# Question Regarding Food Brands - what is the truth!?



## dukesup1978 (Oct 14, 2009)

At my two local Pet Store that advertise themselves as a "An all-Natural and organic pet food shop", I was told that Merrick is a great brand of food - no corn, top of the line and a healthy diet for dogs. So I have been feeding my 5-year-old min pin this brand food for over two years. Along with their new brand of Before Grain. 

Today, at my dog's yearly cheap-up at the Vet, they told me Merrick & BG is no good, and in a comparison of how unhealthy it is - they told me it would be comparable to humans eating McDonalds. Then they told me about all the problems that may accompany feeding my dog this brand over the years such as crystals in the bladder, etc.

This was a shock to me as I have been feeding my dog this for quite some time. Instead, they recommending Science Diet or Royal Canin. I just took a visit to - www.dogfoodanalysis.com - and saw that Merrick is listed under 5, but cannot find the brands they recommended rated anywhere on the site. 

Seems like there's SO much confusion out there! I know expensive price does not mean a food is better for the dog, I just want to know - What is the truth? I do not want my dog to have problems down the road because I did or did not feed him a certain brand of food!!

All help is greatly appreciated!!


----------



## bully (Sep 16, 2009)

Don't listen to your vet. Did you know they make 30-40% profit selling "Science Diet" from their offices?

Keep your dog on the "good stuff" like you are doing.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

bully said:


> Don't listen to your vet. Did you know they make 30-40% profit selling "Science Diet" from their offices?


Do you find this somehow out of line with other retailers and brands? Don't fool yourself.


----------



## dukesup1978 (Oct 14, 2009)

It does seem like they must make a profit selling the Science Diet the way they really try to push it on clients. It's just surprising to me that they would knock a brand like Merrick, where online it seems I find nothing but positive things. It's frustrating to hear one thing from a store, another from a Vet..


----------



## bully (Sep 16, 2009)

Curbside Prophet said:


> Do you find this somehow out of line with other retailers and brands? Don't fool yourself.


I will guarantee that vets make more profit selling this than your local grocery store does.

But, overlooking economics... I wouldn't feed anything that closely resembles a dog SD.


----------



## Kina_A (Jun 8, 2009)

dukesup1978 said:


> Instead, they recommending Science Diet or Royal Canin. I just took a visit to - www.dogfoodanalysis.com - and saw that Merrick is listed under 5, but cannot find the brands they recommended rated anywhere on the site.


The reason you were unable to find them is that you may not have looked under the 1* brands. That's where Science diet rates.

My vet was also trying to push Medical and Science diet on my dogs. They also told me not to buy into the "all natural" or "organic" foods and even told me that California Naturals was garbage!

Yet several months later when I brought my youngest in to get spayed, they wouldn't stop commenting on how good she looked and how soft her fur was.

I almost told them that I was feeding her "garbage"!

Don't listen to your vet, continue feeding what you're feeding!


----------



## Michiyo-Fir (Jul 25, 2009)

Royal Canin is 3 stars on that website. My vet recommends Royal Canin as well because they get money from selling it. Royal Canin has a program that supports vets and breeders and such by giving them benefits.

Merrick is great just say that's what you want to feed.


----------



## dukesup1978 (Oct 14, 2009)

Great, thank you so much for the help. It's really too bad $$ out ways honesty at the vet, really sad. Which leads me to my next question, since it always about making money:

I had my dogs teeth Professional Dental Cleaned at VCA a little under a year ago - November 2008. It was her first and only cleaning to date. I brush my dogs teeth once a week, and give things to chew on daily i.e. Dogswell Chicken strips, etc.

Today they told me her teeth are looking good - little yellow but no need for concern. However, when I asked when they recommend she get another cleaning they said they recommend I do it tomorrow if my schedule allows.

Now, I am not opposed to getting my dogs teeth cleaned again - I just want some opinions - I would just like to be sure that it makes sense to do since it is quite expen$ive! Is this another ploy for money?


----------



## phoebespeople (May 27, 2009)

In my opinion, having to get your dogs teeth cleaned is just one of the many unfortunate side effects of feeding kibble. If you want the convenience of feeding your dog kibble, you must prepare yourself for the possibility of increased cost of health care for your dogs due to things like dental cleaning, treatment of liver and kidney damage, skin conditions, allergic reactions... 
Phoebe has been on RAW since she was 7 weeks old and her teeth are like pearls. She crunches on raw bones for norishment and recreation every day. The act of gnawing on bones for long preiods of time stimulates the production of digestive enzymes in their saliva that kill the bacteria that can cause dental problems. 
A dog that is fed RMB's as part of their RAW food diet probably won't need any dental cleanings, ever.


----------



## dukesup1978 (Oct 14, 2009)

Wow, thank you for that. In that case I am going to transition my dog onto a RAW diet. Seems incredibly worth it in terms of health and the money you save in the long run - Now it's time to head over to the raw food diet forums!

Thank you everyone for being immensely helpful!


----------



## Kina_A (Jun 8, 2009)

In my opinion and experience, feeding your dog raw bones, bully sticks etc, can really really help with keeping your dogs clean without having to switch to raw.

My dog's Sadie's teeth were disgusting. She never liked chewing on bones and bully sticks. Her teeth were just covered (passed the gum line) with tartar. The vet would have liked to clean her teeth but because Sadie has a heart condition, the vet doesn't think she'd be able to survive the anesthesia.

When I got our puppy Kina and giving Kina raw bones, etc, we found Sadie one day chomping down on one of Kina's bully sticks. Then we decided to see if she'd take to a bone and my lord she did.

Now, Sadie's teeth are perfect and I'm still feeding her kibble, I just make sure she gets something good to chew on!

Looking in her mouth you'd never believe how disgusting her teeth use to be, even the vet commented on them.


----------



## MafiaPrincess (Jul 1, 2009)

I was told that I was a moron and an uneducated fool by the vet I'd been using as I fed Orijen. He threw such a nasty fit at me I told the receptionist as I left that his fit over food and being rude about it is why I wouldn't be coming back. She told me she didn't agree with his food beliefs either..

Told me Cider's teeth were way overdue for a dental.. Next vet I went to agreed. Switched to raw, needed an appt 6 months later and they got cranky with me as I'd taken her for a dental somewhere else.. She's never had a dental.. We switched to raw. They didn't believe me.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

the one best qualified to tell you the best food for your dog is your dog.


Try them on a food. if they eat it...good. if they do well on it and don't have issues...fantastic.


----------



## nico8 (Jul 16, 2009)

I also feed kibble and Nico's teeth are remarkably clean...she's yet to have her teeth cleaned professionally. I just make sure she always has a good bone to gnaw on. Seems simple but it works for us.


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

The truth is, very little is the truth. Nearly all of it comes from somebody selling something or somebody that bought their story. Almost all of it skips any facts and plays on your emotions. Much of what looks like a fact isn't. 

Before the current form of the net existed, we were raising puppies for a large dog guide school that feeds Pro Plan, no better rated than Science, Iams, etc. Once I started reading how awful it was, I started digging. What I have learned is that many other service dog schools with all their resources to determine the best diet and the incentive to do so, are feeding back of the pack chows including Iams, Science Diet, and Pro Plan. I have not been able to find any research backing up the claims of the premium chows. I have challenged people on open forums to provide me with research backing the premium chows. They don't seem to appreciate the importance of controlled testing. 

Most foods are formulated to the same AAFCO requirements no matter what it is made of, and contain enough of all the nutrients. 

If you feel good about the Merricks and your dog is doing well on it, I would continue it. Sometimes I think people's anxiety about what they are feeding transfers to the dog leading to digestive upset. You can worry your dog sick. Switching to a food you trust solves the problem.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

Jack and Kechara have eaten kibble their whole lives and niether has needed a tooth cleaning.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Labsnothers said:


> The truth is, very little is the truth. Nearly all of it comes from somebody selling something or somebody that bought their story. Almost all of it skips any facts and plays on your emotions. Much of what looks like a fact isn't.


Now ya went and done it!


----------



## bully (Sep 16, 2009)

Labsnothers said:


> Before the current form of the net existed, we were raising puppies for a large dog guide school that feeds Pro Plan, no better rated than Science, Iams, etc. Once I started reading how awful it was, I started digging. What I have learned is that many other service dog schools with all their resources to determine the best diet and the incentive to do so, are feeding back of the pack chows including Iams, Science Diet, and Pro Plan. I have not been able to find any research backing up the claims of the premium chows. I have challenged people on open forums to provide me with research backing the premium chows. They don't seem to appreciate the importance of controlled testing.


Who is funding the "controlled testing"? What is the budget of these schools for dog food? Are we still trying to believe that corn and soybean oil is best for a dog instead of chicken, beef, or fish? I don't see wolves grazing fields these days. 
I'm trying to hint around the fact that it's cheaper to buy cheaper food, these main-stream companies are the ones usually funding these tests, schools, and vets. And the fact that dogs are wolves, (no we haven't changed their digestive system through domestication) so lets try to feed them as such.

Nothing beats feeding a dog RAW, but at least there is now some good dry dog food to give us more choice.


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

Who is funding the testing? The schools adsorb it as part of their administrative costs. It varies, but mostly the food is being purchased by those caring for the dogs, the volunteers raising puppies and later the dogs' partners. Out of their entire life, the school only buys the food for about the 6 months the dog is at the school for training. How much does it cost to direct different people to feed different foods and keep track of the health testing you would be doing anyhow? Peanuts. 

It seems to me you are making some statements based on speculation.


----------



## bully (Sep 16, 2009)

Labsnothers said:


> It seems to me you are making some statements based on speculation.



Or possibly common sense.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Behaviorists frequently remind us that dogs are not wolves. Wolves thrive mostly in places where contact with humans is minimal. Dogs thrive within, or on the periphery of, human settlement. There's no reason to expect their dietary needs to be all that similar. 

All canids are, to some extent, omnivores, but dogs are probably the most omnivorous. Fact is, most of what could be considered a dog's "natural" diet are things one would be wise to avoid standing downwind of.

Feed your dog what (s)he does well on. Rest assured that the vast majority of ailments dogs suffer from are genetic in origin, and not the result of eating kibble. E.g., if commercial dog food was the cause of cancer in dogs, one could reasonably expect that all breeds would be similarly affected.


----------



## Michiyo-Fir (Jul 25, 2009)

Labsnothers said:


> Before the current form of the net existed, we were raising puppies for a large dog guide school that feeds Pro Plan, no better rated than Science, Iams, etc. Once I started reading how awful it was, I started digging. What I have learned is that many other service dog schools with all their resources to determine the best diet and the incentive to do so, are feeding back of the pack chows including Iams, Science Diet, and Pro Plan.


I don't think this is necessarily true... a lot of sled dog teams around my area have been going on for 50+ years and they've always fed raw. Also the police force around here feeds raw and always have as well.

Although I'm not sure about the guide dogs, I know one of the local dog rescues uses raw too but I think it was a recent switch. So it doesn't really count.


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

I have been heavily involved with various service dog schools for a long time. The different schools have far more resources to evaluate diets than sled dog racers and police departments. They feed kibbles, common brands of them.


----------



## dieterherzog (Sep 28, 2009)

Marsh Muppet said:


> Behaviorists frequently remind us that dogs are not wolves. Wolves thrive mostly in places where contact with humans is minimal. Dogs thrive within, or on the periphery of, human settlement. There's no reason to expect their dietary needs to be all that similar.
> 
> All canids are, to some extent, omnivores, but dogs are probably the most omnivorous. Fact is, most of what could be considered a dog's "natural" diet are things one would be wise to avoid standing downwind of.
> 
> Feed your dog what (s)he does well on. Rest assured that the vast majority of ailments dogs suffer from are genetic in origin, and not the result of eating kibble. E.g., if commercial dog food was the cause of cancer in dogs, one could reasonably expect that all breeds would be similarly affected.


If you have time, please read this http://www.bconnex.net/~langevin/assets/applets/The_Wolf_s_Natural_Diet.pdf

It offers scientific as opposed to speculative reasoning behind why feeding your dog a natural diet is more important than you think.


----------



## zj0n (Oct 16, 2009)

bully said:


> Don't listen to your vet. Did you know they make 30-40% profit selling "Science Diet" from their offices?
> 
> Keep your dog on the "good stuff" like you are doing.



I have been to 4 vets, they have all told me to take my doggies off science diet. I will not listen because I had 2 dogs who lived to 20 years old with lots of energy eating science diet whole life. My other dog (a diabetic dog) is 14 and very healthy eating science diet.


----------



## bully (Sep 16, 2009)

zj0n said:


> I have been to 4 vets, they have all told me to take my doggies off science diet. I will not listen because I had 2 dogs who lived to 20 years old with lots of energy eating science diet whole life. My other dog (a diabetic dog) is 14 and very healthy eating science diet.


I'm just happy you actually had 4 vets try to get you off of that stuff


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

dieterherzog said:


> If you have time, please read this http://www.bconnex.net/~langevin/assets/applets/The_Wolf_s_Natural_Diet.pdf
> 
> It offers scientific as opposed to speculative reasoning behind why feeding your dog a natural diet is more important than you think.


Hummmmmmmm, a book sponsored by a company selling raw food is more reliable than a vet's recommendation of a food he sells?

I must admit I haven't read all of that. It does seem to be an impressive study of wolves' diets. However, if it ever gets to a controlled study of different diets, could somebody direct me to the page number. 

Without such, it only seems to be more marketing hype and perhaps astroturf.


----------



## bully (Sep 16, 2009)

Labsnothers said:


> Hummmmmmmm, a book sponsored by a company selling raw food is more reliable than a vet's recommendation of a food he sells?
> 
> I must admit I haven't read all of that. It does seem to be an impressive study of wolves' diets. However, if it ever gets to a controlled study of different diets, could somebody direct me to the page number.
> 
> Without such, it only seems to be more marketing hype and perhaps astroturf.



Please try to let the common sense of the digestion system of canines, the economics of business, and the laziness of the average person come in to play.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

bully said:


> Please try to let the common sense of the digestion system of canines, the economics of business, and the laziness of the average person come in to play.


Common sense tells me that if a dog is healthy, has good energy, and lives a long life, he's probably eating pretty well. The economics of business are such that consistently high quality products--at a reasonable price--are the ones that keep a business profitable over the long term. In the modern age, the average person can afford to be lazy. All of the above factors have conspired to make high quality pet diets easy and cheap to provide.


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

I am enjoying having another rational person around. My guess is that like me, you just get tired letting hype go unchallenged.


----------



## dieterherzog (Sep 28, 2009)

Labsnothers said:


> I am enjoying having another rational person around. My guess is that like me, you just get tired letting hype go unchallenged.


So a person who agrees with you is rational, but any other person who argues and disagree with your views are irrational, paid by the RAW movement and buying into marketing hype and astroturf, because surely the commercial kibble doesn't involve any marketing hype and astroturf and because vets are NEVER paid by the KIBBLE movement.


----------



## nico8 (Jul 16, 2009)

Labsnothers said:


> I am enjoying having another rational person around. My guess is that like me, you just get tired letting hype go unchallenged.




We're irrational because we don't immediately drop what we're feeding our dogs to pick up a bag of Iam's, as per the recommendation of the Guide Dogs of America? It's irrational for you to think that you can change people's minds with little more than your air of superiority.


----------



## bully (Sep 16, 2009)

Marsh Muppet said:


> Common sense tells me that if a dog is healthy, has good energy, and lives a long life, he's probably eating pretty well. The economics of business are such that consistently high quality products--at a reasonable price--are the ones that keep a business profitable over the long term. In the modern age, the average person can afford to be lazy. All of the above factors have conspired to make high quality pet diets easy and cheap to provide.


Two things:

1. Of course you think your dog is healthy so keep feeding your dog that stuff since it MUST be best. Because a fresh chicken may give it a heart attack.

2. It's safe in that little box isn't it, I'd suggest you don't venture outside of it.


----------



## SandyPuppy (Aug 8, 2009)

Kina_A said:


> In my opinion and experience, feeding your dog raw bones, bully sticks etc, can really really help with keeping your dogs clean without having to switch to raw.
> 
> My dog's Sadie's teeth were disgusting. She never liked chewing on bones and bully sticks. Her teeth were just covered (passed the gum line) with tartar. The vet would have liked to clean her teeth but because Sadie has a heart condition, the vet doesn't think she'd be able to survive the anesthesia.
> 
> ...


I was wondering how much meat should actually be on a raw meaty bone in order to keep the teeth clean? I have always read that it should be just a thin layer of meat. But recently someone posted that giving a rmb without a lot of meat on it is pointless and will do nothing for the teeth. I have been giving Sandy raw marrow bones. I give them frozen and it takes about a day to get all the meat off and then the bone itself lasts a few weeks of her chewing on it. 

Is there any harm in letting her continue to chew on it for a few weeks? Or am I causing germs to grow on/in it?

I figured it was okay because of how I've always heard about dogs having their bones for a long time, burying them and then digging them up later. She does sometimes hide her bones as if burying them, its really cute.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

bully said:


> 1. Of course you think your dog is healthy so keep feeding your dog that stuff since it MUST be best. Because a fresh chicken may give it a heart attack.


Are you one of those who claim that dogs somehow fake wellness? If so, I'd like to see the scientific support for that assertion. I think my dog is healthy and so does his veterinarian. I'm confident we are in a better position to make that determination than are you.



bully said:


> 2. It's safe in that little box isn't it, I'd suggest you don't venture outside of it.


You are the one who gets hostile and insulting when your beliefs are challenged. Ad hominem attack is the rhetorical device of choice for people who's beliefs are strongly held, but weakly supported. I'm just sayin'....


----------



## flipgirl (Oct 5, 2007)

Marsh Muppet said:


> Common sense tells me that if a dog is healthy, has good energy, and lives a long life, he's probably eating pretty well. The economics of business are such that consistently high quality products--at a reasonable price--are the ones that keep a business profitable over the long term. In the modern age, the average person can afford to be lazy. All of the above factors have conspired to make high quality pet diets easy and cheap to provide.


I'm not sure if I agree with your stance on the economics of business. There are many low quality products that have been around for years and are still profitable. Science Diet, Kibbles and Bits, Beneful, Alpo, and Ol 'Roy are still on the market. I just heard an ad for K & B just a few days ago. What drives our economy is supply and demand. Hills, Medi-cal, Iams, Royal Canin have all kept vet clinics in business but I wouldn't necessarily call them high quality foods, especially at the prices they are sold. It's sad that quality plays a small role in todays' business world. And all these foods I am sure are 'cheap to provide' for the companies. It would be interesting to see the proportion of dogs eating the lower quality foods compared to the ones eating higher quality foods, across all socioeconomic levels. 

Although eating well is a big factor in one's health, canine or human, genes play an even bigger role in determining life span. And exercise plays a small role too. I think these all have to be considered. However, the best food in my opinion, is the freshest, purest food. Where and how to get that, I don't know.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

flipgirl said:


> I'm not sure if I agree with your stance on the economics of business. There are many low quality products that have been around for years and are still profitable.


The successful low quality products are typically high quality at their price point. The market doesn't work perfectly because educated consumers are in relatively short supply, but overall we get what we are willing to pay for. Decent nutrition (human and canine) is very cheap, from an historical perspective.

Interestingly, the profit margins on luxury and boutique goods are typically way higher than budget items. When Nieman Marcus has a 40% off sale on those $4K alligator loafers you've been eyeing, they are still making a nice profit. When Walmart has 20% off Caterpillar work boots, they are probably selling below their cost to get you into the store, where you'll probably buy other stuff.


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

While Science Diet likely enjoys a good mark up due to great marketing, I still haven't seen any evidence to support the allegations it and the lower priced priced foods provide diet inferior to the more expensive foods. It is all about what the owner feels good about.


----------



## lovesaints (Oct 19, 2009)

bully said:


> Don't listen to your vet. Did you know they make 30-40% profit selling "Science Diet" from their offices?
> 
> Keep your dog on the "good stuff" like you are doing.


Science Diet & Royal Canin are nothing but "crap in a bag"and, vets do not know squat about food. It should be a requirement, but Hill's Science Diet teaches our vets about nutrition, NOT professors who might have a clue!



Kina_A said:


> The reason you were unable to find them is that you may not have looked under the 1* brands. That's where Science diet rates.
> 
> My vet was also trying to push Medical and Science diet on my dogs. They also told me not to buy into the "all natural" or "organic" foods and even told me that California Naturals was garbage!
> 
> ...


Science Diet & Royal Canin are nothing but "crap in a bag" vets don't know squat about food, they recomend the brands that make then the most money! Sad but true, I use to work in the field so I know first hand that it is true!


----------



## SandyPuppy (Aug 8, 2009)

I have always wondered why people think Royal Canin is such a great food. I've read the ingredient lists on their bags and its garbage


----------



## PeanutAndOmar (Oct 18, 2009)

please do research, especially if you are considering a BARF or RAW diet. Read all the literature and science you can get your hands on. Don't be swayed by people on message boards telling you what is best for your dog, educate yourself with lots of research.

I considered going BARF with Omar and my cats at one point, but after reading extensively on the subject, decided the best thing would be to feed high quality kibble, and occasional raw treats. 

Cosmo, my cat, is 17, going on 18 and no one believes me when I tell them how old she is. She is as spry as a kitten still.

Omar is doing much, much better on avoderm and canidae. I've read too many reports of even raw bones harming dogs and uncooked meat containing bacteria that can harm a pup to risk it, as he has a very sensitive tummy. For the "wolf" argument, wolves are to domestic dogs as chimps are to children....would you think it would be better for your child to eat exactly like a chimp since they are so closely genetically related? Domestic dogs evolved away from wolves 140K years ago. They are quite ok with kibble. Just go with a good brand.


I am not too lazy or squeamish to feed raw to my pets. I am just aware of the dangers, which to me personally, outweigh the risks. Please, do research, don't just take anyone's word for it.


EDIT: I am very aware how unpopular this is going to make me but:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC339295/
http://www.workingdogs.com/vcbarf.htm
http://www.worldwidehealth.com/health-article-The-BARF-Diet-a-Critique.html
http://www.dogpeople.org/BARF Myth.htm

i read also a ton about the pros of the BARF/RAW diet, and came to the conclusion that my dog is not a wolf, not even close, and that his evolutionary track is one of scavenger rather than killer. I also am highly concerned with bone splinters as well as pathogens. 

I'll stick to kibble. You do not have to agree with me.


----------



## DogsforMe (Mar 11, 2007)

The many myths of feeding dogs a raw diet.
http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/rawdog/

Dangerous bones & bacteria.
http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/rawdog/bacteria.html
http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/rawdog/bones.html


----------



## dieterherzog (Sep 28, 2009)

PeanutAndOmar said:


> please do research, especially if you are considering a BARF or RAW diet. Read all the literature and science you can get your hands on. Don't be swayed by people on message boards telling you what is best for your dog, educate yourself with lots of research.
> 
> I considered going BARF with Omar and my cats at one point, but after reading extensively on the subject, decided the best thing would be to feed high quality kibble, and occasional raw treats.
> 
> ...


The first 2 links are eye openers, but the last two - especially the one by dogpeople.org does not quote its Science correctly. If you read through the Wayne and Vila papers, they found that although dogs MAY HAVE BEEN DOMESTICATED about 150000 years ago, the DNA sequence between Grey Wolves and many dog breeds differ by only 0.2%. Nobody is talking about dogs being similar to jackals, coyotes or foxes, so I think it was wrong of the author to bring that in just to confuse people. 

The Canadian Vet Journal link is very informative and if there's anything that should stop a person from feeding raw, it should be worrying about bacteria and contaminating the environment through dog poop.


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

All very interesting and a contrast to the usual one sided, pro raw discussions on the net. I am afraid both sides are too quick to believe what they want to believe. I must admit I was hoping to find a stronger anti raw case than I did. Still there was some good material there. However, most of the sources are ones I am not familiar with, just like the pro raw ones. 

The CDC site used to have a warning for people feeding raw, but I couldn't find it. Doing a search there actually turned up contamination from commercial dog foods. Of course considering how many small companies there are out there manufacturing dog food and how often contamination shows up in the human foods, I didn't see it as a concern. 

Who is behind the angelfire site? Raw is now big business with frozen barf in a box delivered to your door or in a freezer at many pet stores. Many sites have banner ads for prepared raw, recipes, videos, ingredients, etc. Somebody is making money on raw. 

Do any of the prepared raw sellers do AAFCO testing? Not that it is that stringent, but it is better than ''trust us''. 

One thing that does bother me is the lack of reports of problems from feeding raw. Is it a matter of the raw feeders accepting it as their fault for not getting it right, and trying to do better? Perhaps anybody daring to post such a failure is so vilified they never make that mistake again?


----------



## PeanutAndOmar (Oct 18, 2009)

Thanks for the support....and the kindness even if you disagree. I was terrified after posting that last night. I am new to these boards, and do not want to make enemies for disagreeing with the very popular BARF/RaW plan diets.


----------



## bully (Sep 16, 2009)

Labsnothers said:


> Do any of the prepared raw sellers do AAFCO testing? Not that it is that stringent, but it is better than ''trust us''.


AAFCO's "Required testing" of pet foods

The ad reads: "Our pet foods are made following AAFCO guidelines and must pass stringent testing." This sounds good, until we take a close look at the AAFCO test guidelines. "The Testing Protocols For Providing An Unqualified Representation of Nutritional Adequacy For A Dog Or Cat Food" are spelled out in the book, Official Publication, 1994, Association of American Feed Control Officials Incorporated.

For adult maintenance dog food to pass the AAFCO test:

* 8 dogs older than 1 yr. must start the test.
* At start all dogs must be normal weight & health.
* A blood test is to be taken from each dog at the start and finish of the test.
* For 6 months, the dogs used must only eat the food being tested.
* The dogs finishing the test must not lose more than 15% of their body weight.
* During the test, none of the dogs used are to die or be removed becasue of nutritional causes.
* 6 of the 8 dogs starting must finish the test. 

That's all there is to it.

The AAFCO protocols for adult maintenance dog food listed in the book, Official Publication, 1994, Association of American Feed Control Officials Incorporated, do not require different breeds to be tested, nor do they exclude any of the larger breeds which are still puppies (nutritionally) when they are 1 to 2 years old. Their protocols require blood tests which screen only four different blood values: RBC number, hemoglobin, packed cell volume and serum albumin. The average veterinary "basic blood profile" screens over twenty-five blood values.

There are many pet food ads making the claim that a food has passed "stringent testing as required by AAFCO." But AAFCO's "stringent" test protocols wouldn't even meet the criteria to have their results published in most accredited scientific journals. Compare the above number of animals used to the numbers used in some of the tests cited in the U. S. Government's National Research Council book, Nutrient Requirements of Dogs. There are tests cited in the NRC's book which used 500 to 600 test animals which were tested for years before their results were published.

The AAFCO book lists the same type of "stringent" testing protocols for maintenance cat foods, puppy foods, kitten foods, and the gestation/lactation pet foods.

*Buyer beware . . . you may be buying a pet food advertised as being a nutritionally adequate diet for all dogs because it passed "stringent" AAFCO testing ... when only six to eight dogs ate that food for 6 months and survived with no more than an "acceptable" 15% loss of body weight.*


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

Labsnothers said:


> Do any of the prepared raw sellers do AAFCO testing? Not that it is that stringent, but it is better than ''trust us''.


Rather than answer my question, you bash the test I called not stringent. However, it is better than nothing.


----------



## Michiyo-Fir (Jul 25, 2009)

Labsnothers said:


> Do any of the prepared raw sellers do AAFCO testing? Not that it is that stringent, but it is better than ''trust us''.
> 
> One thing that does bother me is the lack of reports of problems from feeding raw. Is it a matter of the raw feeders accepting it as their fault for not getting it right, and trying to do better? Perhaps anybody daring to post such a failure is so vilified they never make that mistake again?





Nature's Variety Raw said:


> Animal feeding tests using AAFCO procedures substantiate that Nature’s Variety Chicken Formula Raw Frozen Diet provides complete and balanced nutrition for all canine life stages. Nature’s Variety Chicken Formula Raw Frozen Diet is formulated to meet the nutritional levels established by the AAFCO Cat Food Nutrient Profiles for All Life Stages.


Most of them do. At least the big companies do..


----------



## Ayanla (Jun 11, 2009)

PeanutAndOmar said:


> Thanks for the support....and the kindness even if you disagree. I was terrified after posting that last night. I am new to these boards, and do not want to make enemies for disagreeing with the very popular BARF/RaW plan diets.


You'll find that many of us disagree on certain things, and agree on others. I don't think there are too many enemies, even among those who vehemently disagree in a particular area. I debate back and forth with Labsnothers non stop in this forum, but I don't think we're enemies, or at least I'd hope not.


----------



## DobManiac (Aug 12, 2007)

Labsnothers said:


> Do any of the prepared raw sellers do AAFCO testing? Not that it is that stringent, but it is better than ''trust us''.


Very few do, but I know that Nature's Variety has. Honestly, I would never feed a premade raw diet that hadn't passed the AAFCO testing. Too many of these diets are over supplementing and/or adding in too many vegetables in order to make the food cheaper to produce. Half the reason for feeding a raw diet is so the owner can have complete control over what the dog is eating. Premade RAW is just another guessing game, IMO.



Labsnothers said:


> One thing that does bother me is the lack of reports of problems from feeding raw. Is it a matter of the raw feeders accepting it as their fault for not getting it right, and trying to do better? Perhaps anybody daring to post such a failure is so vilified they never make that mistake again?


I'm not sure what you mean by reports of problems? As far as I know, there aren't any long-term side effects to feeding RAW, such as increase in cancer, liver damage, or kidney damage. But dogs that are prone to kidney disease can have difficulties with RAW do to the higher level of phosphorous in the meat. I believe Kathy has a dog with this problem and has chosen to feed a cooked diet because of it. 

For short term risks, there is choking, bone perforation, bacterial contamination to people and dogs. There are no records right now of cross contamination between a person and a RAW feed dog. The owner just needs to practice the same sanitary measures with the dog's meat as they would with their own. 

As far as choking, that is always a risk. That’s why it is so important to never allow a dog to eat Raw unsupervised, and to always feed bones and potions of meat that are the proper size for that specific animal. But dogs have died due to choking on raw bones or raw meat. And this is a fact, as I personally know the owners. Most of these instances have been turkey necks with large dogs. Those are just the right size to get lodged in their throat when the dog is swallowing. 

I also know an owner that had a dog that suffered from a bone perforating its intestines not once but twice. I can't say why that is, could be the type of bones given, could be the dog didn't chew properly and was latter unable to regurgitate like most RAW feed dogs do very well. 

I also know of a litter in the area, where all but one of the puppies died of E. coli poisoning due to a bad batch of ground meat. I'm pretty sure the owner was weaning them on to a kibble diet with raw ground beef supplemented in, but I'm not positive. But I know the raw ground meat was the culprit, and this is why many raw feeders don't recommend feeding any ground meat. The increased surface area allows for greater reproduction of bacteria. But it seems to be VERY rare for a dog to get sick from E. coli or Salmonella poisoning. The highly acidic environments in their stomachs just don’t allow it. It generally only occurs in dogs with an immune system that is somehow compromised. 

There are risks with all diets, kibble RAW, and cooked. It all depends on how the owner weighs these risks against the benefits of feeding that particular diet. What I love about RAW is that with a little common sense and a whole lot of research I can greatly decrease the risks that come with the diet. But with kibble, you have no control. All you can do is hope these companies truly have your dogs health both long and short term as their top priority. And I just haven’t seen that lately


----------



## dieterherzog (Sep 28, 2009)

I guess the discussion about kibble has mostly been about lower quality kibble. I am wondering if higher end kibbles like Orijen or EVO might offer almost the same benefits of raw without the risk of contamination. I know obviously that RAW proponents talk about amino acids and how they have more control over the feeding process. 

But how about feeding high-end kibble that has been researched, wouldn't dogs benefit from that as well?


----------



## bully (Sep 16, 2009)

dieterherzog said:


> I guess the discussion about kibble has mostly been about lower quality kibble. I am wondering if higher end kibbles like Orijen or EVO might offer almost the same benefits of raw without the risk of contamination. I know obviously that RAW proponents talk about amino acids and how they have more control over the feeding process.
> 
> But how about feeding high-end kibble that has been researched, wouldn't dogs benefit from that as well?


I'd say the better kibbles like Orijen offer much better quality of ingredients which dogs will absorb better with much less waste due to the lack of cheap grains, fillers, and preservatives. It still is not as good as a balanced RAW diet, because it's still goes through the kibble making process - but definitely has the "easy factor" as it's still kibble vs. raw / fresh

My "nutritional" measuring stick would be

0 - no food
15 - saw dust
35 - Science Diet
65 - Orijen/EVO 
100 - Balanced RAW


----------



## dieterherzog (Sep 28, 2009)

bully said:


> My "nutritional" measuring stick would be
> 
> 0 - no food
> 15 - saw dust
> ...


Mine:

-10 : No food (since you're actually speeding up your dog's death)
0 : saw dust
10 : IAMS/Old Roy
40 : Science Diet
80 : Orijen/EVO
95 : Raw


----------



## Michiyo-Fir (Jul 25, 2009)

dieterherzog said:


> Mine:
> 
> -10 : No food (since you're actually speeding up your dog's death)
> 0 : saw dust
> ...


I agree with this more I think. I don't think it's possible to have a 100% perfect diet. Also the difference between raw and Orijen for example shouldn't be too huge. As far as I'm concerned, I haven't noticed any difference from Nia being on raw and on Orijen. EVO was a bit different, it made her urine too basic which caused her to itch a lot after peeing unless she was given a bit of lemon water during the day. But then again she's only been on raw for about 5 days so it could very well be that I haven't noticed a difference YET not that I won't.


----------



## DobManiac (Aug 12, 2007)

dieterherzog said:


> But how about feeding high-end kibble that has been researched, wouldn't dogs benefit from that as well?


Let me just say off the bat that I would never fed a mainstream kibble.

But if you thinking of this from a research stand point, most of these higher end foods are pretty new. And as such their feed trails are short they haven't invested as much time and money into actual research as SD, Iams, or Purina. Labsnothers is correct that mainstream foods are offering the right amounts of vitamins and minerals, and that many dogs blossom on these foods. And I wonder if the reason they are seeing a lower occurrence of HD in the guide dog studies he keeps mentioning, is because generally these foods have a lower ratio of Ca. But that is just a guess, since I've never seen the studies. 

I personally believe most of these higher end foods are just telling the consumer what they want to hear. Organic, human made ingredients, fresh vegetables, and herbs are all just another form of marketing. It makes you trust a company that might or might not deserve that trust. 

We have gotten so caught up on these ingredient lists, that most of these foods are offering four or five different protein sources just to make it appear there is more meat in the food that is actually there. And most of the time that just makes your dog more prone to meat based allergies, and makes it harder for you as the owner to figure out what's causing it. But I only know of two companies off the top my head that will guarantee an actual dry meat percentage in there foods, Timberwolf Organics and Nature's Variety. 

You can piece apart that ingredient list all you want to, but don't be naive enough to believe that all of these companies haven't figured out a way to work it their advantage. And with the economy the way it is, I’m sure they are cutting corners left and right. Honestly, until premium companies put up the money for a long term study, you won’t know what the foods have improved on. But no one can argue that the increase amounts of preservatives and chemicals found in mainstream dog food can be healthy for anyone(dog or person) with out consequences.


----------



## dieterherzog (Sep 28, 2009)

DobManiac said:


> Let me just say off the bat that I would never fed a mainstream kibble.
> 
> But if you thinking of this from a research stand point, most of these higher end foods are pretty new. And as such their feed trails are short they haven't invested as much time and money into actual research as SD, Iams, or Purina. Labsnothers is correct that mainstream foods are offering the right amounts of vitamins and minerals, and that many dogs blossom on these foods. And I wonder if the reason they are seeing a lower occurrence of HD in the guide dog studies he keeps mentioning, is because generally these foods have a lower ratio of Ca. But that is just a guess, since I've never seen the studies.
> 
> ...


I don't understand your point. The research that Hills and Purina and Royal Canin do is to find the most cost-effective ingredient that can be fed to dogs without killing them. They take out most of the meat ingredients, add in corn and and lace the whole bag of kibble with synthetic vitamins. Then they package it all up as Prescription food or food for a certain dog breed and sell it for a terrible price. 

As much controversy as there remains, there is a standard that needs to be followed when it comes to listing ingredients on a dog food package. You cannot (at least not legally) list chicken as the first ingredient if you're actually providing meat-by-product. And also, it is required that a manufacturer list the maximum moisture content in the kibble package. From that, you can calculate the dry content of protein. 

If you buy food that lists chicken as the main content then a long list of other crap and somewhere further down the line you see chicken meal, then you should question it. If the first 3 ingredients are meat and meat meal, then you can be quite certain the meat content is high. 

I'm just saying that if a company lists their first ingredient as corn and they can peddle that swill as balanced, I have already lost all faith regardless of how much money they have spent researching.


----------



## DobManiac (Aug 12, 2007)

dieterherzog said:


> I don't understand your point. The research that Hills and Purina and Royal Canin do is to find the most cost-effective ingredient that can be fed to dogs without killing them. They take out most of the meat ingredients, add in corn and and lace the whole bag of kibble with synthetic vitamins. Then they package it all up as Prescription food or food for a certain dog breed and sell it for a terrible price.


I’m not sticking up for them, I’m just trying to add a bit or perspective. These companies were the first ones to do any research into do nutrition, and they are still the only companies to do long term studies. Your angry with them for being cost-effective, but do you honestly believe that Evo and Orjins top profit isn’t profit as well. I have a habit of not just something completely just because it’s better than the alternative. And it does annoy me that some of these premium foods have been in business for 10 to 15 years and yet most of their feeding trails only last 6 months.



dieterherzog said:


> As much controversy as there remains, there is a standard that needs to be followed when it comes to listing ingredients on a dog food package. You cannot (at least not legally) list chicken as the first ingredient if you're actually providing meat-by-product. And also, it is required that a manufacturer list the maximum moisture content in the kibble package. From that, you can calculate the dry content of protein.
> 
> If you buy food that lists chicken as the main content then a long list of other crap and somewhere further down the line you see chicken meal, then you should question it. If the first 3 ingredients are meat and meat meal, then you can be quite certain the meat content is high.


What I was trying to explain was splitting ingredients. We no longer trust a company that only has one meat source because we assume there isn’t enough meat in the food. 

But I don’t see the difference between a food that lists one meat source and one grain followed by fat showing that is the predominate portion of the food, than a food that lists three different meats followed by three different grains. Where are we guaranteed that food B has more meat than food A.? All we know for sure is that food B is a lot more likely to cause an allergic reaction in your pet. These premium companies need to guarantee a meat percentage, because the labels don’t tell you actual weights only the order.



dieterherzog said:


> I'm just saying that if a company lists their first ingredient as corn and they can peddle that swill as balanced, I have already lost all faith regardless of how much money they have spent researching.


Well, that’s your priorities. Personally, I want a dog food that does both. But that’s part of the reason I fed RAW.


----------



## dieterherzog (Sep 28, 2009)

DobManiac said:


> I’m not sticking up for them, I’m just trying to add a bit or perspective. These companies were the first ones to do any research into do nutrition, and they are still the only companies to do long term studies. Your angry with them for being cost-effective, but do you honestly believe that Evo and Orjins top profit isn’t profit as well. I have a habit of not just something completely just because it’s better than the alternative. And it does annoy me that some of these premium foods have been in business for 10 to 15 years and yet most of their feeding trails only last 6 months.
> 
> 
> What I was trying to explain was splitting ingredients. We no longer trust a company that only has one meat source because we assume there isn’t enough meat in the food.
> ...


I'm sure the profit margin for Hill's Prescription Diet is much higher than that of Orijen's. The Prescription Diet is twice as expensive as Orijen and the ingredients are pig's swill, it's a downright disgrace. 

I agree with you that many premium kibbles are shams as well, particularly the organic stuff, that's why I tend stick to the stuff I KNOW is good. Not to sound like a crazed Orijen promoter here but they do guarantee a 70 - 75% meat content. I also agree that manufacturers should list guaranteed meat content on their packaging. 

I didn't mean to come off as snarly or uncompromising, it just irks me sometimes when there is too much misinformation floating about that gives ammunition to people who insist that feeding their dog a lower-meat based kibble is alright.


----------



## DobManiac (Aug 12, 2007)

dieterherzog said:


> I agree with you that many premium kibbles are shams as well, particularly the organic stuff, that's why I tend stick to the stuff I KNOW is good. Not to sound like a crazed Orijen promoter here but they do guarantee a 70 - 75% meat content. I also agree that manufacturers should list guaranteed meat content on their packaging.


I'm mostly refering to grain based kibble, which as far as meat content aren't always much better than a corn based dog food. Most grain free foods do guarantee a very nice portion of meat. But not everyone is comfortable with grain free for various reasons.

The bottom line is it all comes down to the owner. And every food as risks not matter what it is. So as long as the owner put in enough research to have conclusions based on some type of scientific data (not just my friend or vet told me this), and their dog does well on the food, then I think we should just let them be.

Now I better go fed my own dogs. Today is raw ground beef, tripe, and duck necks. Sound yummy?


----------

