# How Much Protein Is Too Much?



## dinki2 (Nov 16, 2008)

Okay our GSD who had puppies we kept one, well I have the mother on TOTW Wetlands formula and it has 32% protein, well I started the puppy on the Pacific Stream Formula brand of TOTW which is 25% protein and he will eat it when hes "hungry" but he would rather attack moms wetlands formula over his, I dont know if its just because he doesnt like his food as much, or just trying to eat what mom is eating. 

I only have Heidi on the Wetlands formula right now and we are about out, so then I was going to start her on the High Prairie formula after Wetlands and I wont have any Wetlands left for the pup to fuss over. I was thinking of going in and just buying the puppy the wetlands formula, but it has 32% protein and I have heard high protein isnt great for large breed puppies.

He eats plenty of it when he wants to and is in no way skinny, but it just seems he doesnt have a taste for it like he does moms, it kind of worries me.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

I read something on Wellness website that leads me to believe anything over 34% is too high because the dog doesn't use it. So it is like a waste. That is just according to what I read that happened in their study. so if a food has 40% protein the dog only needs and uses 34%. As far as large breed pups I personally think the calcium/phosphorus levels of are much greater importance then the protein level. Once you run out of the wetlands though and buy another with lower protein your pup will have no choice but to eat the other or go without. They won't starve, they will have to give in and eat it. Many believe that 23% or 25% are the right amounts of protein for most dogs including large breed pups. Lots of large breed puppy foods are 26-28% protein.


----------



## dinki2 (Nov 16, 2008)

Yea the pacific stream formula has only 25% I will post some pics of the pup and mom in the pic section later .


----------



## Wynpyp (Sep 19, 2008)

Both of mine, a full grown GSDx and a RottieX puppy, ate TOTW Pacific stream and did really well on it. We switched though because it's expensive to buy up here. The new food that they are eating is Acana Pacifica and it has 33% protien and they are doing just as good on it. Growth wise, my puppy is doing awesome. She was just at the vet on the 15th and he was amazed at how good she is doing. She is 5 months and 41lbs.

I think that if you can get the pup to eat the Pacific Stream that would be great, if not don't worry. I really don't think it is that bad for them to have a little higher protien food. I have read that giant breed puppies are the ones that you really need to be careful with.


----------



## myminpins (Dec 20, 2008)

This is some information I recently found that may help you:

http://www.pitbull-chat.com/showthread.php?t=15504



> So many times on the forum I have heard it said "Puppies need less protein" or "Do not feed adult food it has too much protein." When we first got Rocky and I was reading this I started reading labels and noticed that puppy food had more protein then the adult food did. So I *asked my Vet*, and she says puppy food has more because puppies need more.
> 
> I told her my concerns of kidney problems, *she told me that was a myth and that the only time a dog should have a lower protein diet is if they already have kidney problems*. So I did some research and she was right, here is what I found and I hope it helps....
> 
> ...


http://www.thepetcenter.com/imtop/protein.html

http://lowchensaustralia.com/health/protein.htm

http://www.drsfostersmith.com/pic/ar...id=284&aid=459


----------



## babysweet (Dec 11, 2008)

Great post, MyMinPins. 

The problem with the Wellness study is that sooooo many of the details and specifics of the study remain unclear. What food were they feeding? What were the protein sources? Are we talking grain free 70% meat content (Orijen) or are we talking increased By-Products and Wheat Gluten - mostly indigestible?

How much were they feeding? How often were they feeding it? Higher protein, higher density food requires smaller meals - one of the biggest complaints about grain free kibble is diarrhea, but this is generally cleared up as soon as the human stops overfeeding and splits the meals. The body takes what it needs and passes the rest. 

In addition, it was suggested that this study was done on Siberian Huskies, which metabolize protein differently than other breeds (they are much more efficient). 

PLUS, the study merely states that they found no more protein absorbed at 42% than 34%. They didn't specify what happened at 35%, 36%, 31%, etc, etc. They carefully worded the study conclusion to suggest that 34% was some magic number when in fact they have provided NO data to back this up (or at least not to their customers or retailers).

Consider the millions of dogs who eat raw food and digest everything except the bone (ever seen a raw poop? Looks like a piece of chalk when done right). This has to be taken into consideration - ie how the kibble is processed.

Anyways, the real issue is that what makes large breed puppy formulations different than adult formulations, even in grain free varieties, is the calcium levels. According to their website, Wetlands is suitable for puppies... however, I personally prefer a specific formula. For example, the dogs in my home all eat grain free food, and when we couldn't get an acceptable puppy grain free for our new cattle dog pup (the store was all out) we went with a low grain formula - Acana Puppy & Junior which has only 20% oats and 60% meat - over feeding an adult or 'all lifestages' grain free. I'm much more lax with smaller dogs who don't really have much of a growth rate, but the larger the dog, the more important an issue I consider the particular formulation.

That's just my personal opinion, though - take from it what you will.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/dog_nutrition_final.pdf


----------



## babysweet (Dec 11, 2008)

Curbside Prophet - interesting link. However, the simple fact that they list a minimum "crude protein" without taking into account (once again) where that protein is coming from (particularly when later on in the booklet they admit there are items in pet foods that are difficult to digest - some I would argue are impossible) and suggest that up to a 50% carb intake is "acceptable" when in fact there is ZERO nutritional requirement for carbs in a dog's diet, period... tells me that this booklet was based on accepted commercial food principles and ignores the reality - that dogs are meant to eat a meat-based diet.

I absolutely detest these guides which spout minimums - I have a copy of AAFCO's regulations, I already know what the minimums are - I want someone, somewhere, to do some REAL science and figure out what is OPTIMAL... and take into consideration factors like ingredient quality, digestibility, cooking processes, storage and packaging, etc, etc.

Sorry - I realize all my posts this evening are a bit rant-y...

Must have had a worse day than I realized.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

babysweet said:


> However, the simple fact that they list a minimum "crude protein" without taking into account (once again) where that protein is coming from...


How could they account for all the possible protein sources an owner can choose? This seems like an endless/needless task. 



> ...and suggest that up to a 50% carb intake is "acceptable" when in fact there is ZERO nutritional requirement for carbs in a dog's diet, period...


ZERO? According to whom? I typically find this point deriving from the natural = optimal argument. Consider this...Polio is natural. Who recommends Polio for everyone?  Probably none. In fact, most, those that I would consider sane, might even recommend an UN-natural Polio vaccination, instead. 

What are carbs? An energy source. So to say there is no nutritional value in carbs is to say there is no energy source that can be had from carbs. Not true. 

Dogs do not have salivary alpha-amylase and hence cannot begin starch digestion in the mouth like we humans...this is true. But the pancreas does secrete enzymes somewhat proportionally to the concentration of the stimulus, and in excess. Now I would think a dog on a high starch diet would secrete more starch digesting enzymes (and there are several types other than amylase) than a dog eating a diet less in starch, no? 

Forget about the pancreas, there are also many different carbohydrate digesting enzymes buried in the brush border of the entire intestinal mucosa as well, which must be taken into account - sum total of all this is not zero. Non-fiber carbohydrate sources are highly digestible by the normal dog, and dogs can/do benefit from these carbohydrates. 




> tells me that this booklet was based on accepted commercial food principles and ignores the reality - that dogs are meant to eat a meat-based diet.



Again, this is the natural = optimal argument. A dog's physiology may tell us what the dog historically ate...it does not tell us what the dog's nutrient requirements are. If the nutrients are bio-available in weeds, a dog can be meant to eat a weed-based diet. I know many owners who'd love a dog on a weed-based diet, especially those with large yards. And no, these owners aren't on a weed-based diet themselves.  




> I absolutely detest these guides which spout minimums - I have a copy of AAFCO's regulations, I already know what the minimums are


Who do you want BIG GOV to regulate? Dog food companies or you? I pick dog food companies. The AFFCO requirements are required by law, and the law defines AFFCO as "complete and balanced". I don't know about you, but complete and balanced IS optimal. However, AFFCO is just an ESTIMATE. An optimal diet for your dog is optimal only for your dog. 



> I want someone, somewhere, to do some REAL science and figure out what is OPTIMAL... and take into consideration factors like ingredient quality, digestibility, cooking processes, storage and packaging, etc, etc.


What about the dog's breed, size, health, and age? These are factors too, and I would say larger factors than the one you mentioned. 

If you have the money, I have the test subjects.


----------



## myminpins (Dec 20, 2008)

From all the research and reading I have done, I, too, don't believe dogs require grains, etc., in their diet. Meat and bones are all they need to thrive. My dogs get absolutely no grains in their diet period.


----------



## babysweet (Dec 11, 2008)

It's obvious from your reply, Curbside Prophet, that you're not really interested in a real discussion. I have a really difficult time taking someone serious when they compare providing a dog with its evolutionary and biologically appropriate diet to giving people polio. Or suggesting a lawn diet - suggesting that the fact that dog has the body of a carnivore and requires 10 amino acids its body can not manufacture means that perhaps it was meant to eat a bag of wheat and corn - or suggesting that a natural diet does not in fact equal an optimal diet - well, why not suggest feeding them dirt? Surely that's just as practical.

In addition, I suggest you do some research before replying with such dripping sarcasm. The Waltham Book of Dog and Cat Nutrition (which is used as a veterinary text in many universities) clearly states "There is no known minimum dietary carbohydrate requirement for either the dog or the cat." In fact, every known nutritional text mentions carbohydrates in a maximum capacity ONLY, as in "how much filler can we pack in here before we make someone ill?" 

And it's AAFCO, not AFFCO.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

babysweet said:


> It's obvious from your reply, Curbside Prophet, that you're not really interested in a real discussion.


I'm not interested in baseless arguments, this is true. You're welcome to decipher the points I did make, and you're welcome not to. Your prerogative is what you make of it. But I'm really not interested in what you make of it. I'm only interested in what we know are the facts. 



> I have a really difficult time taking someone serious when they compare providing a dog with its evolutionary and biologically appropriate diet to giving people polio. Or suggesting a lawn diet - suggesting that the fact that dog has the body of a carnivore and requires 10 amino acids its body can not manufacture means that perhaps it was meant to eat a bag of wheat and corn - or suggesting that a natural diet does not in fact equal an optimal diet - well, why not suggest feeding them dirt? Surely that's just as practical.


I didn't suggest any of this, so let me say it again to make myself clear. Calling a dog a carnivore (what you want to do) does not deductively imply the conclusion that dogs should be on a raw meat diet (where you want to go). Like it or not, there is no 1 diet for all dogs. The shape of teeth may tell us what the animal historically (in an evolutionary sense) eaten but does not tell us what they can eat and digest or even what they do tend to eat in the present, or most importantly, what is optimal for them to eat. Various internal anatomical or physiological features can suggest certain nutrient requirements also but again this does not imply that dogs must or even should eat a raw meat diet. The label of carnivore is not particularly useful in helping us decide the advisability of feeding a raw meat-based diet. It is more a rhetorical device than a serious argument. Excuse me for being capable or recognizing this. 



> In addition, I suggest you do some research before replying with such dripping sarcasm.


Listen, if you're incapable of deciphering the point in my sarcasm, perhaps you should take a break from the forum for the evening. You've been having a bad day, right? 



> The Waltham Book of Dog and Cat Nutrition (which is used as a veterinary text in many universities) clearly states "There is no known minimum dietary carbohydrate requirement for either the dog or the cat." In fact, every known nutritional text mentions carbohydrates in a maximum capacity ONLY, as in "how much filler can we pack in here before we make someone ill?"


And I said AAFCO was an ESTIMATE, I did not say it was DEFINITE. I'm not waging a kibble v. raw battle here. I'm assuming raw feeders want to feed a complete and balanced diet too. No? Nothing I've said suggests feeding any kind of meal, regardless of how I feel about the raw feeding concept. 



> And it's AAFCO, not AFFCO.


I find you pointing out an honest mistake does more to demonstrate your ilk than prove a meaningful point. I'd avoid this kind of tact in the future.


----------

