have a big impact on the gaming industry as a whole. If Nintendo wins, they could easily see this as a way to patent-troll and bully more Indie devs by patenting the fringiest of fringe mechanics and using lawsuits against them. But if PocketPair wins, and the court deems these newly filed patents invalid, it could be a precedence case of a freeing strike for the gaming industry as a whole. The Nemesis-mechanic could fall next. Patents like these are holding the industry back, because they prevent usage and thus further evolution of these mechanics. And if it needs a "Pokémon clone" to shatter these patent laws, I really hope that Nintendo will lose this one. If not... well, remember COLOPL? They got sued by Nintendo as well for patent infringement. In the end, they changed the mechanics in the affected game, paid a fine and that was it. They are still around. So Palworld as a whole probably won't just vanish if they lose the lawsuit.

Pokémon didn't invent the monster catching genre. Why should they be the one who are allowed to patent it?

Oh this continues to be fucking hilarious…

[no-reply95]

John’s negative views of his own songs - how seriously can we take him?

After the break-up, John, more than the other Beatles, had a tendency to severely dismiss songs in the catalogue, especially songs that he'd primarily written. I've collated some of John's songs criticised, which I've listed below:

It’s Only Love

And Your Bird Can Sing

Glass Onion

Dig A Pony

Some of John's comments on the above songs can be found below:

It's Only Love

"IT'S ONLY LOVE: Me. That's one song I really hate of mine. Terrible lyric.

Hit Parader Interview, 1972

‘It’s Only Love’ is mine. I always thought it was a lousy song. The lyrics were abysmal. I always hated that song.

All We Are Saying, David Sheff, 1982

And Your Bird Can Sing

AND YOUR BIRD CAN SING: Me. Another horror

Hit Parader Interview, 1972

Another of my throwaways... fancy paper around an empty box

All We Are Saying, David Sheff, 1982

Glass Onion

That’s me, just doing a throwaway song, à la ‘Walrus’, à la everything I’ve ever written. I threw the line in – ‘the Walrus was Paul’ – just to confuse everybody a bit more. And I thought Walrus has now become me, meaning ‘I am the one.’ Only it didn’t mean that in this song. It could have been ‘the fox terrier is Paul,’ you know. I mean, it’s just a bit of poetry. It was just thrown in like that.

All We Are Saying, David Sheff, 1982

Dig A Pony

I was just having fun with words. It was literally a nonsense song. You just take words and you stick them together, and you see if they have any meaning. Some of them do and some of them don’t.

Hit Parader Interview, 1972

The fascinating thing about John's reaction to the four songs above is how similar they are. John's issues with the songs seem to be because he perceives them as "throwaway" with particularly "abysmal" lyrics, perhaps the melodies of the songs were okay but there seems to be an implication that anything good musically with these songs was just "fancy paper around a paper box", these songs were all pretty meaningless to John - or so he wants us to believe.

A lot of John's comments on the Beatles song catalogue come from his 1980 interviews with David Sheff. John also made the following comment to Sheff regarding how he approaches lyrics in his songs:

"I always had an easier time with lyrics, though Paul is quite a capable lyricist who doesn't think he is. So he doesn't go for it. Rather than face the problem, he would avoid it. 'Hey Jude' is a damn good set of lyrics. I made no contribution to the lyrics there. And a couple of lines he has come up with show indications of a good lyricist. But he just hasn't taken it anywhere. Still, in the early days, we didn't care about lyrics as long as the song had some vague theme... she loves you, he loves him, they all love each other. It was the hook, line and sound we were going for. That's still my attitude, but I can't leave lyrics alone. I have to make them make sense apart from the songs."

All We Are Saying, David Sheff, 1982

In the above quote John is explaining his facility with lyrics in comparison to Paul "I always had an easier time with lyrics" and explains that although in their early career they didn't "care about lyrics", for him, they had to "make sense apart from the songs". So John's comments about his views on his own lyricism is in direct contrast to his dismissal of a lot of songs as "nonsense".

John, of course, died a few weeks after his interview with David Sheff so we're never going to get an elaboration from him in terms of what his motivation was for writing these songs and why he rejected them so harshly after the break up. I do think there's a dissonance between the view of John as a gifted lyricist and the stacks of songs that he went out of his way to get people to believe were nonsense throwaway songs. I definitely think John's dismissal of these songs was to mask something (I think primarily vulnerability, especially in relation to you know who) so I think it's long past time that a lot of the mainstream fandom stops taking John at his word at all times and starts to challenge his view on these "nonsense" songs, John's not around to tell us what the meaning behind these songs is but that doesn't stop anyone from speculating and getting to the core of why John wrote these songs, what their potential meaning was and why, particularly after the break-up, he did his best to disassociate himself from them.

[glassesmcfancyhair]

I've heard it said that pit-bulls are especially prone to respiratory problems. Is this true?

This is probably a question better answered by a vet, but here goes!

The biggest problem I personally have run across with pitbulls is allergies and skin issues (that are very often allergy-related!). So, yes and no?

I don’t believe they’re any more prone to respiratory problems than any other terrier breed, but they DO get allergies with surprising frequency. There are some decent drugs out there to control dog allergies these days (but, like most pet meds, it’s pricey!), and where you live matters.

If you’re thinking about getting a pitbull, I highly recommend joining some local dog groups on social media and asking if anyone 1) has a bully breed in the area and 2) if their pupper has any issues with allergies.

I would also look up what (if any) BSL (breed specific legislation) is relevant to you. For example, until recently, you couldn’t have a pitbull within the city limits of Denver, CO, and what constituted a “pitbull” was to be determined by the state and city. This doesn’t have anything to do with your ask, but it’s something I caution all pitbull owners and potential owners about because a lot of BSL has super vague, feelings-not-fact-based language that makes it really difficult to get a dog back once it’s been seized, and makes it really easy for local governments to seize them in the first place.

Furthermore, because of their rep, never never NEVER put a sign anywhere on your property that says “Beware of Dog.” Because that is legal proof that you ‘knew’ your dog was dangerous.

Thanks for the ask!

For your time, please accept these pictures of Sophie, also known as Madam Biscuit.

[mysharona1987]

On 21 August 2017, the Great American Eclipse caused a diagonal swathe of darkness to fall across the United States from Charleston, South Carolina on the East Coast to Lincoln City, Oregon on the West. In Manhattan, which was several hundred miles outside the path of totality, a gentle gloom fell over the city. Yet still office workers emptied out onto the pavements, wearing special paper glasses if they had been organised; holding up their phones and blinking nervously if they hadn’t. Despite promises that it was to be lit up for the occasion, there was no discernible twinkle from the Empire State Building; on Fifth Avenue, the darkened glass façade of Trump Tower grew a little dimmer. In Central Park Zoo, where children and tourists brandished pinhole cameras made from cereal boxes, Betty, a grizzly bear, seized the opportunity to take an unscrutinised dip. Across the East River in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, Oscar Isaac, a 38-year-old Guatemalan-American actor and one of the profession’s most talented, dynamic and versatile recent prospects, was, like Betty, feeling too much in the sun. It was his day off from playing Hamlet in an acclaimed production at the Public Theater in Manhattan and he was at home on vocal rest. He kept a vague eye on the sky from the balcony of the one-bedroom apartment he shares — until their imminent move to a leafier part of Brooklyn — with his wife, the Danish documentary film-maker Elvira Lind, their Boston Terrier French Bulldog-cross Moby (also called a “Frenchton”, though not by him), and more recently, and to Moby’s initial consternation, their four-month-old son, Eugene.

Esquire.

Not that I’m saying this opening paragraph of this Esquire Magazine interview with Oscar Isaac is super pretentious and hilariously hipster or anything...but, OK, yes, it’s super pretentious and hilariously hipster.

“The darkened glass facade of Trump Tower grew a little dimmer.” Yes, we’ve guessed by now: Trump is not good.

Man, the only thing I could relate to was the dog and the baby having a rivalry.  

[theguilteaparty]

I love your family stories, do you have any to do with ghosts?

Ghosts? I don’t know if I have any family stories that necessarily have to do with ghosts but I have a couple of ghost related stories... My mom and my brothers and I moved into this little house for about a year when I was a freshman in highschool and honestly I didn’t believe in ghosts or hauntings but I tell you what I do now because that house man. That damn house. First off it had a series of hidden doors in the backs of closets and stuff that yes, I get that they’re fairly standard in old homes but these ones had serious locks on them and all that because it turns out that it all connected and then to a door to the outside. So you could conceivably come and go in the house through these little murder passageways in the walls. Does this constitute a haunting? No. The house was all levels of offputting, the pitch of the floor would gradually change in rooms so walking through the house always felt like a surreal experience. It changed just enough for you to notice it, but not enough for you to realize it. You knew something was wrong but not what. Took rolling marbles around to figure that out. The stairs were all ridiculously steep, so going up and down the stairs could give you vertigo.Now things get creepy, okay? So one of my friends has OCD and one of those things he does is he counts stairs whenever he goes up and down them. Now one day it was really bad and he’s losing it because- and he insisted this- he went up the stairs and the number of stairs was different. So he kept going up and down and up and down because the number had changed.On top of that I never got a good night’s sleep in that house. Sudden chills, feelings of hands on my feet in the night and notably nights filled with nightmares of a figure looming over my bed with eyes that were beads of yellow light. Not touching me- just leaning over me and staring. I would wake up, look around the room and nothing was there so I’d go back to sleep. Once I decided that if i had the dream again I’d go downstairs to see my mom and sleep in her room (I know I was in highschool but I was seriously freaking tf out) and then what do you know it, I fall asleep and this time I dreamt about going downstairs to my mom’s room and that dark figure pushing me down the stairs and I break my neck. Which, you know, message fucking received. After that point the dreams became increasingly violent (No more simply creepy looming), the more I wanted them to stop the more frequently I would have dreams of dying with this dark figure present and it always involved falling in some way. Down the stairs, through a window, one time my bed just fell through the floor. Generally I’m of the opinion that once I had decided I was going to leave, whatever was there started acting out and tried to keep me there by basically throwing a tantrum. Still, it was rude as anything for it to do that sort of thing.Also another weird thing is that everyone who was living in that house has a vague memory of having a jack russell terrier at that time but then everyone we’ve ever asked about it will tell us that of course we didn’t have a dog, dogs weren’t even allowed at the house. But nonetheless we all just have this idea in our heads of having a dog, and even of the immense hassle of having a yard full of dog poop. It’s also notable that we have had a border collie and we’ve had an Australian shepherd but we have never had a jack russell terrier- but we all agree that this dog we remember at this house was a jack russell terrier (and the only person we knew who ever had one got one some six years after we stopped living in that house so it wasn’t even a matter of us misremembering dog sitting).So mundanely enough, steep stairs, uneven floors, and murder passages but then there’s the the number of stairs shifting, the dark specter, dreams of falling, and the the dog that never was. That house was honestly haunted as shit. 

[agentdagonet]

Hi so I was in that test audience and here was my reasoning for killing off Merlin: bringing him back made the stakes too low. I no longer worry about any character dying because I just assume they will somehow survive. It removes the emotional component of big climactic character deaths, especially because Merlin's was such a statement on self sacrifice and paying it forward for Eggsy's dad. I'm sorry everyone is mad!!! I'm sad too!!!! (Also I did have an issue with the vagina close up, so)

Okay, but here’s two things that make me feel like the stakes were already too low:

1- Everyone else was already dead or missing for some fucking reason (Eggsy’s primary motivation in the first film- his family, just doesn’t exist but for an afterthought at the end and even then his sister wasn’t at his wedding???). Merlin’s death was sad and heartbreaking only because we finally got to know him as a character, and because he was honestly all that Harry had left of his past, and all Eggsy had left of the Kingsman he knew. But it wasn’t all that shocking of a choice; it didn’t feel like it upped the stakes at all, it just made the Galahads angry. I feel like by making it incredibly clear that no one else of the Kingsman agents survived, they took away any sort of gravitas of another Kingsman death.It’s sad, but it did NOTHING to the plot, besides make the Galahads angry which was unnecessary as they would have done their best either way. Eggsy would have killed Charlie the same way either way. Harry would have fought just the same. Because they’re agents and they knew what was at stake for the world. They already had nothing to lose personally in the displays of the narrative.

If they’d wanted character deaths to feel final and emotional they shouldn’t have begun the tale with as much death as they did- every potential death after that felt weak, to me, in comparison. It felt forced, like they were trying to MAKE you feel like you worried for the characters by giving you minimal-yet-positive interactions with them. The most shocking death on screen, for me, was JB- because after all that effort put through keeping him alive in the first one to kill him off in the first bit of the film was out of left field.

2- This is a SPY MOVIE. Not only is it a spy movie, but this is Kingsman. Kingsman where Vaughn has already said that nobody really dies in Kingsman. Where Harry was somehow saved from a through-and-through headshot via mysterious gel and nanobots.And a spy movie, where no one is ever truly dead unless you see the body- or what remains of it. It’s one of the defining characteristics of the ridiculous genre: superfluous gadgets, some fancy fashion statements, bad one-liners/puns, and the ability to avoid death with the most thinly fabricated reasonings despite everything pointing otherwise. 

It’s exactly what we as a fandom pointed out when Harry died; it’s how it worked in Dark Knight Rises, Bond’s You Only Live Twice (and several others), Sherlock’s Reichenbach, and in so many other areas or media I couldn’t possibly name. I always doubt the deaths of main or main-adjacent characters in anything CLOSE to an espionage film because that’s how tropes work. 

Sidenote: We know exactly what Lee’s death did to Merlin and Harry. We know through their actions concerning Eggsy, and their actions aren’t somehow made LESS by surviving after them. 

Never you mind the fact that people survive land mines all the bloody time with loss-of-limb instead of life without spy-level gadgetry, so the death itself sticking felt forced from merely a vague realism standpoint.

Sidenote to the sidenote: in a universe where they can’t keep track of the breed of dog Harry has, even for something as central as recovering his memories, I can’t put a lot of stock in their detail management. I mean, a Yorkie has nothing but superficial physicalities in common with a Cairn terrier but they claim it’s the former as opposed to the latter (despite using a Cairn puppy in Golden Circle?) which is something anyone with Dog Knowledge knows. (Sorry, I work at a Dog training/boarding/daycare and I see dogs all the bloody time and this annoys the fuck out of me as someone who spends a lot of time around dogs now)Sidenote to the sidenote’s sidenote: The zoom in vag shot was ENTIRELY unnecessary, took time that could have been used better elsewhere in the plot, and literally added nothing to what happened besides making it uncomfortably clear that Eggsy got his mission done. Which we knew he’d do anyway, as both the protagonst and just the kind of person Eggsy is shown to be. After that phone call/facetime with Tilde, it was unecessary to have kept the footage from ‘my crow’s looking for a place to nest’ bit to when he leaves the tent. We knew what was going to happen, we knew how, and we knew he was reluctant to do it in the first place.The vag shot is entirely more offensive to me as a concept than allowing a character to survive (not even pull a Lazarus a-la Harry, but survive something he could have anyway) and not showing his survival until after the mission was completed, thus not changing the characters reactions/motivations in relation to his passing.

[brandavenniehe]

Royal Canin Breed Health Nutrition (Canned)

Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

Royal Canin Breed Health Nutrition canned dog food receives the Advisor’s mid-tier rating of 3.5 stars.

Buying Tip

Get 20% Off + Free Shipping on Royal Canin Dog Food Click for Details

The Royal Canin Breed Health Nutrition product line includes 9 canned dog foods.

Each recipe below includes its related AAFCO nutrient profile when available on the product’s official webpage: Growth, Maintenance, All Life Stages, Supplemental or Unspecified.

Important: Because many websites do not reliably specify which Growth or All Life Stages recipes are safe for large breed puppies, we do not include that data in this report. Be sure to check actual packaging for that information.

Royal Canin Boxer Adult [M]

Royal Canin Shih Tzu Adult [M]

Royal Canin Poodle Adult (4 stars) [M]

Royal Canin Yorkshire Terrier Adult [M]

Royal Canin German Shepherd Adult [M]

Royal Canin Labrador Retriever Adult [M]

Royal Canin Chihuahua Adult (4 stars) [M]

Royal Canin Dachshund Adult (4 stars) [M]

Royal Canin Golden Retriever Adult (3 stars) [M]

Royal Canin Shih Tzu Adult recipe was selected to represent the other products in the line for this review.

Royal Canin Shih Tzu Adult

Canned Dog Food

Estimated Dry Matter Nutrient Content

Protein = 35% | Fat = 25% | Carbs = 32%

Ingredients: Water sufficient for processing, pork by-products, chicken, chicken by-products, pork liver, corn flour, powdered cellulose, vegetable oil, fish oil, carrageenan, natural flavors, carob bean gum, potassium phosphate, taurine, vitamins [dl-alpha tocopherol acetate (source of vitamin E), l-ascorbyl-2-polyphosphate (source of vitamin C), niacin supplement, biotin, d-calcium pantothenate, thiamine mononitrate (vitamin B1), riboflavin supplement, pyridoxine hydrochloride (vitamin B6), vitamin B12 supplement, folic acid, vitamin D3 supplement], guar gum, l-carnitine, calcium carbonate, citric acid, choline chloride, sodium carbonate, magnesium oxide, trace minerals [zinc proteinate, zinc oxide, ferrous sulfate, copper sulfate, manganous oxide, sodium selenite, calcium iodate], marigold extract (Tagetes erecta l.)

Fiber (estimated dry matter content) = 12.4%

Red items indicate controversial ingredients

Estimated Nutrient ContentMethodProteinFatCarbsGuaranteed Analysis7%5%NADry Matter Basis35%25%32%Calorie Weighted Basis28%47%25%

Protein = 28% | Fat = 47% | Carbs = 25%

The first ingredient in this dog food is water, which adds nothing but moisture to this food. Water is a routine finding in most canned dog foods.

The second ingredient lists pork by-products, slaughterhouse waste. This is what’s left of a slaughtered pig after all the prime cuts have been removed.

Although this item contains all the amino acids a dog needs, we consider pork by-products a less costly, lower quality ingredient.

The third ingredient is chicken. Chicken is considered “the clean combination of flesh and skin… derived from the parts or whole carcasses of chicken”.1

Chicken is naturally rich in the ten essential amino acids required by a dog to sustain life.

The fourth ingredient includes chicken by-products, or slaughterhouse waste. This is what’s left of a slaughtered chicken after all the prime cuts have been removed.

In addition to organs (the nourishing part), this stuff can contain almost anything — feet, beaks, undeveloped eggs — anything except quality skeletal muscle (real meat).

Although this item contains all the amino acids a dog needs, we consider chicken by-products an inexpensive, lower quality ingredient.

The fifth ingredient is pork liver. This is an organ meat sourced from a named animal and thus considered a beneficial component.

The sixth ingredient is corn flour, a finely ground meal made from dried corn. Corn is an inexpensive and controversial cereal grain of only modest nutritional value to a dog.

The seventh ingredient is powdered cellulose, a non-digestible plant fiber usually made from the by-products of vegetable processing. Except for the usual benefits of fiber, powdered cellulose provides no nutritional value to a dog.

The eighth ingredient is vegetable oil, a generic oil of unknown origin. The ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fats in any oil is nutritionally critical and can vary significantly (depending on the source).

Without knowing more, it’s impossible to judge the quality of an item so vaguely described. However, compared to a named animal fat, a generic vegetable oil cannot be considered a quality ingredient.

The ninth ingredient is fish oil. Fish oil is naturally rich in the prized EPA and DHA type of omega-3 fatty acids. These two high quality fats boast the highest bio-availability to dogs and humans.

Depending on its level of freshness and purity, fish oil should be considered a commendable addition.

From here, the list goes on to include a number of other items.

But to be realistic, ingredients located this far down the list (other than nutritional supplements) are not likely to affect the overall rating of this product.

With two notable exceptions…

First, carrageenan is a gelatin-like thickening agent extracted from seaweed. Although carrageenan has been used as a food additive for hundreds of years, there appears to be some recent controversy regarding its long term biological safety.

And lastly, with the exception of zinc, the minerals listed here do not appear to be chelated. And that can make them more difficult to absorb. Non-chelated minerals are usually associated with lower quality dog foods.

Royal Canin Breed Health Nutrition Canned Dog Food The Bottom Line

Judging by its ingredients alone, Royal Canin Breed Health Nutrition looks like an average wet product.

But ingredient quality by itself cannot tell the whole story. We still need to estimate the product’s meat content before determining a final rating.

The dashboard displays a dry matter protein reading of 35%, a fat level of 25% and estimated carbohydrates of about 32%.

As a group, the brand features an average protein content of 36% and a mean fat level of 20%. Together, these figures suggest a carbohydrate content of 37% for the overall product line.

And a fat-to-protein ratio of about 54%.

Below-average protein. Below-average fat. And above-average carbs when compared to a typical canned dog food.

Free of any plant-based protein boosters, this looks like the profile of a wet product containing a moderate amount of meat.

Bottom line?

Royal Canin Breed Health Nutrition is a meat-based canned dog food using a moderate amount of named meats and by-products as its main sources of animal protein, thus earning the brand 3.5 stars.

Recommended.

Please note certain recipes are sometimes given a higher or lower rating based upon our estimate of their total meat content and (when appropriate) their fat-to-protein ratios.

Royal Canin Dog Food Recall History

The following list (if present) includes all dog food recalls since 2009 directly related to this product line. If there are no recalls listed in this section, we have not yet reported any events.

You can view a complete list of all dog food recalls sorted by date. Or view the same list sorted alphabetically by brand.

To learn why our ratings have nothing to do with a product’s recall history, please visit our Dog Food Recalls FAQ page.

Get free dog food recall alerts sent to you by email. Subscribe to The Advisor’s recall notification list.

Dog Food Coupons and Discounts

Readers are invited to check for coupons and discounts shared by others in our Dog Food Coupons Forum.

Or click the buying tip below. Please be advised we receive a fee for referrals made to the following online store.

Buying Tip

Get 20% Off + Free Shipping on Royal Canin Dog Food Click for Details

A Final Word

The descriptions and analyses expressed in this and every article on this website represent the views and opinions of the author.

The Dog Food Advisor does not test dog food products.

We rely entirely on the integrity of the information provided by each company. As such, the accuracy of every review is directly dependent upon the specific data a company chooses to share.

Although it's our goal to ensure all the information on this website is correct, we cannot guarantee its completeness or its accuracy; nor can we commit to ensuring all the material is kept up-to-date on a daily basis.

We rely on tips from readers. To report a product change or request an update of any review, please contact us using this form.

Each review is offered in good faith and has been designed to help you make a more informed decision when buying dog food.

However, due to the biological uniqueness of every animal, none of our ratings are intended to suggest feeding a particular product will result in a specific dietary response or health benefit for your pet.

For a better understanding of how we analyze each product, please read our article, "The Problem with Dog Food Reviews".

Remember, no dog food can possibly be appropriate for every life stage, lifestyle or health condition. So, choose wisely. And when in doubt, consult a qualified veterinary professional for help.

In closing, we do not accept money, gifts or samples from pet food companies in exchange for special consideration in the preparation of our reviews or ratings.

However, we do receive a fee from Chewy.com for each purchase made as a direct result of a referral from our website. This fee is a fixed dollar amount and has nothing to do with the size of an order or the brand selected for purchase.

Have an opinion about this dog food? Or maybe the review itself? Please know we welcome your comments.

Notes and Updates

10/04/2017 Last Update

Association of American Feed Control Officials ↩