# Iams vs Purina vs Science Diet?



## Scrat

Now I know both are said not to be good foods, but I can't help but be curious. I have seen the prescription Science Diets work WONDERS on ill dogs, so I feel like the non prescription Science Diet foods would also be good. I called over twenty different veterinary clinics today and the list of recommendations went like this:

Blue Buffalo
Blue Mountain
California Naturals
Eukanuba
Iams
Nutro
Purina (any)
Purina ProPlan
Royal Canin
Science Diet

All of these clinics used Science Diet prescription diets except one which used Royal Canin prescription diets and recommended the non prescription Royal Canin. I'm a little iffy about the California Naturals recommendation because that was the only clinic that sold diets other than prescription diets and they told me I should come get California Naturals from them so that sounded to me like a promotion.

ANYWAYS, sorry for the long post! I'm just wondering about Science Diet, Purina, and Iams because they were the most widely and frequently recommended. If vets and their clients have been feeding their own dogs these foods for years and years and not had any bad experiences with them, how can they be so bad?

I am worried the grain free, anti-corn, no byproduct mentality is a trend that I bought into. I can't afford the high end diets, but this dog is my best friend and we go Everywhere together so I don't want to feed her something awful. I have looked at Canidae but they don't sell it where I am and I don't want to order online. Are corn and by products actually going to kill my dog? The only allergy she has is to lamb.

Thanks for the advice!


----------



## ShoreDobermans

Chicken By Product Meal is an excellent ingredient made from skin, organs, intestines and feet. All these things form the back-bone of raw feeding but mostly raw feeders will be critical of the same ingredients when they are in kibble. Go figure.

Despite what you read, the fact that a food lists "Chicken Meal" does not mean that it is good quality. "Chicken Meal" can just as easily be from diseased chickens as "Chicken By Product Meal."

Don't listen anyone that says a dog requires "meat", muscle meat, in its diet. The amino acids in the rest of the chicken are actually better in many ways. Also, if a food lists a protein like pork or beef or fish, the maker is allowed to use by-products and not label it that way. Don't ask me why this rule only applies to chicken and turkey.

Unfortunately a website called Dog Food Advisor is guilty of spreading very bad and very inaccurate information. Consumers like yourself suffer as a result. Corn is the same thing, don't worry.

Let me ask you something. Do you have any friends that are Chinese? If so, ask them if they think chicken feet are waste by-products. What is a by-product is purely relative. Years and years ago the meat from pigs was considered a by-product because pigs were raised only for fat to fuel lanterns. Get my point?

Of the ones you listed I prefer Eukanuba.


----------



## Shell

I feed partial raw and I'm cool with chicken by product meal. I'll eat chicken feet too  Along with many other parts of animals that make most Westerners cringe away.

My issue with a lot of those brands is being over-priced. Science Diet formula (regular kinds) isn't any better then Eagle Pack or Pro Pac or several other similar foods and at least in my area, it is significantly more dollars per pound. I've recommended Iams Healthy Naturals to someone who needed to shop at Wal-Mart and I'd be fine with feeding it to my dog. 

Basically, look at what your individual dog does or does not do well on. Pork is a great healthy meat but my dog hasn't done well with it at all. Some people have success with corn, I have not. Etc. Then find a company that has a record and price point you're good with. In your case, avoiding lamb/mutton generally isn't too hard. A dog that has issues with chicken would have more difficulty finding a food. 

Although, I wouldn't consider historical uses of pigs to be that relevant to any modern diet for humans or dogs. Religion has played a large part of pork consumption but also the risk of trichinosis which is eliminated in the farmed US pork supply (bears still carry it, maybe wild boars but I don't hunt either so I'm not concerned with that particularly).


----------



## gingerkid

Feed what you can afford and most importantly what your dogs does well on. My dog doesn't handle oats very well, but does fine with wheat, barley, etc. Unfortunately, oatmeal is a very common ingredient in grain-inclusive foods. So while we don't _have_ to feed grain-free, we generally have, but we are considering a few grain-inclusive foods to introduce into our rotation - including Eagle Pack, which is, besides Costco's Nature's Domain, by-far one of the most cost-effective "quality" foods available in my area.


----------



## misswolfy

The problem with vets and food is they get little to No training on nutrition. So they are great for health issues and diseases but aren't very knowledgeable about dog food.I have seen vets say Raw diets are terrible for dogs, ol'roy is just as good as acana or fromm or *insert top of the line food*. No not every dog will do we'll on acana or a raw diet.... But I strive to feed the best of the best because it's healthier for them. Sometimes it has grains, sometimes not. But I don't feed food with recalls either.. Nor will I feed science diet or Purina etc because it is a lot lower quality then other foods. The prescription diets are a little better..

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Kathyy

Try bags of different kibbles and keep careful track of the ingredient list, nutrient analysis, how much your dog eats of each food, how long the bag lasts and how much it costs. Now make notes on your dog's condition. Quantity and quality of poop, ear goo/itch, itchiness of pelt, general smell, greasiness of coat, eye goo, how dirty do teeth get and so on. My first dog had anal sac backups on kibble, if you notice things like that happening make a note. I'd be trying each food for at least a couple of months.

Do this and you may figure out what works best for your dog. For mine, raw or cooked works best. All the kibbles over all the years didn't seem to change much except that kibble with corn made for sweet smelling huge poop.


----------



## Scrat

ShoreDobermans said:


> Let me ask you something. Do you have any friends that are Chinese? If so, ask them if they think chicken feet are waste by-products. What is a by-product is purely relative. Years and years ago the meat from pigs was considered a by-product because pigs were raised only for fat to fuel lanterns. Get my point?


Hahaha I have to say I find this hilarious because I'm part Chinese and the chicken feet and fish eyes were my Grandpa's favorite parts of those two animals...talk about stereotypes LOL. Can't say I was open minded enough to try for myself, but I see your point!!


----------



## Scrat

The reason I asked about Iams and whatnot is because oddly enough my dog seems to do terribly on "good" foods...She's been on a variety of formulas from Taste of the Wild and always has had MASSIVE gooey poops and I thought I'd give her some time but that hasn't really helped. When I switched Taste of the Wild formulas she ended up getting a yeast infection in her ear, probably because it was switched from duck to lamb. Before I had her she ate Nature's Domain Salmon and Potato and that was giving her some skin problems--itching, dandruff, dryness but smaller poop...Same with Kirkland foods and that may just be something weird about her because all the other dogs I know that eat it look great. I really hate to say this but I can't afford Orijen, Acana, Wysong, ZiwiPeak, even Blue Buffalo...all those types of "good" foods. Taste of the Wild is $70 per 40lb bag where I am and I don't want to be a bad dog owner or hurt my fluffy, but when the dog food prices are so incredibly high, it sort of forces me to look for other alternatives... I ask about corn and whatnot because her sister--who has the same parents and lineage but is two years older--was raised on Pedigree by her co-owners and that dog is the most stunning dog I've ever seen--her coat is gorgeous, she's never needed a trip to the vet for any medical reason, her eyes are bright, she's smart and spunky... I can't tell the difference between my dog and her sister even though their diets are so incredibly different (and hers even has a nicer coat than mine, shinier, fuller...) So basically I'm just completely confused. How can food that is supposed to be so bad for your dog create such a good looking dog and how can food that is supposed to be good for my dog create all these poop, skin, and ear yeast infection problems? Or is it all just chance??


----------



## Willowy

Iams isn't terrible. If that's what your dog does best on, that's what counts. 

Pedigree is just Ol' Roy in a yellow bag and neither one has any appreciable meat content. . .so I don't know why some dogs seem to do OK on it. I wouldn't recommend it because of the coloring and BHA/BHT.

Like Kathyy said, keep a journal about what foods you've tried and how she responds so you can narrow down what bugs her.


----------



## ShoreDobermans

Scrat said:


> The reason I asked about Iams and whatnot is because oddly enough my dog seems to do terribly on "good" foods...She's been on a variety of formulas from Taste of the Wild and always has had MASSIVE gooey poops and I thought I'd give her some time but that hasn't really helped. When I switched Taste of the Wild formulas she ended up getting a yeast infection in her ear, probably because it was switched from duck to lamb. Before I had her she ate Nature's Domain Salmon and Potato and that was giving her some skin problems--itching, dandruff, dryness but smaller poop...Same with Kirkland foods and that may just be something weird about her because all the other dogs I know that eat it look great. I really hate to say this but I can't afford Orijen, Acana, Wysong, ZiwiPeak, even Blue Buffalo...all those types of "good" foods. Taste of the Wild is $70 per 40lb bag where I am and I don't want to be a bad dog owner or hurt my fluffy, but when the dog food prices are so incredibly high, it sort of forces me to look for other alternatives... I ask about corn and whatnot because her sister--who has the same parents and lineage but is two years older--was raised on Pedigree by her co-owners and that dog is the most stunning dog I've ever seen--her coat is gorgeous, she's never needed a trip to the vet for any medical reason, her eyes are bright, she's smart and spunky... I can't tell the difference between my dog and her sister even though their diets are so incredibly different (and hers even has a nicer coat than mine, shinier, fuller...) So basically I'm just completely confused. How can food that is supposed to be so bad for your dog create such a good looking dog and how can food that is supposed to be good for my dog create all these poop, skin, and ear yeast infection problems? Or is it all just chance??


Where do you live? What breed of dog is it? There are many foods that are not sold in typical retail channels like SportMix Premium, Tuffy, Loyall and Red Flannel that are the best values because of where they are sold and large bag sizes.


----------



## Boleyn

This is an interesting debate! I'm going through this right now as I have learned more about the importance of rotating diets and am ready to chose another line. But lord, it's like a science project! I browse Chewy in one tab, with Dog Food Advisor in the other tab, often times this forum in another. From the early 90's, for almost 15 years, I fed Pro Plan (turkey and barley formula) and my dogs were in fantastic shape. The three of them lived to be 14, 15, and 16. I know there could be other factors, and of course PP isn't cheap - the price is comparable to foods that are much better ingredient-wise. I may give Fromm a shot.


----------



## ShoreDobermans

Boleyn said:


> This is an interesting debate! I'm going through this right now as I have learned more about the importance of rotating diets and am ready to chose another line. But lord, it's like a science project! I browse Chewy in one tab, with Dog Food Advisor in the other tab, often times this forum in another. From the early 90's, for almost 15 years, I fed Pro Plan (turkey and barley formula) and my dogs were in fantastic shape. The three of them lived to be 14, 15, and 16. I know there could be other factors, and of course PP isn't cheap - the price is comparable to foods that are much better ingredient-wise. I may give Fromm a shot.


When you say "are much better ingredient-wise", is that from a human standpoint?


----------



## Laurelin

I've personally not noticed a bit of difference in my dogs when feeding grain free vs grain inclusive. I have not ever fed them a food with corn (though they have gotten treats with corn), but barley, rice, oats, wheat are all fine with them as are potatoes and peas. We've also had great luck with Purina One Beyond with my dogs and it's my go-to quick grab dog food if I need to pick some up at the grocery store. Science Diet I/D is my go to bland diet if need be as well.

Most dog food information you can find online is very subjective, not written by anyone with any real credentials, and then it gets passed around as the gospel truth. I say feed what your dogs do well on and you can afford. If you're having an issue then yes, definitely try changing up the food but if not... meh. It's your decision. I've seen it go all sorts of ways- dogs do badly on raw and people refuse to change because 'raw is the best' even when the evidence in front of you is saying it's not working well for that dog. I've also seen people refuse to put their dog on a prescription diet and try all sorts of other foods then finally try the Rx diet and it works and fixes all their problems.

I feed 'forum approved' food generally speaking but like I said, I don't see much difference at all with my dogs. Nothing tangible at least.


----------



## Dog Person

It has to be dog dependent. Maggie ate Science Diet, Nutro, Purina and Authority along with the cheapest canned food I could get - different ones at different times and she did well on all of them but she couldn't have beef. Zoey is different, she suffers from ear infections, UTIs and crystals. She has been on Annamaet grain inclusive for about 4 months now and she hasn't gotten an ear infection or a UTI/crystal during that time. I also have been giving her probiotics, Berry Balance and making sure she drinks enough by floating her food in water - so is it the food, is it one of the other things I'm doing or is it everything combined? I thought about starting to eliminate one of the supplements but I don't want to see her suffer and the amount I spend on supplements is less then paying for a Vet visit.

I think Laurelin said it best that all the info that is on the internet is written by people without real credentials. There's AAFCO and if a food meets it then it is nutritionally complete - I assume it would be better to feed the dog more meat proteins but I guess if you are OK with corn protein (which was what I probably was feeding Maggie) and your dog is doing OK then it's your choice.


----------



## Kudzu

Something to think about:

We all know people who smoke, eat a junk food diet, or drink too much...name your vice. Most of these individuals will 'do just fine' for many years. But eventually come the diseases. It takes time for these poor habits to take a measurable toll on health, but once they do, it may be to late to reverse the damage. I try to keep that in mind when it comes to feeding my pets.


----------



## Jacksons Mom

Kudzu said:


> Something to think about:
> 
> We all know people who smoke, eat a junk food diet, or drink too much...name your vice. Most of these individuals will 'do just fine' for many years. But eventually come the diseases. It takes time for these poor habits to take a measurable toll on health, but once they do, it may be to late to reverse the damage. I try to keep that in mind when it comes to feeding my pets.


I used to believe this. But really, I think it all boils down to genetics. Feeding a "5 star internet approved" food isn't going to magically make your dog live longer and healthier than the dog feed Purina from the grocery store, ya know? 

And honestly some of these so called high quality foods are extremely scary. No testing, no/hardly any quality control, no feeding trials, but people believe they are feeding the best. What about these foods that are so insanely high in ash (high in calcium and phosphorus) that their kidneys are slowly failing as the years go on?

But yeah I pretty much agree with everything Laurelin said. I'm not against paying attention to what you're feeding your pets. Not in the least. I'm one of the biggest dog food nerds out there.  But I just think there is SO much misinformation on the interwebz.

I mean, I've definitely noticed different little things between foods. But nothing MAJOR honestly. He'd probably do a-okay on Purina if need be.


----------



## Scrat

Jacksons Mom said:


> But really, I think it all boils down to genetics. Feeding a "5 star internet approved" food isn't going to magically make your dog live longer and healthier than the dog feed Purina from the grocery store, ya know?
> 
> And honestly some of these so called high quality foods are extremely scary. No testing, no/hardly any quality control, no feeding trials, but people believe they are feeding the best. What about these foods that are so insanely high in ash (high in calcium and phosphorus) that their kidneys are slowly failing as the years go on?
> 
> But yeah I pretty much agree with everything Laurelin said.


This is all kind of what I was wondering--if I can feed her a more budget happy diet and have her continue to be happy, healthy, etc, then I would definitely like to do that. I have actually heard about how the small companies don't do feeding trials but I assume large companies like Blue and Orijen/Acana must have to. Anyways, I might just try it and see how it goes...If she shows any negative signs I'll pull her off it quickly and maybe try something else. Perhaps the high protein in Taste of the Wild could be too high for her? An animal nutritionist once told me there should be about 25% protein for the average domestic dog. Since Taste of the Wild is a little over 30%, maybe it is just too high and that's why her poops are so gooey? Maybe not. But I guess it's worth a shot. The message I seem to see most is what works for your dog...I guess the only way to know is to try, right? And if Iams won't kill her then I guess there can't be anything wrong with that. Walmart does have the select naturals, too. I've seen healthy naturals and I think a sensitive formula, too if I remember right...I want to say it was fish. So maybe I'll try that one...


----------



## xoxluvablexox

It doesn't come all down to genetics. There's been studies on people showing just how important of a role environment, including nutrition, have on disease. Genetics isn't everything. Not exactly about dogs but they're not sone alien creature, in pretty sure it works much the same for genetics vs environment in most animals as well. Actually, I'm sure it is and there may be studies showing much the same type of research in animals as well. Not to mention some genes are only "turned on" by environmental influence in humans and that could be the case for animals as well.

Actually, from the textbook itself: "by studying both identical and nonidentical twins who were raised apart, researchers were able to tease apart the relative importance of heredity and environment on mental health and physical changes with age. The bottom line is very clear: with rare exceptions, only about 30 percent of physical aging can be blamed on the genes. Additional studies of Swedish twins over age 80 show that only about half of the changes in mental function with aging are genetic"

-_ Breaking Down the Myths of Aging_ John Rowe & Robert Kahn.

Dogs obviously aren't people but to think that we're the only animals that are so special as to be able to prevent genetic health problems through changes in environment is ridiculous. I'm sure there are similar studies in dogs but I don't feel like going on a Google quest at the moment so that'll do for now.

As far as scary foods, I agree. Even if my dog did bad on raw, he would get homecooked food at least. There's absolutely no way I'll ever believe over processed brown round unidentifiable chunks of kibble could ever be better than real food.


----------



## Kathyy

^+1
Really dramatic changes moving from kibble to fresh food seen here too. I switched over about 6.5 years ago only having tried numerous grainy kibbles with one 2 large bag attempt at EVO and not impressed with that grain free kibble either. Did see much smaller stools on corn free kibble though. Never fed anything with 'meat' meal or fat though, wonder how stinky Sassy would have been on that stuff?

From my experience 'pulsing' of various supplements to bring the raw to NRC levels then dropping to see if I could see changes in condition I am not comfortable unless I know the dogs are getting close to NRC levels, 80/10/5/5 with mostly red meat or not. Fresh food good, 100% fresh food best if you can put together something close to NRC and you can go very very wrong with fresh food if you don't understand what a dog needs to thrive.


----------



## bowie

xoxluvablexox said:


> As far as scary foods, I agree. Even if my dog did bad on raw, he would get homecooked food at least. There's absolutely no way I'll ever believe over processed brown round unidentifiable chunks of kibble could ever be better than real food.


I agree wholeheartedly. Although kibble is still fed in my house due to convenience. I have made some headway with getting my parents to feed Honest Kitchen, though that can be like pulling teeth sometimes. Whenever I whip up the pre-mix plus raw (right now I'm feeding grass fed beef), they refuse to give it to my dog when I'm not around to feed him, because "that's disgusting." Super annoying to me! Luckily there's not too much issue with them feeding the complete formulas. But I digress.

OP, do you have Tractor Supply where you live? They have a good selection of cheaper foods that are much better than Iams/Purina/Science Diet. I would never feed those brands, except for maybe Pro-Plan. On Chewy.com you can find good deals too, if you're in the US. Look at Eagle Pack, Hi-Tek Naturals.


----------



## Kudzu

xoxluvablexox said:


> It doesn't come all down to genetics. There's been studies on people showing just how important of a role environment, including nutrition, have on disease. Genetics isn't everything. Not exactly about dogs but they're not sone alien creature, in pretty sure it works much the same for genetics vs environment in most animals as well. Actually, I'm sure it is and there may be studies showing much the same type of research in animals as well. Not to mention some genes are only "turned on" by environmental influence in humans and that could be the case for animals as well.
> 
> Actually, from the textbook itself: "by studying both identical and nonidentical twins who were raised apart, researchers were able to tease apart the relative importance of heredity and environment on mental health and physical changes with age. The bottom line is very clear: with rare exceptions, only about 30 percent of physical aging can be blamed on the genes. Additional studies of Swedish twins over age 80 show that only about half of the changes in mental function with aging are genetic"
> 
> -_ Breaking Down the Myths of Aging_ John Rowe & Robert Kahn.
> 
> Dogs obviously aren't people but to think that we're the only animals that are so special as to be able to prevent genetic health problems through changes in environment is ridiculous. I'm sure there are similar studies in dogs but I don't feel like going on a Google quest at the moment so that'll do for now.
> 
> As far as scary foods, I agree. Even if my dog did bad on raw, he would get homecooked food at least. There's absolutely no way I'll ever believe over processed brown round unidentifiable chunks of kibble could ever be better than real food.


Amen. I mean, if you knew you had a genetic predisposition to some disease, would you just give up and eat nothing but junk food for the rest of your life? No, you'd be more likely to eat well and take better care of yourself to offset that predisposition as much as possible.


----------



## Scrat

I have a Petco nearby but again the prices...I know Natural Balance used to be a lot cheaper but the price jumped up along with everything else, it's ridiculous. Even Eukanuba which looks VERY similar to Iams was more than $10 more expensive than Iams and Iams at the pet stores is more expensive than Walmart by around 30% which isn't much but adds up. I would definitely consider raw because it sounds fun and pretty cheap, but the pet therapy program I am going through doesn't allow raw--here's the link in case anyone is curious (I thought it was interesting reading): 

http://www.petpartners.org/rawproteindietpolicy

I might try raw with my Papillon once I get my own apartment, though. I get him raw cow knuckles and he LOVES them--he'll stay holed up in his crate for hours on end just to eat it (I don't want the Golden girl to get it so it stays in his crate which is lifted off the floor). Raw bones are the only things that have ever kept him away from my side lol. Plus I know it would be good for his teeth and he's not doing therapy so there'd be no problem there. Anyways, that's pretty off topic. He's another dog that does well on ANYTHING. I got him as a rescue and he's eaten everything from Beneful to Orijen and I've seen no difference so he just eats whatever the Golden eats.

Anyways, I saw Rachael Ray turkey and potato dog food but I'm not sure if that's a reputable company. I mean at least it can be said that Iams, Purina, and Science Diet try their diets out on dogs so that they KNOW it has the right nutrients to keep them healthy throughout their lives even if it isn't premium food. I also worry about raw because I know there's not very much scientific information proving that it is better than kibble...although if anyone has any links that would be much appreciated!


----------



## Willowy

If you wanna do homecooked I bet the therapy dog organization wouldn't have trouble with it. Not much difference between raw and homecooked. The good thing about homemade diets is that you have full control over the ingredients. The thing to look out for is to make sure it's a complete and balanced diet.


----------



## Scrat

That's what I worry about...Raw sounds great because it doesn't involve the cooking and seems so natural...on the other hand, if I don't balance the diet exactly right, then my dog suffers because I screwed up and I'll be kicking myself for not just feeding commercial food that I knew wouldn't do my dog any harm. I would feel awful, especially because the Papillon has no issues with any type of commercial food.


----------



## gingerkid

Scrat said:


> That's what I worry about...Raw sounds great because it doesn't involve the cooking and seems so natural...on the other hand, if I don't balance the diet exactly right, then my dog suffers because I screwed up and I'll be kicking myself for not just feeding commercial food that I knew wouldn't do my dog any harm. I would feel awful, especially because the Papillon has no issues with any type of commercial food.


I have this exact same fear. But "thankfully" I don't have to make that choice because I don't have the freezer space to do raw, lol.

In response to your earlier post, the Rachel Ray foods look okay, but not great. Certainly not the worst thing you could feed, and the Grain-Free formula, to me, as an amateur dog owner, looks pretty good.


----------



## Scrat

Here's a new piece of information to bring into the conversation...I talked with an animal nutritionist who told me that Purina had done a trial with labs. All of them lived to be 14 years of age eating solely Purina. The study was done to show the effects of extra weight on a dog and it showed that the ones who were a healthy weight lived two years longer (surprise surprise, right>? lol!). Anyways, if Purina's food could keep all those dogs alive 14 and 16 years and there have been so many food trials, wouldn't it be okay? I am concerned because a lot of the premium brands probably haven't done food trials--they simply haven't been around long enough to or had the finances and resources available. She also told me that dogs have been domesticated over years and years and that their digestion system has changed so they should be eating a diet of roughly 25% protein, so does that mean all the "lower quality" dog foods are dead on while the higher quality foods might be too high for many dogs?


----------



## Kathyy

This is referring to that study which was done in 2002 and had to do with feeding less rather than Purina is a good food. The study lasted 14 years, doesn't mean all the lean dogs lived that long.
https://dogchow.com/articles/1339/help-extend-your-dogs-healthy-years


----------



## Gally

There is also a study showing that dogs eating a home prepared diet lived on average 3 years longer than those on a commercial diet. Just thought I'd throw that out there for something else to consider. http://www.ukrmb.co.uk/images/LippertSapySummary.pdf


----------



## Scrat

Kathyy said:


> This is referring to that study which was done in 2002 and had to do with feeding less rather than Purina is a good food. The study lasted 14 years, doesn't mean all the lean dogs lived that long.
> https://dogchow.com/articles/1339/help-extend-your-dogs-healthy-years



Ohhhh I see what happened there... Thanks for the link!


----------



## Scrat

So how can you create a home made diet with the right amount of everything from zinc to calcium and know that your balance is perfect? Are there tried and true recipes? Or guidelines?


----------



## BernerMax

Has this been brought up (sorta back to the subject of kibble)--

I try to stay away from chicken meals d/t the animal husbandry practices of commercial chicken-- we stick to lamb/bison I know they are still farmed but -- not as bad as chickens...

Scrat-- on homemade diets-- there are Tomes out on them, and how to balance them-- there is probably a Sticky (thought I saw one somewhere) on it in this Forum--

for the reason of balance, we do kibble at night, healthy scraps (well except for that bowl of buttercream frosting under the Confession thread)... and raw in the AM--

Just passed out raw duck heads (this batch had like a foot of neck and skin Oh Yeah) to my crew (4/$1.00 in Chinatown)-- I think thats how many people balance the diet....


----------



## Willowy

If you look at the NRC guidelines for dogs, then the USDA database to see what nutrients are in what you're feeding, you can figure out if you're getting everything covered. 

And there's no such thing as "perfect balance" for every single dog, which is why some dogs do better on one "complete and balanced" dog food than another brand/formula that is supposedly equally "complete and balanced". You have to go with what your dog does best on, one recipe isn't going to work for every dog.


----------



## Scrat

I just found this on this site:

http://www.2ndchance.info/homemadediets.htm

"Although your dog can survive on an all-meat diet if certain nutrients and minerals are added, dogs have evolved with humans long enough that they often do better on diets more similar to ours. What they are now designed to eat is what we were designed to eat. During the last 30,000 years that dogs have lived with humans, our diets were less than half meat. (ref) The rest of what stone age people ate was grain, mixed with seeds, fruit and vegetables. What our ancestors left around their camps and dwellings was what their dogs ate as well. On that, they domesticate, on that they thrived. That means they probably evolved to thrive on a diet that is 30-50% animal protein, and do not require the 70-90% found in an all-meat diet. You can make a diet for your dog that furnishes about 20-45% protein, 5-10% fat and 20-35% carbohydrate if the food you serve it is made up of about 2-3 parts meat and 2-3 parts plant carbohydrates. To that diet, you need to add all the bone minerals (calcium) that you pet needs. If you stay with that formula, the individual ingredients you supply in each group are up to you and your pet's taste. Varying the ingredients from day to day lessens boredom and exposes your pet to a healthier range of nutrient sources."

Is this a good representation of a healthy diet, home made, commercial, or otherwise??


----------



## BernerMax

Carbs are extremely contreversial. Many on this Forum do Prey model Raw.....


----------



## Willowy

Just randomly throwing together some meat and veggies is not a good way to make a diet, no. There is a TON of really bad homemade diet advice out there so be careful. And, again, dogs are individuals and some do well with grains and some don't; you don't know until you try.

This guy seems to be pretty well respected, although I think he relies a bit too heavily on supplements (a good diet should need minimal supplementation, try to get most nutrients from food not pills): http://www.dogcathomeprepareddiet.com/index.htm


----------



## cellophane

ShoreDobermans said:


> What is a by-product is purely relative. Years and years ago the meat from pigs was considered a by-product because pigs were raised only for fat to fuel lanterns. Get my point?





Shell said:


> Although, I wouldn't consider historical uses of pigs to be that relevant to any modern diet for humans or dogs. Religion has played a large part of pork consumption.


Lobster is probably a better analogy. 150 years ago it was only considered edible by servants and prisoners, now it sells anywhere from $15-$50 / lb


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

ShoreDobermans said:


> Chicken By Product Meal is an excellent ingredient made from skin, organs, intestines and feet. All these things form the back-bone of raw feeding but mostly raw feeders will be critical of the same ingredients when they are in kibble. Go figure.
> 
> Despite what you read, the fact that a food lists "Chicken Meal" does not mean that it is good quality. "Chicken Meal" can just as easily be from diseased chickens as "Chicken By Product Meal."
> 
> Don't listen anyone that says a dog requires "meat", muscle meat, in its diet. The amino acids in the rest of the chicken are actually better in many ways. Also, if a food lists a protein like pork or beef or fish, the maker is allowed to use by-products and not label it that way. Don't ask me why this rule only applies to chicken and turkey.
> 
> Unfortunately a website called Dog Food Advisor is guilty of spreading very bad and very inaccurate information. Consumers like yourself suffer as a result. Corn is the same thing, don't worry.
> 
> Let me ask you something. Do you have any friends that are Chinese? If so, ask them if they think chicken feet are waste by-products. What is a by-product is purely relative. Years and years ago the meat from pigs was considered a by-product because pigs were raised only for fat to fuel lanterns. Get my point?
> 
> Of the ones you listed I prefer Eukanuba.


I don't mean to be rude, but the fact that you recommend eukanuba tells me that you don't know as much as you think you do about food. I would like to see the credentials that make you Any more of an expert then the dog food advisor, me, or anyone else on this forum. 

A little education on the subject of canine nutrition (which the dog food advisor is useful for, it's a good one stop comparison guide when choosing a dog food for those who don't want to spend the day googling every single food out there. 

MOST sites on dog food ingredients were started by dog owners just like us on here who just want to get the word out to people who just want to get the word out about sorry dog food brands to other dog owners who may not know.

also ... Being a vet doesn't make them a canine nutritionist, most average dog owners, like us with a little research know more then most vets do about what makes a dog food good or bad.


----------



## Jacksons Mom

Scrat said:


> So how can you create a home made diet with the right amount of everything from zinc to calcium and know that your balance is perfect? Are there tried and true recipes? Or guidelines?


Homecooking can't just be throwing together some human food and feeding your dog daily, because that would cause deficiencies over time. Check out Balance IT. It's a supplement and they generate free recipes (you have to buy the supplement) for your personal dog.


----------



## Jacksons Mom

OwnedbyACDs said:


> I don't mean to be rude, but the fact that you recommend eukanuba tells me that you don't know as much as you think you do about food. I would like to see the credentials that make you Any more of an expert then the dog food advisor, me, or anyone else on this forum.
> 
> A little education on the subject of canine nutrition (which the dog food advisor is useful for, it's a good one stop comparison guide when choosing a dog food for those who don't want to spend the day googling every single food out there.
> 
> MOST sites on dog food ingredients were started by dog owners just like us on here who just want to get the word out to people who just want to get the word out about sorry dog food brands to other dog owners who may not know.
> 
> also ... Being a vet doesn't make them a canine nutritionist, most average dog owners, like us with a little research know more then most vets do about what makes a dog food good or bad.


The dog food advisor is NO different than us here on this forum. He has no credentials whatsoever regarding animals. He is a human dentist who simply has an opinion on dog foods. The website is fine for browsing and comparing, but really has no bearing IMO when picking a food. He does not take into account where the food is made, recalls, quality control, ash levels, etc.

I fell into the internet trap for a long time. I was sooo quick to say "No this, no that" when it came to picking foods and realized... it's sooo much more complicated than that. 

It's easy to find bad reviews on Purina, Royal Canin, Euk, etc, because they're the most popular foods fed in the US. How many dogs out of the... 70 million or so pet dogs in the US are actually eating foods like Orijen, etc? Very small percentage. So it's obvious that there will be less known complaints.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not willing nor comfortable with feeding Ol Roy or the cheapest bag of Dog Chow that I find in the grocery store. I love to try and feed my dog the best that I can. And I actually feed Acana right now with pretty good results. But I think a lot of people fail to realize that Champion does no feeding trials, there is no vet nutritionist on staff, little quality control (despite what they tell you). 

I think any company should be able to answer these questions in depth, and sadly a LOT of 'high quality' companies I contacted last year... couldn't answer very well or at all:
Quality control?
Who formulated the recipes?
Credentials of those involved in nutrition aspect?
What testing was done/is my dog the guinea pig?
How do you know your food is free of contaminants?
etc.

Out of the OP's list, I'd probably choose Royal Canin or SD.

But really I don't trust any dog food company completely. I'm seriously looking into homecooking pretty soon here.


----------



## BernerMax

the only thing is, when my DH brought home a bag of science diet (last summer for our dying dog)- I looked at it-- 16% protein and all corn, and priced higher than many many premium brands-- even my Solid gold which has been around 30years or so-- my chicken feed has higher protein and better ingredients-- I.was.not.impressed. And disappointed in our vet (it was a Senior blend, nothing prescription)....


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

Oh I know the DFA isn't scripture and I don't intend to pass him off as some kind of expert. But just because it doesn't come from an expert doesn't mean it isn't useful information.


----------



## ShoreDobermans

Scrat said:


> I just found this on this site:
> 
> http://www.2ndchance.info/homemadediets.htm
> 
> "Although your dog can survive on an all-meat diet if certain nutrients and minerals are added, dogs have evolved with humans long enough that they often do better on diets more similar to ours. What they are now designed to eat is what we were designed to eat. During the last 30,000 years that dogs have lived with humans, our diets were less than half meat. (ref) The rest of what stone age people ate was grain, mixed with seeds, fruit and vegetables. What our ancestors left around their camps and dwellings was what their dogs ate as well. On that, they domesticate, on that they thrived. That means they probably evolved to thrive on a diet that is 30-50% animal protein, and do not require the 70-90% found in an all-meat diet. You can make a diet for your dog that furnishes about 20-45% protein, 5-10% fat and 20-35% carbohydrate if the food you serve it is made up of about 2-3 parts meat and 2-3 parts plant carbohydrates. To that diet, you need to add all the bone minerals (calcium) that you pet needs. If you stay with that formula, the individual ingredients you supply in each group are up to you and your pet's taste. Varying the ingredients from day to day lessens boredom and exposes your pet to a healthier range of nutrient sources."
> 
> Is this a good representation of a healthy diet, home made, commercial, or otherwise??


Despite what the "raw feeding experts" believe, dogs as we know them evolved on cooked food as we did and that cooked meat is actually more digestible than raw meat. Moreover, the development of both dogs and humans advanced from a cooked diet.


----------



## ShoreDobermans

OwnedbyACDs said:


> I don't mean to be rude, but the fact that you recommend eukanuba tells me that you don't know as much as you think you do about food. I would like to see the credentials that make you Any more of an expert then the dog food advisor, me, or anyone else on this forum.
> 
> A little education on the subject of canine nutrition (which the dog food advisor is useful for, it's a good one stop comparison guide when choosing a dog food for those who don't want to spend the day googling every single food out there.
> 
> MOST sites on dog food ingredients were started by dog owners just like us on here who just want to get the word out to people who just want to get the word out about sorry dog food brands to other dog owners who may not know.
> 
> also ... Being a vet doesn't make them a canine nutritionist, most average dog owners, like us with a little research know more then most vets do about what makes a dog food good or bad.


The finest examples of any breed and most knowledgeable people in canine related activities overwhelmingly feed their dogs Pro Plan, Eukanuba and Royal Canin, so your comment is rubbish.

Here is one for you. The most knowledgeable person in the world on Great Danes, Chairperson for the Health Committee for the National Club, feeds Bil-Jac and she states it on her website. She says that if her dogs cannot get along on that food they do not get bred. Smart lady....

So are you suggesting you are more of an expert?

I heard if you "like" The Dog Food Advisor on Facebook you get a free cleaning,


----------



## Shell

ShoreDobermans said:


> The finest examples of any breed and most knowledgeable people in canine related activities overwhelmingly feed their dogs Pro Plan, Eukanuba and Royal Canin, so your comment is rubbish.
> *
> Here is one for you. The most knowledgeable person in the world on Great Danes, Chairperson for the Health Committee for the National Club, feeds Bil-Jac and she states it on her website. She says that if her dogs cannot get along on that food they do not get bred. Smart lady....*
> 
> So are you suggesting you are more of an expert?
> 
> I heard if you "like" The Dog Food Advisor on Facebook you get a free cleaning,


That argument has already been made:
Bil Jac


----------



## Scrat

ShoreDobermans said:


> The finest examples of any breed and most knowledgeable people in canine related activities overwhelmingly feed their dogs Pro Plan, Eukanuba and Royal Canin, so your comment is rubbish.


I have to admit that's a good point...So many dogs seem to do so well on those foods.


----------



## Yellowsnow

While not a big fan of Pro Plan, there is no denying the amount of ribbons and trophy's some of the most athletic dogs in the world have won on that food.

As for Iams or SD, I feel that there are more cost effective foods out there.


----------



## bowie

ShoreDobermans said:


> The finest examples of any breed and most knowledgeable people in canine related activities overwhelmingly feed their dogs Pro Plan, Eukanuba and Royal Canin, so your comment is rubbish.


Ok, bumper1, you've said this before.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

Yellowsnow said:


> While not a big fan of Pro Plan, there is no denying the amount of ribbons and trophy's some of the most athletic dogs in the world have won on that food.
> 
> As for Iams or SD, I feel that there are more cost effective foods out there.


Sure they say it because those companies probably pay them to say that about their foods and even pay them to feed it.

I would sing a foods praises too if I was getting free bags of food and royalties for it


----------



## Dog Person

OwnedbyACDs said:


> Sure they say it because those companies probably pay them to say that about their foods and even pay them to feed it.
> 
> I would sing a foods praises too if I was getting free bags of food and royalties for it


I said something similar too in a different thread ... maybe to the same person ... this logic sounds familiar.

But then it became that Purina = Annamaet = Dr. Tim's. But then it became Purina is readily available which is why it's great food.


----------



## Yellowsnow

OwnedbyACDs said:


> Sure they say it because those companies probably pay them to say that about their foods and even pay them to feed it.
> 
> I would sing a foods praises too if I was getting free bags of food and royalties for it


Some win bags of food, but not a single person that I know is paid by purina to use their food. They choose to buy/use the food because it provides the results that they want.

Do you have any sources to back up your speculation?


----------



## BernerMax

Yellowsnow said:


> While not a big fan of Pro Plan, there is no denying the amount of ribbons and trophy's some of the most athletic dogs in the world have won on that food.
> 
> As for Iams or SD, I feel that there are more cost effective foods out there.


Uck SD is just gross such cheap ingredients-- my pyr- anatolian pup looked great after he started getting into the chicken feed too (easy to digest, lots of carbs) -- and actually when I looked at the bag of SD-- it was lower in protein and had MORE CORN than the chicken feed-- ridiculous-- and it was like $2 a pound!

(the SD purchase was an accident by DH who took home a bag at vet's reccomendation, non prescription)

For my money, good quality non GMO CHICKEN FEED is waaaay cheaper and has better ingredients-- so I should switch to chicken feed?


----------



## Yellowsnow

BernerMax said:


> Uck SD is just gross such cheap ingredients-- my pyr- anatolian pup looked great after he started getting into the chicken feed too (easy to digest, lots of carbs) -- and actually when I looked at the bag of SD-- it was lower in protein and had MORE CORN than the chicken feed-- ridiculous-- and it was like $2 a pound!
> 
> (the SD purchase was an accident by DH who took home a bag at vet's reccomendation, non prescription)
> 
> For my money, good quality non GMO CHICKEN FEED is waaaay cheaper and has better ingredients-- so I should switch to chicken feed?



Not sure what you're trying to say, I agree on the SD and would not feed it. I guess I could have made that clearer.


----------



## BernerMax

Yellowsnow said:


> Not sure what you're trying to say, I agree on the SD and would not feed it. I guess I could have made that clearer.



Ok sorry, it just kills me how overpriced and over reccomended it is (the SD)....


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

BernerMax said:


> Uck SD is just gross such cheap ingredients-- my pyr- anatolian pup looked great after he started getting into the chicken feed too (easy to digest, lots of carbs) -- and actually when I looked at the bag of SD-- it was lower in protein and had MORE CORN than the chicken feed-- ridiculous-- and it was like $2 a pound!
> 
> (the SD purchase was an accident by DH who took home a bag at vet's reccomendation, non prescription)
> 
> For my money, good quality non GMO CHICKEN FEED is waaaay cheaper and has better ingredients-- so I should switch to chicken feed?


SD, red flannel, purina ... Etc. they all have more corn in it then my horses feed :/

True story: the dogs at a ranch I worked at were fed one of those corn heavy foods (and she wondered why they were so thin :/ ESP this one dog who I took upon feeding my own food because I felt sorry for her) well long story short one of their horses untied himself and went straight for the dog food and started eating it! 

Like my friend said, there are people who can "thrive" eating fast food and junk food every day ... It doesn't mean they should. Same goes with dogs.


----------



## gingerkid

Jacksons Mom said:


> Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not willing nor comfortable with feeding Ol Roy or the cheapest bag of Dog Chow that I find in the grocery store. I love to try and feed my dog the best that I can. And I actually feed Acana right now with pretty good results. But I think a lot of people fail to realize that Champion does no feeding trials, there is no vet nutritionist on staff, little quality control (despite what they tell you).


I agree with a lot of your points (most of them, actually). But I did want to point out that Champion performs AAFCO feeding trials, among others. They also used to have an animal nutritionist (MSc.) on staff, but that section of the website was taken down when they updated the site last year.



> We perform only non-invasive tests, which include palatability (taste), urine pH, digestibility (the latter through stool analysis only) *and AAFCO feeding trials.*


http://www.orijen.ca/faq/


----------



## Jacksons Mom

gingerkid said:


> I agree with a lot of your points (most of them, actually). But I did want to point out that Champion performs AAFCO feeding trials, among others. They also used to have an animal nutritionist (MSc.) on staff, but that section of the website was taken down when they updated the site last year.
> 
> 
> http://www.orijen.ca/faq/


Well that's really good to know! Thanks for pointing that out. 

I want to add that I'm definitely not saying Purina is the BEST or anything like that. Purina has had it's fair share of issues too, which is why it amuses me when a certain poster boasts about them and hates on Champion SO bad. To me, one is not really 'worse' than the other. They both use marketing schemes to promote their foods, they're of course both going to lie about certain things, they've both had recalls (or something similar). I mean Purina's chicken treats were killing dogs! But it's just crazy to see on online forums how quick people are to boast that a food is THE BEST and amazing... without really even knowing the whole truth of it. 

I'm okay feeding Champion. I'm comfortable enough with them (but also realizing they're FAR from perfect) and I get good results. I'd probably feel the same way about Purina. No one food is going to be perfect.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

It's really too bad that purina makes such crappy dog food when I know they have the resources to make better foods, they have a excellent line of horse feed so they CAN make good stuff.


----------



## BernerMax

OwnedbyACDs said:


> It's really too bad that purina makes such crappy dog food when I know they have the resources to make better foods, they have a excellent line of horse feed so they CAN make good stuff.


Yeah I am ok with their goat feed (just ok though, i switched cause its a little pricey for what it is).....Lol...


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

Same here! They also make a decent chicken feed (though it's also overpriced for what it is lol) 

It really sucks because all these big name foods could really change the face of food and make better then what they make for the price they are charging for it. And it doesn't help when famous people like leading breeders and show exhibitors plug these crappy foods. I wish that dog owners were as educated as most horse owners, then there might be a force of change in the dog food industry


----------



## Yellowsnow

I think you guys are confusing Purina Mills and Nestle Purina. Nestle Purina doesn't make ag feeds.


----------



## Brooklyn&Stellasmom

Not even sure how to respond to some of these responses..grain free, corn free, and no by products are the way to go..RAW IS BEST... all the science diet, ol roy, purina, food is nothing but crap

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## ShoreDobermans

Yellowsnow said:


> Some win bags of food, but not a single person that I know is paid by purina to use their food. They choose to buy/use the food because it provides the results that they want.
> 
> Do you have any sources to back up your speculation?


Yellowsnow, people like that never have any evidence. It is a knee-jerk defensive position because they cannot present a rational argument.

People that think the top show kennels and private owners that spend $50,000, $100,000, $150,000 to finish a dog for top competition use a food only because it was free or subsidized, have to be completely crazy. The fact is yes they give breeder discounts but so what, no rational person would use it after sinking major money in a dog unless they got the results they wanted.

People use those foods because they work. period....and they are real companies with technical staff, scientists and vets that know what they are doing. Most pet food companies are not even pet food companies, just a few people in an office.


----------



## Yellowsnow

Brooklyn&Stellasmom said:


> Not even sure how to respond to some of these responses..grain free, corn free, and no by products are the way to go..RAW IS BEST... all the science diet, ol roy, purina, food is nothing but crap
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


I do not agree with your opinion.


----------



## Yellowsnow

ShoreDobermans said:


> Yellowsnow, people like that never have any evidence. It is a knee-jerk defensive position because they cannot present a rational argument.
> 
> People that think the top show kennels and private owners that spend $50,000, $100,000, $150,000 to finish a dog for top competition use a food only because it was free or subsidized, have to be completely crazy. The fact is yes they give breeder discounts but so what, no rational person would use it after sinking major money in a dog unless they got the results they wanted.
> 
> People use those foods because they work. period....and they are real companies with technical staff, scientists and vets that know what they are doing. Most pet food companies are not even pet food companies, just a few people in an office.


Very true. Watching dozens of dogs each year run hard for long periods of time is enough proof for me.


----------



## Brooklyn&Stellasmom

Pretty sure you don't. .and that's fine just sorry for your pets

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Yellowsnow

Brooklyn&Stellasmom said:


> Pretty sure you don't. .and that's fine just sorry for your pets
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


Why feel sorry? My dogs and cats live long happy lives.


----------



## BernerMax

i guess it doesnt really matter which Purina right? That the chicken feed Purina (at like 40cents a lb) is much better ingredient wise and protein wise?...

Anyways I try not to get to worked up over food-- my dogs eat poop and love it....


----------



## xoxluvablexox

I'm pretty sure this isn't a pissing contest and I could really care less what anyone feeds their dog. That's their business. I don't care if their dog is a 10x gold Metalist (medalist, wth is a Metalist? Gotta love auto correct) of the Olympics on a food like Purina. That doesn't make it good. Vets don't know jack about nutrition, first of all. Nutrition is a relatively new science that is constantly changing because they can't seem to ever figure out what's healthy and what's not, and that's for people so I doubt that canine nutritionalist are that much more advanced. All they do is make sure the nutritional profile of the food meets a set standard. That doesn't mean the ingredients are safe, healthy, necessary, etc. All it does is meets what's excepted as the necessary dietary requirements for canines as far as vitamins, minerals, carbs, fat, protein, & calories. Do you think they care if their food contains rice with arsenic in it, feathers, beaks, traces of anesthetic from other animals, obviously not or those things wouldn't be in the food to begin with.


----------



## Yellowsnow

BernerMax said:


> i guess it doesnt really matter which Purina right? That the chicken feed Purina (at like 40cents a lb) is much better ingredient wise and protein wise?...
> 
> Anyways I try not to get to worked up over food-- *my dogs eat poop and love it*....


Haha, so true. Couple roadkills here and there...


----------



## Brooklyn&Stellasmom

Love it. xox well said

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Scrat

I still don't understand how byproducts are bad. Beaks, feathers, feet, organs...Isn't that a lot of what prey model raw is?


----------



## Rescued

Scrat said:


> I still don't understand how byproducts are bad. Beaks, feathers, feet, organs...Isn't that a lot of what prey model raw is?


I don't have a problem (and I think a lot of people don't) with the actual byproducts themselves, but I want to know WHERE they came from and that they are, in fact, healthy organs, heads in moderation, ect.

This is from a site that goes way overboard, but it gets at what I'm saying:



> Chicken by-products. AAFCO definition of chicken by-products falls under poultry by-products; all other types of poultry by-products would have the same definition. Chicken by-products are parts of the chicken/poultry that are not utilized in the pet food ingredient chicken/poultry or chicken by-product meal/poultry by-product meal – such has the heads, feet, and viscera (internal organs) of the birds. Unlike the official definition of chicken or chicken meal, this ingredient definition does not have any requirement to quality (must be suitable for use in animal food) however this ingredient does include the requirement it must be sourced from slaughtered animals (unlike chicken, poultry, chicken meal, poultry meal which has no requirement it must be sourced from slaughtered animals).
> 
> Some pet food manufacturers make the claim this is a quality ingredient because it includes nutrient dense internal organs. Internal organs such as kidney, liver, or heart from healthy birds do provide quality nutrition to a pet food. *However this ingredient is a catch-all ingredient (combination of internal organs, heads, feet, ect.) without giving the consumer any guarantee to quality of those internal organs. * As example, the liver filters toxins from the body. Liver from a sick bird or a bird that was fed numerous drugs prior to slaughter could result in a dangerous liver for the pet to consume. Internal organ ingredients need to be sourced from USDA inspected and approved animals.


(also, if the second ingredient in a food is a byproduct meal, I want to know that it isn't composed of 95% feathers, KWIM? there's just IMO too much wiggle room with the catch all definition.)


----------



## Brooklyn&Stellasmom

By products are like sludge someone thought they would sell for a nickle..it's like the leftover crap on the floor of a slaughter house

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Brooklyn&Stellasmom

They also accept diseased livestock, dogs at cats euthanized at animal shelters and many many other disgusting things..plastic wrappers the list goes on and on..not only dog food but human as well

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Shell

Brooklyn&Stellasmom said:


> By products are like sludge someone thought they would sell for a nickle..it's like the leftover crap on the floor of a slaughter house





Rescued said:


> I don't have a problem (and I think a lot of people don't) with the actual byproducts themselves, but I want to know WHERE they came from and that they are, in fact, healthy organs, heads in moderation, ect.
> 
> (also, if the second ingredient in a food is a byproduct meal, I want to know that it isn't composed of 95% feathers, KWIM? there's just IMO too much wiggle room with the catch all definition.)


I agree with Rescued. It isn't the by-products in and of themselves. I both feed "by products" as raw and even eat some of them myself if chicken feet or such are being served. I've eaten fish eyeballs, sheep lungs, liver, kidney, tripe, and god knows what else but it was all still edible items and would be the same for the dogs. Feet, head and organs aren't leftover crap nutritionally, but the source and proportion of each matters a lot. 

Nothing in commercial dog food is going to be a prime cut of meat. All of it is the leftovers to some degree. Which is fine, there is a lot of meat waste in the typical butchering for retail in the country. The country of origin of the meat and the source of the meat (health, medicines, etc) is what I think matters.


----------



## Scrat

Ahhh makes sense!! Now what about meal? Chicken meal, lamb meal, etc. Would that mean it is more dense and therefore a larger part of the diet?


----------



## Shell

Scrat said:


> Ahhh makes sense!! Now what about meal? Chicken meal, lamb meal, etc. Would that mean it is more dense and therefore a larger part of the diet?


Here's the AAFCO definition of lamb meal:
Lamb Meal - the rendered product from lamb tissues, exclusive of blood, hair, hoof, horn, hide trimmings, manure, stomach and rumen contents except in such amounts as may occur unavoidably in good processing practices.

Chicken by-product meal shouldn't actually have much in the way of feathers under the AAFCO definitions:
Chicken By-Product Meal - consists of the ground, rendered, clean parts of the carcass of slaughtered chicken, such as necks, feet, undeveloped eggs and intestines, exclusive of feathers, except in such amounts as might occur unavoidable in good processing practice.

Basically, the meal products are figuring on their protein without the water weight so there is a greater portion of animal protein coming from "chicken meal" rather than "chicken" if the weight is the same.


----------



## Scrat

So would I look for chicken meal instead of chicken as a first ingredient??


----------



## Shell

I like seeing a named meal product. "Meat" meal doesn't cut it for me. In part because it can make it hard to pin down any GI distress based on ingredients if you don't know what those ingredients are.


----------



## Boleyn

Brooklyn&Stellasmom said:


> just sorry for your pets


Everyone had debated this issue pretty calmly but that's just plain rude.


----------



## Jacksons Mom

Brooklyn&Stellasmom said:


> Not even sure how to respond to some of these responses..grain free, corn free, and no by products are the way to go..RAW IS BEST... all the science diet, ol roy, purina, food is nothing but crap
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


lol at "raw is best".

I've seen some very gorgeous athletic on Purina, RC, and Eukanuba. I've also seen some really crappy looking dogs on Orijen and EVO and vice versa. And I KNOW that some dogs do amazing on raw. That's great! But I've browsed enough dog forums through the years and I have seen some very scary advice regarding raw. People who come on and complain of their dogs having loose bloody stool and told it's 'normal at first' or they're going thru a 'detox'. Vomiting, hotspots, losing hair, losing weight rapidly... then people often get offended when someone suggests that MAYBE raw is not the answer for their dog. 

And the whole 'wolf' argument. I'm not denying the similarities but really, dogs have been domesticated SO much throughout the years, who is to say their digestive systems hasn't changed either? Certain breeds are prone to or known for specific food sensitives, for example. I mean the domestic dog is probably one of THE most unnatural, human manipulated creatures on the planet.

I'm pretty certain dogs of the past weren't eating raw the way raw is being fed today. They weren't eating kibble either, but you really think people were going to give up their meat (which at one point was a major luxury for humans) to their dogs? The dogs were getting the crap that was leftover. Dogs are/were scavengers, and evolved alongside humans... eating whatever scraps they could find and corn mush and whatever they could catch themselves. Was it the healthiest? Probably not, but they survived, and some even thrived. Would I CHOOSE to feed a dog food knowing such stuff is in there? Nope, it wouldn't be my first choice, simply because we have more options nowadays. 

There's no denying that fresh foods are most likely better than processed kibble. But the judgments that people pass online sometimes for feeding "death nuggets" is quite ridiculous. Hell, even when people bring up HOMECOOKING, I've seen people ask: "WHY?!?! Why would you COOK the food when you can feed it RAW?!?!" Umm.. really?

Raw (PMR or BARF) is just not something I'm comfortable with, and have no desire to feed, and I used to feel BAD about it, once I joined internet forums -- it just seemed raw was "THE BEST" and you were inferior if you did not feed raw. A lot of things are spoken repeatedly like a gospel and then people just start to believe it, including myself. It USED to be as simple to me as suggesting: "look for no by-products, first 3-4 ingredients being meat, no corn, wheat, or soy" without ever even paying attention to where the food was being manufactured, company history, quality control, testing involved, etc. At one point, I emailed a few of the 'better' 'high quality' 'holistic' type foods and was very dissatisfied with their answers and what kind of information they could/would provide.

So yeah, I'm kind of 'meh' about the whole thing. I don't care if people feed raw or don't, I think it will work well for some dogs and not others, just as certain kibbles work better for dogs than others. In the end, I think more important is genetics, lifestyle, exercise, physical condition, when or if you spay/neuter, and vaccinations (less of them). 

I won't fault those who feel raw is best, I think it's great. I just think some advice that is spouted around on the internet is VERY scary though. That's my biggest fear is people that don't know what they're doing and messing their dog up unnecessarily.


----------



## Jacksons Mom

Brooklyn&Stellasmom said:


> Pretty sure you don't. .and that's fine just sorry for your pets
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


Lol go ahead and feel sorry for my poor neglected dog, who gets to live the life of luxury, as he sleeps next to me right now on my pillow, gets to run around outside every day, swim all summer long, gets fed treats, and bully sticks, and my leftovers (chicken, etc), and gets to be my every day companion. The poor soul.


----------



## Shell

Here's something to ponder that I found interesting-- there's been discussion on dogs and their level of amylase for digesting starches right? Some breeds seemed to have more of the markers than other breeds.

I was watching a Netflix show on beer brewing and they were talking about chicha which is originally brewed from corn chewed by people and then spit out and fermented. They tested everyone in the company's saliva to check their amylase levels to see who could chew the best. People varied. Women seemed to have the enzymes more then men although the vast majority of people had a sufficient amount.

Here's my point:
If people can vary on their spit enzymes for digesting starch, then so can dogs for individual to individual even within a breed. Some dogs will thrive on lower protein and some dogs will do horribly. I've not actually had a dog do well on corn but that doesn't mean one couldn't. It just doesn't seem to be the best choice IMO. Oatmeal and barley have been fine inclusions in their kibble but once the protein level drops too low, it shows in their coats and eyes and such. 

In the end, I consider the source of the food as much as I consider the ingredients. Both are important.


----------



## Jacksons Mom

Shell said:


> Here's something to ponder that I found interesting-- there's been discussion on dogs and their level of amylase for digesting starches right? Some breeds seemed to have more of the markers than other breeds.
> 
> I was watching a Netflix show on beer brewing and they were talking about chicha which is originally brewed from corn chewed by people and then spit out and fermented. They tested everyone in the company's saliva to check their amylase levels to see who could chew the best. People varied. Women seemed to have the enzymes more then men although the vast majority of people had a sufficient amount.
> 
> Here's my point:
> If people can vary on their spit enzymes for digesting starch, then so can dogs for individual to individual even within a breed. Some dogs will thrive on lower protein and some dogs will do horribly. I've not actually had a dog do well on corn but that doesn't mean one couldn't. It just doesn't seem to be the best choice IMO. Oatmeal and barley have been fine inclusions in their kibble but once the protein level drops too low, it shows in their coats and eyes and such.
> 
> In the end, I consider the source of the food as much as I consider the ingredients. Both are important.


Definitely interesting!  Learn something new every day!

I actually read once that breeds like Corgis and Border Collies, and other farm dogs, often do BETTER on grain inclusive foods including corn. One of the goals of early Corgi breeders was to develop an "easy keeper." 

Again, I'm not saying that's the 'best' at all, but that it's certainly possible and I absolutely don't believe raw or any kind of diet is the BEST for every dog.

Common sense tells me that dogs should be eating meat vs. most other things. But with grain-free, it's like... you're still feeding potatos and peas, so what makes that better/worse than rice and corn?


----------



## BernerMax

For some reason, I think rice is easier to digest and my various dogs for the last 16 years have done fine on meat/ rice kibble (with lots of raw meaty, and dairy, inclusions)....
I think there is an old thread about carbs and the farm breeds maybe digesting better (ex I have a Bernese Mt dog, and I am guessing those swiss farmers fed their dogs plenty of dairy and grain, while developing the breed)....


----------



## Scrat

Jacksons Mom said:


> I mean the domestic dog is probably one of THE most unnatural, human manipulated creatures on the planet.
> 
> So yeah, I'm kind of 'meh' about the whole thing. I don't care if people feed raw or don't, I think it will work well for some dogs and not others, just as certain kibbles work better for dogs than others. In the end, I think more important is genetics, lifestyle, exercise, physical condition, when or if you spay/neuter, and vaccinations (less of them).


You know what? I think you made some great points here. You could feed a dog the best thing in the world and if the rest of its life isn't balanced it wouldn't make a difference. I get caught up in what is SUPPOSED to be best for my dogs, but I suppose what I think is best may not be best for them... I'm being selfish while trying to be unselfish lol.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

I agree this thread has turned out to be quite informative


----------



## Yellowsnow

I agree with a lot that has been stated. Source of ingredients is important. The process of making the kibble is important as well. I do not feed the foods posted in the op, but if they work for peoples dogs, I'm not going to judge. After all, if the dog is healthy and happy what difference does it make as to what the dog is eating? If beaks, feathers, euthanized animals, and poo help a dog run forever, and live a happy long life, then so be it. I do not judge people by what they feed their dog. Especially if it works and provides the results the dogs owner is looking for.

Corn. I happen to like corn over other starchy binders. Over the years of living with sporting dogs, raising sporting dogs, and watching many other sporting/working dogs, corn just seems to work better. My dogs perform better on a kibble with well processed corn, then they do with grain free or other starchy binders. Rice comes close, but not equal to corn. So while I still want most of the protein to come from meat, I do like corn in there as the binder.

My grandfather had hunting dogs before there was kibble. The dogs ate scraps and whatever they could find outside. Their main source of food was left over cornbread and sour buttermilk every evening after the family ate supper. Later in life he started buying kibble for his dogs, but he still fed them cornbread and buttermilk during hunting season. His dogs lived just fine.

Today I still catch my dogs pulling corn cobs from our corn crib, or eating rotten apples, and pears under the fruit trees. You should smell them after they've been in the barn yard or hog pens.


----------



## Willowy

I've found that corn puts weight on a dog super fast. Can be good for fattening up an underweight dog or providing energy for a really active/working dog. But for a regular pet dog will probably make it a little harder to avoid weight issues.


----------



## Abbylynn

I would fatten up my shelter dogs who were emaciated with Gravy Train. Yep! Nasty old Gravy Train did the job. Then I would switch to a better food. Gravy Train and Dad's Dog Food ... along with feed .... also made the meat Muscovie duck I raised taste great!


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

ShoreDobermans said:


> Yellowsnow, people like that never have any evidence. It is a knee-jerk defensive position because they cannot present a rational argument.
> 
> People that think the top show kennels and private owners that spend $50,000, $100,000, $150,000 to finish a dog for top competition use a food only because it was free or subsidized, have to be completely crazy. The fact is yes they give breeder discounts but so what, no rational person would use it after sinking major money in a dog unless they got the results they wanted.
> 
> People use those foods because they work. period....and they are real companies with technical staff, scientists and vets that know what they are doing. Most pet food companies are not even pet food companies, just a few people in an office.


Purina, SD, IAMS, eukanuba, etc ... Have medidone sulfate bisulfate complex which is PROVEN to cause numerous problems including liver failure and cancer in dogs. They are heavy on corn, wheat and soy. Look like I said some dogs "do well" on Doggy junk food, just like some people do well on a junky diet. But there is a difference btw "doing well" and thriving. And I don't know about you but I want my dogs to thrive, not just do well.

Purina used to own the dog food side too but purina mills inc sold the pet food side of it to nestle


----------



## Laurelin

Not all formulas of Purina, Eukanuba, Science Diet, and Iams have corn, wheat, or soy. Purina One Beyond, Iams Simple and Natural, Science Diet Nature's Best, or Eukanuba Naturally Wild for example. (Not endorsing those foods just pointing out that there are a lot of different kinds of formulas from the brands mentioned and not all have corn, soy, and wheat)

What study was done on menidione in dogs? Curious. I know it is a controversial ingredient. All I can find is some issues in rats from giving them way high levels of menadione.


----------



## ShoreDobermans

Laurelin said:


> Not all formulas of Purina, Eukanuba, Science Diet, and Iams have corn, wheat, or soy. Purina One Beyond, Iams Simple and Natural, Science Diet Nature's Best, or Eukanuba Naturally Wild for example. (Not endorsing those foods just pointing out that there are a lot of different kinds of formulas from the brands mentioned and not all have corn, soy, and wheat)
> 
> What study was done on menidione in dogs? Curious. I know it is a controversial ingredient. All I can find is some issues in rats from giving them way high levels of menadione.


K3 is only "controversial" to people that don't know anything about it. It has been used for over 50 years before that moron started scaring people on her website. There is not one shred of evidence it is harmful. The study you mentioned was with rats injected with 6,000 times what a dog would eat. Being injected with something is far different than eating something.

Everyone talks about natural vitamin K like its was a gift from god, but the reason K3 is the only one approved by the USA is because the natural forms build-up being that they are fat soluble. K3 is water soluble and does not build-up.

I am not saying K3 is required but it certainly isn't dangerous. Even "holistic practioners" don't understand all the fuss about it.

Yes, OwnedbyACD's show us all this proof. You will never find it.

Something to read as well, http://www.azmira.com/support/article-the-latest-scare-menadione-k3.pdf


----------



## ShoreDobermans

Willowy said:


> I've found that corn puts weight on a dog super fast. Can be good for fattening up an underweight dog or providing energy for a really active/working dog. But for a regular pet dog will probably make it a little harder to avoid weight issues.


Corn and wheat make digestion more efficient. This tells me that dogs evolved eating similar grains probably the ancient "wheat" varieties and grains similar to corn from human settlements.


----------



## xoxluvablexox

So then, why won't the FDA allow it for human supplements?


----------



## xoxluvablexox

ShoreDobermans said:


> Corn and wheat make digestion more efficient. This tells me that dogs evolved eating similar grains probably the ancient "wheat" varieties and grains similar to corn from human settlements.


That's absolute BS.


----------



## ShoreDobermans

xoxluvablexox said:


> So then, why won't the FDA allow it for human supplements?


Because people can abuse Vitamin K that is why, dogs can't. In Canada all forms of Vitamin K are banned, all forms.

http://skeptvet.com/Blog/2011/07/vitamin-k3-menadione-in-pet-food-is-it-safe/



xoxluvablexox said:


> That's absolute BS.


How much you wanna bet smarty pants?


----------



## ShoreDobermans

xoxluvablexox said:


> So then, why won't the FDA allow it for human supplements?


Because people can abuse it, dogs can't. In several countries all forms of Vitamin K supplements are banned.

http://skeptvet.com/Blog/2011/07/vitamin-k3-menadione-in-pet-food-is-it-safe/


----------



## Scottsmum

gingerkid said:


> Feed what you can afford and most importantly what your dogs does well on. My dog doesn't handle oats very well, but does fine with wheat, barley, etc. Unfortunately, oatmeal is a very common ingredient in grain-inclusive foods. So while we don't _have_ to feed grain-free, we generally have, but we are considering a few grain-inclusive foods to introduce into our rotation - including Eagle Pack, which is, besides Costco's Nature's Domain, by-far one of the most cost-effective "quality" foods available in my area.



THIS!

We're in the same situation. My boy gets smelly and itchy on any commercial food which has "cereal" listed in it - he's fine on rice and home cooked pasta so he's not "grain free" but we buy him grain free commercial food because he enjoys it, does well on it and thats that. We swap between the most expensive one on the market (Ziwipeak -$43 a kilo) and a cheap supermarket brand ($5 a kilo)


----------



## RabbleFox

ShoreDobermans said:


> Corn and wheat make digestion more efficient. This tells me that dogs evolved eating similar grains probably the ancient "wheat" varieties and grains similar to corn from human settlements.


Is there a study or article to support this?


----------



## xoxluvablexox

ShoreDobermans said:


> Because people can abuse Vitamin K that is why, dogs can't. In Canada all forms of Vitamin K are banned, all forms.
> 
> http://skeptvet.com/Blog/2011/07/vitamin-k3-menadione-in-pet-food-is-it-safe/
> 
> 
> 
> How much you wanna bet smarty pants?


So, I'm assuming that the grains in dog food are properly prepared. Soaked over night. Corn soaked in limewater? Oh, I'm sorry... Not soaked over night. Some things have to be soaked for up to 48 hours. Even then, that only makes the digestion of grains specifically more efficient... Not digestion as a whole.

I'm pretty sure the people with IBS, celiac, & gluton intolerance (among other things) who've eliminated wheat & grains and seen improved digestion would disagree. I'm pretty sure what makes digestion more efficient is proper beneficial bacteria amounts, proper enzymatic function of the pancreas, proper bile production of the liver and storage of the gallbladder, etc make digestion more efficient, not wheat & corn.


----------



## Yellowsnow

OwnedbyACDs said:


> Purina, SD, IAMS, eukanuba, etc ... Have medidone sulfate bisulfate complex which is PROVEN to cause numerous problems including liver failure and cancer in dogs. They are heavy on corn, wheat and soy. Look like I said some dogs "do well" on Doggy junk food, just like some people do well on a junky diet. *But there is a difference btw "doing well" and thriving. And I don't know about you but I want my dogs to thrive, not just do well.*
> 
> Purina used to own the dog food side too but purina mills inc sold the pet food side of it to nestle


What are the differences? What is "Thriving"?


----------



## bowie

ShoreDobermans said:


> Corn and wheat make digestion more efficient. This tells me that dogs evolved eating similar grains probably the ancient "wheat" varieties and grains similar to corn from human settlements.


Source for this statement?


----------



## Jacksons Mom

RabbleFox said:


> Is there a study or article to support this?


Actually, there was an interesting study done recently. 

Here's an article about it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...c47500-6510-11e2-85f5-a8a9228e55e7_story.html

And another article.
http://www.beverlyoaksvet.com/can-dogs-digest-grains/.php


----------



## xoxluvablexox

Grains have amylase inhibitors which reduce the bodies ability to digest carbs & starch. There's been plenty of studies.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=enzyme+inhibitors+in+grain&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,31&as_vis=1

So, with the way people used to prepare grains, those anti nutrients weren't so much of a problem. That's not how things work now. Grains, legumes, seeds, & nuts aren't prepared the way they used to be. I'm sure the over processing of kibble had some impact but if you were to actually feed a dog whole grains and a high carb diet, they wouldn't be getting much nutrition out of it.


----------



## ShoreDobermans

xoxluvablexox said:


> So, I'm assuming that the grains in dog food are properly prepared. Soaked over night. Corn soaked in limewater? Oh, I'm sorry... Not soaked over night. Some things have to be soaked for up to 48 hours. Even then, that only makes the digestion of grains specifically more efficient... Not digestion as a whole.
> 
> I'm pretty sure the people with IBS, celiac, & gluton intolerance (among other things) who've eliminated wheat & grains and seen improved digestion would disagree. I'm pretty sure what makes digestion more efficient is proper beneficial bacteria amounts, proper enzymatic function of the pancreas, proper bile production of the liver and storage of the gallbladder, etc make digestion more efficient, not wheat & corn.


Grains just need to be ground and cooked, not soaked, in the normal process of making kibble. As for your comments about people and celiac, it doesn't apply to dogs. You don't seem to have much background.


----------



## ShoreDobermans

Jacksons Mom said:


> Actually, there was an interesting study done recently.
> 
> Here's an article about it.
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...c47500-6510-11e2-85f5-a8a9228e55e7_story.html
> 
> And another article.
> http://www.beverlyoaksvet.com/can-dogs-digest-grains/.php


Thank you for posting this. This study was done by one of the finest science universities in world. It basically validates the theory of evolution called "the village dog hypothesis".


----------



## Kathyy

What that is a really small study! 12 wolves and 60 dogs? I never got that point before. Were the wolf species closest to dogs even examined? Good that a variety of wolf species were examined anyway. Sample size is too small for me to think this is really valid. Dogs don't have the same bottleneck in genetic diversity that cats have.

I see that study as showing that dogs really vary a great deal more than all dogs do fine on starch as the number of sites of amylase adaption vary so much in dogs. If your dog does poorly on Ol' Roy then try a meatier food with less starch. There have been amazing recoveries of sick dogs taken off plant foods and put on raw meat/bone/organ and some dogs just don't do well without some starch in the diet.

I do think village dog theory is how dogs came to be but since we aren't selecting dogs with good digestion for the most part we are going to have to continue to search for foods that work best for our chosen companions. And even village dogs don't just eat off the dump, they find their own protein. Maybe the dump with poop/bones/rotted fruit/veggy/slops was the witch's gingerbread house for Hansel and Gretel dogs rather than an essential food source as berry patches and orchard windfalls are for wild dogs these days? Tame foxes were developed with no help from food, just selecting animals that were less flighty. In order to exploit the dumps future dogs had to have lower flight distances but that doesn't mean every future dog actually ate anything in the dump. 

Is there even a nutritional analysis available of what a village dump has in it? Poor people aren't going to throw away much actual food.


----------



## xoxluvablexox

ShoreDobermans said:


> Grains just need to be ground and cooked, not soaked, in the normal process of making kibble. As for your comments about people and celiac, it doesn't apply to dogs. You don't seem to have much background.


 To remove the antinutrients they need to be soaked & fermented which pretty much every ancient and primitive society that survived on grains did up until companies started making people's food for them. 

Love that you don't comment on the fact that it's absolutely proven that certain things in wheat INHIBITS proper digestion rather than making it more efficient. It stops your pancreas (and dog's pancreas) from producing enzymes that are supposed to be released for proper digestion of food. Oh, and I'm also absolutely sure that dog's also suffer from gluton intolerance and Celiac disease.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

ShoreDobermans said:


> K3 is only "controversial" to people that don't know anything about it. It has been used for over 50 years before that moron started scaring people on her website. There is not one shred of evidence it is harmful. The study you mentioned was with rats injected with 6,000 times what a dog would eat. Being injected with something is far different than eating something.
> 
> Everyone talks about natural vitamin K like its was a gift from god, but the reason K3 is the only one approved by the USA is because the natural forms build-up being that they are fat soluble. K3 is water soluble and does not build-up.
> 
> I am not saying K3 is required but it certainly isn't dangerous. Even "holistic practioners" don't understand all the fuss about it.
> 
> Yes, OwnedbyACD's show us all this proof. You will never find it.
> 
> Something to read as well, http://www.azmira.com/support/article-the-latest-scare-menadione-k3.pdf


Ok since I am on my computer and can post links easier, but I don't know why I bother since you already have made up your mind that you are right and know everything and everyone else doesn't know squat ... but anyway here you go:

http://www.vetinfo.com/vitamin-k1-for-dogs.html - dogs don't need vita K ... they only need it if they have some sort of disorder that causes them to be deficient in vita K.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/422923-what-happens-with-too-much-vitamin-k/ - this is a human site but if you scroll down and it list the complications to having too much K in the system, since the kidneys don't flush it out.

http://www.livinghealthy360.com/index.php/vitamim-k-overdose-symptoms-24597/

In short, if you don't have a health problem you don't need K.


----------



## ShoreDobermans

xoxluvablexox said:


> To remove the antinutrients they need to be soaked & fermented which pretty much every ancient and primitive society that survived on grains did up until companies started making people's food for them.
> 
> Love that you don't comment on the fact that it's absolutely proven that certain things in wheat INHIBITS proper digestion rather than making it more efficient. It stops your pancreas (and dog's pancreas) from producing enzymes that are supposed to be released for proper digestion of food. Oh, and I'm also absolutely sure that dog's also suffer from gluton intolerance and Celiac disease.



I am not commenting on foolishness. All of these maladies you speak of may effect 1 in 20,000 dogs, like a wheat allergy or corn allergy.

As for Celiac, it does not exist in dogs. You do want it to exist, so in your mind it does.


----------



## ShoreDobermans

Kathyy said:


> What that is a really small study! 12 wolves and 60 dogs? I never got that point before. Were the wolf species closest to dogs even examined? Good that a variety of wolf species were examined anyway. Sample size is too small for me to think this is really valid. Dogs don't have the same bottleneck in genetic diversity that cats have.
> 
> I see that study as showing that dogs really vary a great deal more than all dogs do fine on starch as the number of sites of amylase adaption vary so much in dogs. If your dog does poorly on Ol' Roy then try a meatier food with less starch. There have been amazing recoveries of sick dogs taken off plant foods and put on raw meat/bone/organ and some dogs just don't do well without some starch in the diet.
> 
> I do think village dog theory is how dogs came to be but since we aren't selecting dogs with good digestion for the most part we are going to have to continue to search for foods that work best for our chosen companions. And even village dogs don't just eat off the dump, they find their own protein. Maybe the dump with poop/bones/rotted fruit/veggy/slops was the witch's gingerbread house for Hansel and Gretel dogs rather than an essential food source as berry patches and orchard windfalls are for wild dogs these days? Tame foxes were developed with no help from food, just selecting animals that were less flighty. In order to exploit the dumps future dogs had to have lower flight distances but that doesn't mean every future dog actually ate anything in the dump.
> 
> Is there even a nutritional analysis available of what a village dump has in it? Poor people aren't going to throw away much actual food.


Genetic studies need not be that large to be conclusive. This was not done by a community college, it was done by a top university so they get the benefit of the doubt on the structure of the study.


----------



## Shell

ShoreDobermans said:


> I am not commenting on foolishness. All of these maladies you speak of may effect 1 in 20,000 dogs, like a wheat allergy or corn allergy.
> 
> As for Celiac, it does not exist in dogs. You do want it to exist, so in your mind it does.


Dogs can have Gluten-sensitve enteropathy which is quite similar to celiac in humans so I can see explaining it to someone as "celiac" so they understand the need for a gluten-free diet. Not common but if a dog is showing symptoms of "celiac disease" then trying a gluten free diet is a simple change to see if it resolves the dog's problems.

I think digestive issues in dogs are likely under diagnosed. Dogs cannot complain like people can, and I see a far too many dog owners that think chronic gas and loose stools is somehow normal. While a relatively few may have an actually allergic reaction to wheat or corn, the number that may have an intolerance is likely greater. 

For example, humans and milk. A lot of people who aren't truly allergic to milk still have digestive discomfort after consuming milk products (and the level can vary depending on the type of product or the cooking process). The amount consumed matters a lot too and people who can handle a few ounces of milk may be very sick after two big glasses full. If a study tested 100 people with a white or african ethnic background for diary intolerance, the results would be very different then if they tested 100 people of east and south asian origin. So while I am not commenting on that specific study with the wolves and dogs, I will say that I see a lot of flawed samples in major university studies (heck, some seem to think that testing their classmates is a representative sample) and some very good community college studies so that part alone doesn't make a study anything special in quality.

Basically, if a dog isn't doing well on a food then I'm going to start looking at different ingredients regardless of what "statistics" say should or shouldn't be an allergen. The amount of corn or wheat in a given food could easily make a big difference in a dog's digestion. I know you love your corn, but every single dog I know that went from a heavily corn or wheat based food to a food without either has done better. Before anyone says it, this isn't even counting the dogs that came from the shelter where the change in environment makes assessing effects of the change in food hard. I mean owned dogs with no other changes in environment, exercise level, etc.


----------



## xoxluvablexox

Actually, dogs can be diagnosed with Celiac disease after a biopsy is done. Usually they'll be diagnosed with IBS though. The symptoms are pretty much the same.

ShoreDobermans, 

I'm still waiting for proof that corn and wheat make digestion more efficient.


----------



## Kathyy

Wow, did you even look?
http://www.vetinfo.com/celiac-disease-in-dogs.html


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

Well like ole what's his name said in cool hand like "what we have here is a failure to communicate ..."


----------



## Jacksons Mom

Shell said:


> Dogs can have Gluten-sensitve enteropathy which is quite similar to celiac in humans so I can see explaining it to someone as "celiac" so they understand the need for a gluten-free diet. Not common but if a dog is showing symptoms of "celiac disease" then trying a gluten free diet is a simple change to see if it resolves the dog's problems.
> 
> I think digestive issues in dogs are likely under diagnosed. Dogs cannot complain like people can, and I see a far too many dog owners that think chronic gas and loose stools is somehow normal. While a relatively few may have an actually allergic reaction to wheat or corn, the number that may have an intolerance is likely greater.
> 
> For example, humans and milk. A lot of people who aren't truly allergic to milk still have digestive discomfort after consuming milk products (and the level can vary depending on the type of product or the cooking process). The amount consumed matters a lot too and people who can handle a few ounces of milk may be very sick after two big glasses full. If a study tested 100 people with a white or african ethnic background for diary intolerance, the results would be very different then if they tested 100 people of east and south asian origin. So while I am not commenting on that specific study with the wolves and dogs, I will say that I see a lot of flawed samples in major university studies (heck, some seem to think that testing their classmates is a representative sample) and some very good community college studies so that part alone doesn't make a study anything special in quality.
> 
> Basically, if a dog isn't doing well on a food then I'm going to start looking at different ingredients regardless of what "statistics" say should or shouldn't be an allergen. The amount of corn or wheat in a given food could easily make a big difference in a dog's digestion. I know you love your corn, but every single dog I know that went from a heavily corn or wheat based food to a food without either has done better. Before anyone says it, this isn't even counting the dogs that came from the shelter where the change in environment makes assessing effects of the change in food hard. I mean owned dogs with no other changes in environment, exercise level, etc.


This is very true, too. I think intolerance's are MUCH more common than an actual allergy. 

I have an inkling that Jackson is somewhat sensitive to barley and possibly tomato pomace. But I obviously can't prove this, I'm just going off a hunch, if you will, from foods he's been fed in the past, but it could've been something else, or a combination of other things. I also notice softer stool and more eye boogers on chicken based foods. But he seems to be able to eat chicken breast just fine.

I'm also going off a hunch feeding him what I currently do. Do I think it's perfect or 100% trust any company? No. But for some reason, I still can't get myself to fully feed a food with corn, wheat, etc. But in the same token, I also try to stay away from foods with pea protein, potato protein, etc. I mean who knows. I had a small 2.5lb bag of the Royal Canin Yorkie that I sparingly fed while also feeding Acana Duck so it's hard to get any results from that, but he didn't SEEM to have any major issues. I used them a lot in his interactive toys because he liked the kibble taste so much. So I don't know, maybe I'll buy a bag of Purina Beyond or Royal Canin or something and feed it solely for a month and see. lol.


----------



## ShoreDobermans

xoxluvablexox said:


> Actually, dogs can be diagnosed with Celiac disease after a biopsy is done. Usually they'll be diagnosed with IBS though. The symptoms are pretty much the same.
> 
> ShoreDobermans,
> 
> I'm still waiting for proof that corn and wheat make digestion more efficient.


Actually, you do some research sounds like you need some schooling.


----------



## ShoreDobermans

Shell said:


> Dogs can have Gluten-sensitve enteropathy which is quite similar to celiac in humans so I can see explaining it to someone as "celiac" so they understand the need for a gluten-free diet. Not common but if a dog is showing symptoms of "celiac disease" then trying a gluten free diet is a simple change to see if it resolves the dog's problems.
> 
> I think digestive issues in dogs are likely under diagnosed. Dogs cannot complain like people can, and I see a far too many dog owners that think chronic gas and loose stools is somehow normal. While a relatively few may have an actually allergic reaction to wheat or corn, the number that may have an intolerance is likely greater.
> 
> For example, humans and milk. A lot of people who aren't truly allergic to milk still have digestive discomfort after consuming milk products (and the level can vary depending on the type of product or the cooking process). The amount consumed matters a lot too and people who can handle a few ounces of milk may be very sick after two big glasses full. If a study tested 100 people with a white or african ethnic background for diary intolerance, the results would be very different then if they tested 100 people of east and south asian origin. So while I am not commenting on that specific study with the wolves and dogs, I will say that I see a lot of flawed samples in major university studies (heck, some seem to think that testing their classmates is a representative sample) and some very good community college studies so that part alone doesn't make a study anything special in quality.
> 
> Basically, if a dog isn't doing well on a food then I'm going to start looking at different ingredients regardless of what "statistics" say should or shouldn't be an allergen. The amount of corn or wheat in a given food could easily make a big difference in a dog's digestion. I know you love your corn, but every single dog I know that went from a heavily corn or wheat based food to a food without either has done better. Before anyone says it, this isn't even counting the dogs that came from the shelter where the change in environment makes assessing effects of the change in food hard. I mean owned dogs with no other changes in environment, exercise level, etc.


Any type of true allergy or intolerance to wheat or corn is an outlying event in the general population of pet dogs. Wheat is more common than corn but neither are very common when you look at numbers. You all think that every dog has issues when it is a very small minority of dogs, like I said some 1 in 10,000 to 20,000 dogs. 

Gluten-sensitve enteropathy is a disorder that only Irish Setters have very rarely, no other breed that I am aware of. Irish Setters are not a popular breed so I doubt there are actually many cases.

It is not worth worrying about. I think pet owners that worry 24 hours a day about what their dogs eat need therapy to be honest, or at least a more productive hobby.


----------



## RabbleFox

ShoreDobermans said:


> Actually, you do some research sounds like you need some schooling.


There isn't a lot out there. 

http://m.petmd.com/dog/nutrition/evr_dg_contrasting_grain_based_and_meat_based_diets?page=1

In a debate, you generally are supposed to bring your own proof to the table!


----------



## ShoreDobermans

Jacksons Mom said:


> This is very true, too. I think intolerance's are MUCH more common than an actual allergy.
> 
> I have an inkling that Jackson is somewhat sensitive to barley and possibly tomato pomace. But I obviously can't prove this, I'm just going off a hunch, if you will, from foods he's been fed in the past, but it could've been something else, or a combination of other things. I also notice softer stool and more eye boogers on chicken based foods. But he seems to be able to eat chicken breast just fine.
> 
> I'm also going off a hunch feeding him what I currently do. Do I think it's perfect or 100% trust any company? No. But for some reason, I still can't get myself to fully feed a food with corn, wheat, etc. But in the same token, I also try to stay away from foods with pea protein, potato protein, etc. I mean who knows. I had a small 2.5lb bag of the Royal Canin Yorkie that I sparingly fed while also feeding Acana Duck so it's hard to get any results from that, but he didn't SEEM to have any major issues. I used them a lot in his interactive toys because he liked the kibble taste so much. So I don't know, maybe I'll buy a bag of Purina Beyond or Royal Canin or something and feed it solely for a month and see. lol.


He likes the taste because of the by product meal in RC, organ meat is very palatable.


----------



## ShoreDobermans

RabbleFox said:


> There isn't a lot out there.
> 
> http://m.petmd.com/dog/nutrition/evr_dg_contrasting_grain_based_and_meat_based_diets?page=1
> 
> In a debate, you generally are supposed to bring your own proof to the table!


Corn has very high levels of Amylase and Wheat has very high levels of l-glutamine.


----------



## RabbleFox

ShoreDobermans said:


> Corn has very high levels of Amylase and Wheat has very high levels of l-glutamine.


Could you elaborate on this?


----------



## Jacksons Mom

ShoreDobermans said:


> He likes the taste because of the by product meal in RC, organ meat is very palatable.


There is no by product in the Yorkie formula.


----------



## Jacksons Mom

ShoreDobermans said:


> It is not worth worrying about. I think pet owners that worry 24 hours a day about what their dogs eat need therapy to be honest, or at least a more productive hobby.


Lol this made me laugh. Comes from the one who joins a bunch of dog forums, gets banned and continues to keep joining with new usernames. Don't judge people who are doing the same thing you are (discussing dog food on an online forum).


----------



## Shell

ShoreDobermans said:


> Any type of true allergy or intolerance to wheat or corn is an outlying event in the general population of pet dogs. Wheat is more common than corn but neither are very common when you look at numbers. You all think that every dog has issues when it is a very small minority of dogs, like I said some 1 in 10,000 to 20,000 dogs.
> 
> Gluten-sensitve enteropathy is a disorder that only Irish Setters have very rarely, no other breed that I am aware of. Irish Setters are not a popular breed so I doubt there are actually many cases.
> 
> It is not worth worrying about. I think pet owners that worry 24 hours a day about what their dogs eat need therapy to be honest, or at least a more productive hobby.


Actually, I don't think anywhere near "every" dog has issues. Every dog I know has done better without the corn or wheat but that doesn't mean every one of them had a problem with it, the proportions of carbs in a corn vs non-corn food or the change in fat levels could be a concurrent factor. It is enough though to say that when someone's dog isn't doing well on a corn or wheat based food to suggest changing it to one without those ingredients. I think I probably see a slightly higher percentage of dogs that tend towards digestive issues because I know mainly pit bulls and bully breed mixes which seem more sensitive to food ingredients and changes then say, a typical hound or lab. 

I did have as much of a laugh at your last sentence there as Jackson's Mom did....given that you've shown no noticeable interest in discussing training, grooming, sports, sharing photos, or any non-food related topic then I'd say you spend more time worrying about what other peoples dogs eat than I spend thinking about what my own dogs eat. 

I have several options of food that I know my current dogs do well on and which I've had success with for other dogs. So it is quite easy to go DAYS without even thinking specifically about what my dogs eat. I wasn't a math major, but I'm pretty sure that is less than "24 hours a day" 



Jacksons Mom said:


> Lol this made me laugh. Comes from the one who joins a bunch of dog forums, gets banned and continues to keep joining with new usernames. Don't judge people who are doing the same thing you are (discussing dog food on an online forum).


You think there is a similarity? Probably just a coincidence I'm sure 



ShoreDobermans said:


> He likes the taste because of the by product meal in RC, organ meat is very palatable.





Bumper1 said:


> Beef, fish and pork meal are also by-product meals (even if not labelled that way), so you find better palatability in those foods. Palatability is much greater when there is organ content. Dogs also are attracted to amino acid peptides which you will find in animal protein digests.





ShoreDobermans said:


> Here is one for you. The most knowledgeable person in the world on Great Danes, Chairperson for the Health Committee for the National Club, feeds Bil-Jac and she states it on her website. She says that if her dogs cannot get along on that food they do not get bred. Smart lady....





Bumper1 said:


> Who says Bil-Jac isn't good? DFA? Well the Chairperson of the Health Committee of the Great Dane Club of America uses regular Bil-Jac and has for about 20 years. She is well known and highly respected. It is not hard to find some really smart dog people using that food.


----------



## xoxluvablexox

ShoreDobermans said:


> Any type of true allergy or intolerance to wheat or corn is an outlying event in the general population of pet dogs. Wheat is more common than corn but neither are very common when you look at numbers. You all think that every dog has issues when it is a very small minority of dogs, like I said some 1 in 10,000 to 20,000 dogs.
> 
> Gluten-sensitve enteropathy is a disorder that only Irish Setters have very rarely, no other breed that I am aware of. Irish Setters are not a popular breed so I doubt there are actually many cases.
> 
> It is not worth worrying about. I think pet owners that worry 24 hours a day about what their dogs eat need therapy to be honest, or at least a more productive hobby.


First of all, as far as I've read, no one said or implied that grain intolerance is something all dogs have, just that it exist. 

Also, you gave the impression that Celiac disease doesn't exist in dogs at all. It does. Which you just now admit to. It may be rare but it does exist. Also, just because it's only believed to be something only Irish Setters have doesn't mean other breeds aren't being diagnosed with IBS when what they really have is Celiac disease. Only blood work and biopsy can provide that info & I highly doubt most owners are going to pay for a biopsy of their dog's small Intestine after an IBS diagnosis.

Third of all, you claim that corn & wheat make digestion more efficient without anything to back up your claim when it's scientifically proven that wheat contains antinutrients that inhibit proper digestion. How exactly is that more efficient. The only thing good about it is that it may help people & dogs with weight issues and diabetes because it prevents the proper digestion of carbs so they have less of an issue with blood glucose and gaining weight from carb intake. Those same people & dogs could easily just eat/ be fed less carbs for the same outcome to occur.


----------



## Jacksons Mom

I'm pretty much on the verge of homecooking anyway. I know I'll never be 100% satisfied with a kibble LOL... and Jackson won't either. He's never too enthusiastic about eating most kibbles without being mixed with something yummy. I've been generating recipes in the BalanceIT website and am tempted to go ahead and buy the supplement and start my cooking!


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

Shell said:


> Dogs can have Gluten-sensitve enteropathy which is quite similar to celiac in humans so I can see explaining it to someone as "celiac" so they understand the need for a gluten-free diet. Not common but if a dog is showing symptoms of "celiac disease" then trying a gluten free diet is a simple change to see if it resolves the dog's problems.
> 
> I think digestive issues in dogs are likely under diagnosed. Dogs cannot complain like people can, and I see a far too many dog owners that think chronic gas and loose stools is somehow normal. While a relatively few may have an actually allergic reaction to wheat or corn, the number that may have an intolerance is likely greater.
> 
> For example, humans and milk. A lot of people who aren't truly allergic to milk still have digestive discomfort after consuming milk products (and the level can vary depending on the type of product or the cooking process). The amount consumed matters a lot too and people who can handle a few ounces of milk may be very sick after two big glasses full. If a study tested 100 people with a white or african ethnic background for diary intolerance, the results would be very different then if they tested 100 people of east and south asian origin. So while I am not commenting on that specific study with the wolves and dogs, I will say that I see a lot of flawed samples in major university studies (heck, some seem to think that testing their classmates is a representative sample) and some very good community college studies so that part alone doesn't make a study anything special in quality.
> 
> Basically, if a dog isn't doing well on a food then I'm going to start looking at different ingredients regardless of what "statistics" say should or shouldn't be an allergen. The amount of corn or wheat in a given food could easily make a big difference in a dog's digestion. I know you love your corn, but every single dog I know that went from a heavily corn or wheat based food to a food without either has done better. Before anyone says it, this isn't even counting the dogs that came from the shelter where the change in environment makes assessing effects of the change in food hard. I mean owned dogs with no other changes in environment, exercise level, etc.


This. I have a slight sensitivity to milk and if I eat a large amount of it, cheese. But if it's used as an additive in foods (cookies, cakes etc ...) then I don't have any issue with it. I am sure dogs are the same way.

Lol darn it they got banned, I am almost sad to see them go, they made for some interesting conversation xD


----------



## gingerkid

OwnedbyACDs said:


> This. I have a slight sensitivity to milk and if I eat a large amount of it, cheese. But if it's used as an additive in foods (cookies, cakes etc ...) then I don't have any issue with it. I am sure dogs are the same way.
> 
> Lol darn it they got banned, I am almost sad to see them go, they made for some interesting conversation xD


At least this time they were somewhat more polite in the things they were posting? And only minimal Champion-bashing.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

champion bashing? I don't understand?


----------



## Willowy

OwnedbyACDs said:


> champion bashing? I don't understand?


Acana and Orijen are made by Champion . And he/she likes to bash Champion in general.


----------



## Little Wise Owl

gingerkid said:


> At least this time they were somewhat more polite in the things they were posting? And only minimal Champion-bashing.


I'm sure he was working up to it. lol


----------



## Laurelin

At the very beginning I was actually convinced they were different people. lol


----------



## Shell

Laurelin said:


> At the very beginning I was actually convinced they were different people. lol


There have been a few other accounts that didn't last as long with the same sentence structure and style. Distinctive repetition not just of certain topics but of word selection and grammatical quirks.


----------



## gingerkid

Laurelin said:


> At the very beginning I was actually convinced they were different people. lol


Me to... partly because ShoreDobermans was an account before Bumper1 got banned.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

I just get a kick out of people who are detriments to remain ignorant ... Lol.


----------



## Yellowsnow

Why in the world would you want anyone to get banned because they do not agree with your opinions?


----------



## RabbleFox

Yellowsnow said:


> Why in the world would you want anyone to get banned because they do not agree with your opinions?


Because we are a cult. Join ussssss.

Jk. 

This account was most likely a second account of someone who was already banned. One account per person. 
People are welcome to agree/disagree as long as they abide by the forum rules!


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

That and they were insulting others


----------



## fourdogs

Interesting topic. Im one of those people who probably pay a little too much attention to how the dogs do on any given food. I've fed it all, from PMR, to barf (raw with veg), to Volhard (raw with grain), to pre made raw (many types!), to dehydrated/freeze dried, to cooked (many different recipes and percentages) to kibble, to canned. 
The "worst" I've ever fed was Iams years ago to my minpin when he was a puppy. I've fed all the boutique high-end foo foo kibbles and many of them didn't work great for my dogs, OR I didn't notice a major difference one way or another. 

I spent a LONG time begin a dog food snob. I fed raw grass fed organic to the dogs, and meanwhile I ate cereal and mac n cheese because the majority of the food budget was going to the dang DOGS lol and not the humans. Wish I could travel back in time and have a chat about a thing or two to the younger me LOL. I can spit out the "corn is bad, by products is bad, wheat is bad, menadione is bad, kibble will kill your dog" brainwashing that the internet has taught me over the last 17 years of dog ownership.

Anyway, I keep coming back to kibble/canned. I don't really see a giant difference in body condition or stool (poops change and are different every time!).  I've seen coats fall apart or dogs have major itching issues on certain foods and so I have learned to pay attention to the DOG and its body reactions and go from there.

There can never be a perfect answer to "which is best" because every dog is different, every human feeding that dog is different- has different comfort levels and different budgets and different expectations. As picky as I am I also need to learn to relax a whole lot! As long as the dog looks good and isn't itchy, farty, or having diarrhea, I think I will be satisfied. At some point, there's going to have to be a "good enough" for everyone and instead of worrying so much or caring to debate about it, we should go play with our dogs, or brush them, or stuff a kong 

As for passing judgement on how other dogs are fed, as long as they have food in their tummy, love, basic health care and grooming and are part of the family, it really doesn't matter (anymore) to me


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

I have been told I am cruel for feeding my dogs kibble and raw together (Josefina gets "fat/satin" balls) she absolutely will not hold weight without them in winter and I don't have the money to feed a food like Orijin or Acana (which are insanely expensive down here and not widely available. So I do the best I can, I also don't have a chest freezer to store a large amount of raw meat, and when my job takes me where I can't have a dog, I leave her with my folks and their three dogs and my folks don't have the time or the experience to do raw even if I explain it to them. And it would be horrible of me to expect them to deal with that.

So yes, while my dogs are important, I also have to consider the feelings of the people caring for them ... So because of that, I will continue to be a "cruel" dog owner lmao


----------



## Dog Person

OwnedbyACDs said:


> I have been told I am cruel for feeding my dogs kibble and raw together (Josefina gets "fat/satin" balls) she absolutely will not hold weight without them in winter and I don't have the money to feed a food like Orijin or Acana (which are insanely expensive down here and not widely available. So I do the best I can, I also don't have a chest freezer to store a large amount of raw meat, and when my job takes me where I can't have a dog, I leave her with my folks and their three dogs and my folks don't have the time or the experience to do raw even if I explain it to them. And it would be horrible of me to expect them to deal with that.
> 
> So yes, while my dogs are important, I also have to consider the feelings of the people caring for them ... So because of that, I will continue to be a "cruel" dog owner lmao


It isn't cruel to feed foods that are made for dogs. It would be cruel to not feed your dogs or feed them scraps. I think people who would say that are dog food snobs. If we HAD TO feed raw we wouldn't have a dog. If we HAD TO cook for a dog we probably wouldn't have a dog. I think there is a difference in some dog foods but I think what you can feed depends entirely on your dog. My last dog ate 4 different dog foods all of them considered not so great and she did well on them. I feed Zoey what I consider a better dry food and it costs less then the Nutro I was feeding my last dog ... so IMO it's not a bad thing.

As far as keeping weight on your dog - have you tried Victor which is a local food for you? I used their grain free food and it seemed that Zoey was doing OK on it. Have you tried Annamaet? She is eating this now for about 3 months and she is filling out more than when she was eating Victor but it could also be from lack of exercise.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

Yes I have tried all of those and in the winter she just can't keep the weight on


----------



## GoldenLove

All this dog food info gets me really confused. I do know that I cannot spend 70$ On a bag of food though ?


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## meggels

Jacksons Mom said:


> The dog food advisor is NO different than us here on this forum. He has no credentials whatsoever regarding animals. He is a human dentist who simply has an opinion on dog foods. The website is fine for browsing and comparing, but really has no bearing IMO when picking a food. He does not take into account where the food is made, recalls, quality control, ash levels, etc.
> 
> I fell into the internet trap for a long time. I was sooo quick to say "No this, no that" when it came to picking foods and realized... it's sooo much more complicated than that.
> 
> It's easy to find bad reviews on Purina, Royal Canin, Euk, etc, because they're the most popular foods fed in the US. How many dogs out of the... 70 million or so pet dogs in the US are actually eating foods like Orijen, etc? Very small percentage. So it's obvious that there will be less known complaints.
> 
> Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not willing nor comfortable with feeding Ol Roy or the cheapest bag of Dog Chow that I find in the grocery store. I love to try and feed my dog the best that I can. And I actually feed Acana right now with pretty good results. But I think a lot of people fail to realize that Champion does no feeding trials, there is no vet nutritionist on staff, little quality control (despite what they tell you).
> 
> I think any company should be able to answer these questions in depth, and sadly a LOT of 'high quality' companies I contacted last year... couldn't answer very well or at all:
> Quality control?
> Who formulated the recipes?
> Credentials of those involved in nutrition aspect?
> What testing was done/is my dog the guinea pig?
> How do you know your food is free of contaminants?
> etc.
> 
> Out of the OP's list, I'd probably choose Royal Canin or SD.
> 
> But really I don't trust any dog food company completely. I'm seriously looking into homecooking pretty soon here.


I feel like you and I have had similar epiphanies lately haha.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

GoldenLove said:


> All this dog food info gets me really confused. I do know that I cannot spend 70$ On a bag of food though ?
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


Nor can I, which is why I spend about $45 on mine lol. Really cheap food often is an indicator that it isn't the best, but a really high price tag doesn't mean its good either. 
I live by the philosophy that if I can find it at walmart then I don't feed it LOL


----------



## gingerkid

GoldenLove said:


> All this dog food info gets me really confused. I do know that I cannot spend 70$ On a bag of food though


Dog food, like people food, can get pretty complicated, and it is complicated even further by people who refuse to recognize that not all types of diets/foods will work for all people/dogs.

The majority of dog owners probably can't afford to spend $70 on one bag of food (although maybe not the majority of owners on this particular forum), but for most regions there are lots of options for feeding decent quality food at different price points, without resorting to Ol' Roy. Companies like Purina, Pedigree, Iams, etc. spent tons of money on marketing, whereas other companies have significantly smaller marketing budgets so more of what you pay can go towards the ingredients and thereby raise the quality of the food.


----------



## Dog Person

GoldenLove said:


> All this dog food info gets me really confused. I do know that I cannot spend 70$ On a bag of food though ?
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


Depending on what country you live in dog food can be very affordable; it seems that the U.S is a lot cheaper then Canada, not sure about other countries. I have a 35 lb. dog and buy 20 lbs. of food for $30, I feed her 1 1/3 cups a day so it lasts about 60 days. I have ordered from Chewy and Wag on the internet and I have nothing but good to say about both places. They have a ton of brands, having it at your fingertips and having it delivered to your door step can be a good thing. Chewy is less expensive for what I feed my dog then Wag and also cheaper then the local store as well.


----------



## Jacksons Mom

meggels said:


> I feel like you and I have had similar epiphanies lately haha.


LOL yes *internet high five*


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

Jacksons Mom said:


> LOL yes *internet high five*


"Abusive" owners unite! Let all be "abusive" together by feeding our dogs harmful, useless high quality kibble and / or raw and home cooked things! xD


----------



## Masterjedi688

ShoreDobermans said:


> Chicken By Product Meal is an excellent ingredient made from skin, organs, intestines and feet. All these things form the back-bone of raw feeding but mostly raw feeders will be critical of the same ingredients when they are in kibble. Go figure.
> 
> Despite what you read, the fact that a food lists "Chicken Meal" does not mean that it is good quality. "Chicken Meal" can just as easily be from diseased chickens as "Chicken By Product Meal."
> 
> Don't listen anyone that says a dog requires "meat", muscle meat, in its diet. The amino acids in the rest of the chicken are actually better in many ways. Also, if a food lists a protein like pork or beef or fish, the maker is allowed to use by-products and not label it that way. Don't ask me why this rule only applies to chicken and turkey.
> 
> Unfortunately a website called Dog Food Advisor is guilty of spreading very bad and very inaccurate information. Consumers like yourself suffer as a result. Corn is the same thing, don't worry.
> 
> Let me ask you something. Do you have any friends that are Chinese? If so, ask them if they think chicken feet are waste by-products. What is a by-product is purely relative. Years and years ago the meat from pigs was considered a by-product because pigs were raised only for fat to fuel lanterns. Get my point?
> 
> Of the ones you listed I prefer Eukanuba.



I remember when I was little and I would feed my dog Gaines. The dog food that looked like ground meat but looked more like play dough. My dog did fine on it. Then pedigree came along and he did fine on it corn and by products included. Nowadays it's don't feed your dog this, don't treed them that, corn is bad, rice is bad etc... I'm surprised I'm not an alcoholic with all that crap of don't do this and don't do that. I also agree with you about Dog Food Advisor. I do post on there, but many of there recommendations and opinions are inaccurate and the consumer does suffer. Is it just me or were dogs back in the 70's and 80's more robust with eating corn and by products and being healthy with that then they are now with all this misinformation that exist now?


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

I am kind of stipulated on what I can feed because Buddy's rescue contract stated that dogs adopted from the rescue are only to be fed a high quality kibble ... they specifically said no "supermarket" kibble.


----------



## Dog Person

Masterjedi688 said:


> I remember when I was little and I would feed my dog Gaines. The dog food that looked like ground meat but looked more like play dough. My dog did fine on it. Then pedigree came along and he did fine on it corn and by products included. Nowadays it's don't feed your dog this, don't treed them that, corn is bad, rice is bad etc... I'm surprised I'm not an alcoholic with all that crap of don't do this and don't do that. I also agree with you about Dog Food Advisor. I do post on there, but many of there recommendations and opinions are inaccurate and the consumer does suffer. Is it just me or were dogs back in the 70's and 80's more robust with eating corn and by products and being healthy with that then they are now with all this misinformation that exist now?


It would be interesting to see a label from the 70's and 80's and compare to what's in food now. I think that what was then is not now - maximizing profits have made corporations worry about cheapening products.

Ignorance is bliss, I didn't think about food much with my last dog ... all I did was go to Petsmart and pick up a bag of food, some cheap cans when she became finicky and she was in great shape. I remember in the 80's feeding my Beagle canned food that looked like human food - she loved it and the Vet told us to stop feeding it because it wasn't good for her. OK, listen to the Vet.

But I can tell a difference in Zoey between what she was eating and what she eats now - her fur is much softer and it seems her ears and UTIs are better as well. And add that the food I buy is cheaper then what I was feeding my last dog and it's like a bonus!


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

OMG back in the day I used to feed IAMS, purina, and pedigree LOL


----------



## Masterjedi688

I'm more then sure things have changed when it comes to ingredients. I'm sure the ingredients there using now are more palatable and more dog friendly if you want to call it that for dogs and cats now then they were back then. Actually, certain brands of canned food still looks like human food when you open them, while others look like a spreadable paste. Dog foods have come a long way in appearance, how they are marketed these days, how they smell etc...


----------



## Masterjedi688

OwnedbyACDs said:


> OMG back in the day I used to feed IAMS, purina, and pedigree LOL



The good old days, how I miss them. Lol.


----------



## Dog Person

OwnedbyACDs said:


> I am kind of stipulated on what I can feed because Buddy's rescue contract stated that dogs adopted from the rescue are only to be fed a high quality kibble ... they specifically said no "supermarket" kibble.


Well, if you go to a Petsmart, Petco or feed store and picked up Purina Pro Plan or other Purina higher end kibble (if that's what you intend to feed) you didn't buy it from a supermarket and it is dog food. You could theoretically argue the "fact" that you never bought dog food in a supermarket. I never bought Maggie dog food from a supermarket but she never ate Orijen or Annamaet either. 

I do have to laugh about the stipulations that these rescues put on "their" animals ... being loved and ending up in a good home isn't enough. Most people do not have a clue about dog food and if they think that Old Roy is just as good as Purina or Blue Buffalo (or can't afford higher end foods) then that should be their prerogative to feed the best they can... which a totally different argument about rescues  Speaking about expensive foods I remember when Blue first came out and thinking there is no way that I would spend all that money for dog food especially when I could get Authority, Purina One and Pro Plan and a few others for a lot less.

Chewy is a great source for low cost dog food.


----------



## Willowy

Well, if I ran a rescue I wouldn't want to send the dogs to a home where they'd get grocery store generic or white paper bag dollar store food :/. So I can get on board with some requirements about what they're fed. I would just keep it to generics/store brands, though; wouldn't want to be too picky. Are you sure they meant "any food you get at a grocery store" or maybe they meant "no store-brand foods"? I have seen terrible results on store-brand kibble so I could understand that. 

I don't know if all foods were higher-quality in the past. BUT, there was a food I fed Willow when she was a puppy. I think it was named Cycle. I got it at the grocery store. She did great on it. I didn't pay a lot of attention to the ingredients, but I do remember a meat product being listed first. And it had blood listed in the ingredients, which I thought was weird . Then there was something on the front of the bag--"new improved formula!" and right away Willow started going downhill. She got itchy and got dry fur and goopy eyes and generally looked terrible. And I remember that it didn't have a meat product listed first anymore. So I'm inclined to think that standard pet foods have declined in quality over the years (with the rise of specialty pet foods, probably), but I don't have any proof of that other than the one brand. I'd like to see ingredient labels from 40, 30, 20, 10 years ago and compare them to now.

One person on my cat forum says she thinks that the human food industry has gotten better at using more scraps that used to go into pet food (like mechanically separated chicken, "pink slime" in ground beef, etc.) so that what goes into standard pet food now is pure trash. I don't doubt it really.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

Dog Person said:


> Well, if you go to a Petsmart, Petco or feed store and picked up Purina Pro Plan or other Purina higher end kibble (if that's what you intend to feed) you didn't buy it from a supermarket and it is dog food. You could theoretically argue the "fact" that you never bought dog food in a supermarket. I never bought Maggie dog food from a supermarket but she never ate Orijen or Annamaet either.
> 
> I do have to laugh about the stipulations that these rescues put on "their" animals ... being loved and ending up in a good home isn't enough. Most people do not have a clue about dog food and if they think that Old Roy is just as good as Purina or Blue Buffalo (or can't afford higher end foods) then that should be their prerogative to feed the best they can... which a totally different argument about rescues  Speaking about expensive foods I remember when Blue first came out and thinking there is no way that I would spend all that money for dog food especially when I could get Authority, Purina One and Pro Plan and a few others for a lot less.
> 
> Chewy is a great source for low cost dog food.


Yeah I know! I thought it was stupid too lol because they sell things like purina at "high end" places like petco and petsmart, SD, and natural balance etc ... So I know I could get Around it.


----------



## Masterjedi688

Willowy said:


> Well, if I ran a rescue I wouldn't want to send the dogs to a home where they'd get grocery store generic or white paper bag dollar store food :/. So I can get on board with some requirements about what they're fed. I would just keep it to generics/store brands, though; wouldn't want to be too picky. Are you sure they meant "any food you get at a grocery store" or maybe they meant "no store-brand foods"? I have seen terrible results on store-brand kibble so I could understand that.
> 
> I don't know if all foods were higher-quality in the past. BUT, there was a food I fed Willow when she was a puppy. I think it was named Cycle. I got it at the grocery store. She did great on it. I didn't pay a lot of attention to the ingredients, but I do remember a meat product being listed first. And it had blood listed in the ingredients, which I thought was weird . Then there was something on the front of the bag--"new improved formula!" and right away Willow started going downhill. She got itchy and got dry fur and goopy eyes and generally looked terrible. And I remember that it didn't have a meat product listed first anymore. So I'm inclined to think that standard pet foods have declined in quality over the years (with the rise of specialty pet foods, probably), but I don't have any proof of that other than the one brand. I'd like to see ingredient labels from 40, 30, 20, 10 years ago and compare them to now.
> 
> One person on my cat forum says she thinks that the human food industry has gotten better at using more scraps that used to go into pet food (like mechanically separated chicken, "pink slime" in ground beef, etc.) so that what goes into standard pet food now is pure trash. I don't doubt it really.



I remember Cycle Dog Food. Now I feel old after saying that. LOLOL


----------



## BernerMax

OwnedbyACDs said:


> OMG back in the day I used to feed IAMS, purina, and pedigree LOL


Me too- I was a kid and my parents made me the dog food shopper(we had an assortment of dogs including a hound, a GSD mix, a chow, a dalmation)- so whatever appealed to a 12 yr old and whatever was on sale that week-- you left out Kibbles and Bits...!


----------



## Boleyn

I remember Cycle as well! I still have folded up (somewhere) a posted of AKC breeds that I got from proof-of-purchase circles from Cycle (I was twelve or so). 

I also remember a magazine called Good Dog! that I subscribed to. They did dog food reviews, but the focus was on palatability and how the dog did on it. I don't think ingredients were even discussed.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

BernerMax said:


> Me too- I was a kid and my parents made me the dog food shopper(we had an assortment of dogs including a hound, a GSD mix, a chow, a dalmation)- so whatever appealed to a 12 yr old and whatever was on sale that week-- you left out Kibbles and Bits...!


LOL I didn't name Kibbles and Bits because I never fed it xD. Back in the day Pedigree was a decent food, as was IAMS and Eukanuba and the like. in fact, Bear's breeder fed and swore by Pedigree, but she no longer feeds it now, I think she feeds Victor.


----------

