# Dog Food Comparison



## BenTheMan (Aug 18, 2009)

I was wondering if anyone knew of any (unbiased) consumer test sites where they review dog food products. (Ideally, I'd like to find something similar to cnet.com.) Most of the sites I've seen online clearly carry a bias one way or the other (i.e. towards organics, or towards ``raw food'' diets), and I haven't seen many which I felt was really neutral. The best two sites I have found are

http://www.consumersearch.com/dog-food
http://www.dogfoodanalysis.com/dog_food_reviews/

These sites are ok, but seem to just analyze the list of ingredients---I'd rather see some actual tests of some sort.

A slightly related question is what types of kibble you guys like---I am feeding my dog Daisy Science Diet Puppy, mixed with various types of high end canned foods. I fed my last dog, Lefty, with Science Diet/Pedigree Little Champions for years, and he was always very healthy and happy.


----------



## Wynpyp (Sep 19, 2008)

I like this site... http://www.dogfoodproject.com

I don't know if you'll find a site that has actual tests. Basically it is about analyzing the ingredients in the food. The better the igredients, generally, the better the food. Just like for humans. At the same time though I think that if your dog is doing good on a food, then it's good.


----------



## BenTheMan (Aug 18, 2009)

Wynpyp said:


> I don't know if you'll find a site that has actual tests. Basically it is about analyzing the ingredients in the food. The better the igredients, generally, the better the food. Just like for humans.


At some point, it comes down to a cost vs. benefit analysis. For example, I could spend $3 a pound on kibble with no real benefit to the dog's health, but if I have some bias against the cheaper dog food, then I'm more likely to notice a difference, whether one actually exists or not. A lot of the sites that I've seen (and even most of the threads in this forum) seem to carry an outstanding bias against most of the foods that I would look at feeding my dog, or even be able to afford in the first place. I get the feeling that some people see pet food manufacturers as some evil empire, and it has become ok to exaggerate claims about ``natural'' pet foods.

What I'd really like to see is a sensible, unbiased review of dog foods that involves more science and less ``Oh look, this says `natural lamb' and the other one says `lamb meal' so natural MUST be better.'' Unfortunately, most of the reviews boil down to ``This evil dog food company uses ingredient X'', which doesn't give me any confidence in the neutrality of the reviewers.

On the other hand, if there IS a real (not perceived) advantage one way or the other, I'd like to know.



> At the same time though I think that if your dog is doing good on a food, then it's good.


I'm not sure what ``doing good'' means. I mean, she seems happy enough to eat it, she has lots of energy and her coat is shiny. Her poop is soft but not loose. Her nose is wet and cold unless she's been sleeping.


----------



## CorgiKarma (Feb 10, 2009)

It comes down to what you are comfortable feeding. My family and I eat mostly natura/organic food. So why would I want to feed my dog something full of chemical preservatives, by products and filler? I feel more comfortable with the higher end kibble. For example, when you look at the ingredients on a bag of Iams then the ingredients on a bag of Wellness I'm not sure how you can argue that Iams is a better quality food? I have heard from a few vets that because of the increase in popularity of natural, high end foods, the life expectancy of dogs has increased.

If you feel comfortable with feeding Science Diet and feel your dog is thriving on it then feed it.


----------



## BenTheMan (Aug 18, 2009)

CorgiKarma said:


> My family and I eat mostly natura/organic food. So why would I want to feed my dog something full of chemical preservatives, by products and filler?


Even if there's no real benefit, and the ``natural'' food is much more expensive?



> For example, when you look at the ingredients on a bag of Iams then the ingredients on a bag of Wellness I'm not sure how you can argue that Iams is a better quality food?


I don't know what ``quality'' means here. Do you mean ``better for the dog''? Or do you mean ``it makes me feel better when I buy it''? I've seen no unbiased evidence to back this up the former claim. Just examining the list of ingredients is pretty meaningless, in my opinion.



> I have heard from a few vets that because of the increase in popularity of natural, high end foods, the life expectancy of dogs has increased.


No offense, but these are the types of claims that I'm talking about. I'm quite sure that most people in America no longer feed their dogs store brand food, like ``ol' Roy'' (Walmart brand). At the same time, I highly doubt that anyone, except those who have the means to buy all of their foods at Farmer's Markets and the organic section of their grocery store, feed their dogs kibble a $3 a pound.

And, excuse me, but 












> If you feel comfortable with feeding Science Diet and feel your dog is thriving on it then feed it.


I ``feel'' that I'd like to see some actual science, instead of hand-wavy claims.


----------



## CorgiKarma (Feb 10, 2009)

BenTheMan said:


> Even if there's no real benefit, and the ``natural'' food is much more expensive?


Yes. However, it has benefited my dog.



> I don't know what ``quality'' means here. Do you mean ``better for the dog''? Or do you mean ``it makes me feel better when I buy it''? I've seen no unbiased evidence to back this up the former claim. Just examining the list of ingredients is pretty meaningless, in my opinion.


By quality, I mean foods without artificial preservatives, with natural meat sources, without fillers like corn and without by-products.





> No offense, but these are the types of claims that I'm talking about. I'm quite sure that most people in America no longer feed their dogs store brand food, like ``ol' Roy'' (Walmart brand). At the same time, I highly doubt that anyone, except those who have the means to buy all of their foods at Farmer's Markets and the organic section of their grocery store, feed their dogs kibble a $3 a pound.


I am not swimming in money but still buy food from the organic section of the grocery.





> I ``feel'' that I'd like to see some actual science, instead of hand-wavy claims.


I'm not a scientist, nor am I a vet. I have not done my own experiments on the subject. I have done my share of research, spoken with multiple vets/breeders/trainers and feel that higher quality, natural kibble, is the direction I wish to go.

I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish through this thread. Are you hoping everyone will just throw their hands up and agree with you on the matter? I'm sorry but there is no reason to finger point here.


----------



## Wynpyp (Sep 19, 2008)

BenTheMan said:


> I'm not sure what ``doing good'' means. I mean, she seems happy enough to eat it, she has lots of energy and her coat is shiny. Her poop is soft but not loose. Her nose is wet and cold unless she's been sleeping.


Doing good means exactly that. If your dog is healthy, happy and everything else, don't worry about it. A lot of people on this forum don't feed $3 a lb kibble,some do. It really is a personal choice. You (general) just do the best that you can. Get the food that works the best for your dog... if it's Purina or Science diet or EVO... it's all about what makes your dog happy and healthy. Personally, I'm not happy when my boy has soft poop. To me that means that there could be improvement... if you are ok with your pup/dog having soft poop, that's ok.

I really don't know either what you are looking for...


----------



## nico8 (Jul 16, 2009)

No need for the condescending remarks or the attitude, Ben . These people are replying to your post, trying to help you and your pup, and it sounds like if someone doesn't tell you _exactly what you're hoping to hear_ (I'm guessing that Science Diet is the end all, be all of dog food) then you're gonna throw it back in their face. 

Theres a natural give and take here...you ask a question, people respond, take the advice or leave it but don't turn your nose up at those trying to help you. After awhile not many people are going to go out of their way to reply to someone that will only be satisfied with one particular answer.


----------



## BenTheMan (Aug 18, 2009)

> I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish through this thread. Are you hoping everyone will just throw their hands up and agree with you on the matter? I'm sorry but there is no reason to finger point here.


I haven't made any claims that need to be agreed with---I've just been pointing out that I haven't seen any real and (what I'd consider) unbiased information on the subject. I'm also not pointing fingers---there is a well-understood correlation between the price that people pay for a product and the amount they enjoy it. Given this, I can understand why people would spend more on dog food and see ``real'' results. Absent any sort of scientific testing, I'm inclined to be skeptical of claims along the lines of ``This `natural' food is better because it contains...''

Either way, I'm sorry if you're offended, or if you think I've been a bit brash.

What I have found today are two pretty good comparisons. The first is

http://www.consumersearch.com/dog-food

This seems to be an overview of all of the pet food reviews on-line, including the customer reviews at places like petco.com. This looks like a good place to start, but there's no actual testing, just reporting.

Apparently, there was some debacle in 1998 where Consumer Reports screwed up the methods that they used when testing pet food. Anyhow, they have a Q and A about pet food here:

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/...-2009/money/pet-food/overview/pet-food-ov.htm

The answers come from people at ``top veterinary schools'', which apparently means Cornell University:



article said:


> "There's no scientific evidence that any food is better than the next," says Joseph Wakshlag, D.V.M., Ph.D., an assistant professor of clinical nutrition at the Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine.





nico8 said:


> Theres a natural give and take here...you ask a question, people respond, take the advice or leave it but don't turn your nose up at those trying to help you. After awhile not many people are going to go out of their way to reply to someone that will only be satisfied with one particular answer.


I really thought the OP was clear, but if not let me restate what I want:

I am looking for some sort of unbiased, scientific test that compares dog foods side by side, and doesn't consist solely of a ``list of ingredients''.

I'm not trying to be condescending, I'm just trying to find out what is right. I've seen some people refer to ``Science Diet'' as ``Science Death'' on this site. I've seen people say things like ``I don't trust my vet to recommend a good dog food because...'' Comments of this ilk _beg_ for some sort of objective comparison.


----------



## GatsbysMom (Jul 20, 2009)

I do understand the OP's point, because of my experience raising cats and with cat food.

I've always fed my cats Fancy Feast wet food and Deli Cat dry food... one of the foods that costs more at the regular grocery store, but certainly nothing special ingredients-wise. It looks like Meow Mix. One of my cats lived to the age of 18 and was healthy every day of her life. Another cat is a very active 13 year old who acts like a kitten. Up until recently, I simply wasn't that educated about pet foods, so I just fed them what I thought was decent food, and my cats are healthier than a lot of cats I know who eat Wellness.

For some reason, though, I'm not content to just feed my dog Purina or Science Diet... Maybe because I've never had a dog and this forum has made me paranoid! I KNOW my cats can thrive on non-special cat food, but I know nothing about dog food. I've put him on Chicken Soup for the Dog Lover's Soul which was recommended by so many here. To me, it seemed like a reasonable balance between quality and price.

It's all about marginal utility... does paying an extra $0.75 per pound (or however much) justify the added (if any) benefit of one food over another? I STRONGLY believe there are some foods that are vasty superior to others. But do I believe the vastly more expensive foods add proportionately more benefit? I think it comes down to feeding your dog the best food you can afford to.

Would I feed my dog Purina or Benefit or Nutro? No. But am I going to feed him food that's $4 per pound? No. Chicken Soup seems like a good balance for me, for now.


----------



## Kathyy (Jun 15, 2008)

If you look around you can find them. Dogaware and B-Naturals back up the articles posted there with a lot of further reading. Enjoy.
http://www.b-naturals.com/index.php?main_page=newsletters
http://www.dogaware.com/


----------



## BenTheMan (Aug 18, 2009)

Kathyy said:


> If you look around you can find them. Dogaware and B-Naturals back up the articles posted there with a lot of further reading. Enjoy.
> http://www.b-naturals.com/index.php?main_page=newsletters
> http://www.dogaware.com/


Thanks! I'll check these out.

====Added in edit

Thanks again---the second resource looks pretty good.


----------



## leslieandbroddy (Jul 18, 2010)

I have found this site very helpful in choosing dog food. I love an easy to read chart and they update constantly. 

http://www.dogfoodscoop.com/dog-food-comparison.html


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Obviously I haven't done scientific tests, but I have seen real results with my three-year-old dog -- since I switched her from Royal Canin to Taste of the Wild about six months ago, her poop is undeniably smaller and firmer and has less of a smell. Also, I was able to cut her portion size down from 2/3 of a cup per day to 1/2 of a cup. TOTW, despite being regarded as one of the higher-end foods, actually costs less per pound than the Royal Canin as well. I'm definitely coming out ahead -- I feel good about feeding her a grain-free food with good ingredients, she's doing better on it than she was on her old food (or at least just as well, but with better poop), and I'm actually saving money. Win-win-win.

What kind of tests are you looking for, anyway? "Some sort of unbiased, scientific test" is pretty vague.


----------



## Angel's_mom (May 26, 2010)

Okay, I know what you mean, but I don't know what websites to look for. I did the old trial and error routine to find a good food for my dog. You'll see in some of my other posts, that I adopted a 2 year old cocker spaniel with itchy skin. I have no idea what food she was on before she came to me, but the lady who had her (for 2 whole weeks) before me, was going to take her to the pound because she's too "itchy and scratchy". I mean, seriously. 

So, I ended up with her, and had a feeling she was used to eating something like Ol' Roy or Pedigree, and I'll admit I used to feed some previous dogs of mine Pedigree, and Purina One, thinking they were high quality, and the dogs did fine on them, just depends on the dog. So. I started her out on Professional brand dog food from Feeder's Supply, which is made by Diamond, and it was recommended to me by a worker at the store, contains no wheat, soy, or corn, so I thought it was worth a try. I'm just sharing my personal experience, and how I made my decisons, so please bear with me. At first she seemed okay on this food, her stool was a little loose, she still itched, but I figured give it some time. Well, her stool never quite firmed up, and then the longer I had her on this food the looser her stools got. She started to have accidents in the house. I took her to the vet, explained everything to him, he didn't seem concerned but gave her an antibiotic just in case. I tried her on a temporary diet of boiled rice and chicken. During this time her stools looked exactly like yellowish boiled rice. The rice was still fully formed, there was nothing that looked like "dog poop" in her stool. Just rice. Aha! She doesn't digest rice. 

So, after that I switched her (gradually) to TOTW. I saw an immediate improvement in her stool, but she gained 2 lbs in 3 weeks, which wasn't so great because she was chunky to begin with. So I did another gradual switch to Wellness Core reduced fat, and meanwhile the itching went away, her stool is still firm and dark brown, and she has lost the weight she gained. I did another experiment by giving her a couple milk bones a day for a few days. Itching came back. So, it looks like wheat makes her itch. This is how I decided she needs to stay on a grain free diet, for sure. And a relatively low cal one at that. 

Sorry to ramble. It really all depends on the dog.  I do believe some dogs will thrive on just about anything. Others can't. But really, read the labels and tell us what you think. Once I started reading labels I'm not comfortable feeding my dog something with corn as the first ingredient, and by-products next on the list (or anywhere on the list).


----------



## Husky+BC Mom (Jul 13, 2010)

When I first got Mickey I fed him Purina One (gasp!) and then preceded to get sucked into the dog food world in which I immediately switched him to Wellness, to Solid Gold, to Orijen, to Great life. Why? Because I got caught up in the hype. True, I did no longer have to feed him 4 cups a day (down to 3) but other than that, I didn't see any true and real improvement. When I noticed actual changes (coat, health, teeth, energy) is when I switched him and the rest of my dogs to raw. I've witnessed them change before my eyes and have a very real comparison of coat texture with Mickey. He had to have his back shaved for an ongoing skin issue (something I was convinced changing him to a "higher quality kibble" would fix- not.) so when it began to grow back finally (after starting raw) it grew in thick, sleek and smooth (something that's NOT supposed to happen when you shave a Husky.) So now he's got the rougher coat that's beginning to get healthier on his sides and his "raw" coat on top.

And on top of all that, i'm paying less to feed them raw than I did when they were on kibble.


----------



## Jacksons Mom (Mar 12, 2010)

I like the www.dogfoodadvisor.com site alot too.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

cost vs. benefit analysis.>>>>>

most dogs do reasonably well on most foods. The sites you showed are very good. pick the best food you can afford that your dog seems to do well on. the super premium are great for your dogs health and are not a ripoff, providing you have the cash. 

cost-benefit is in the eye of the beholder. Just like human food. If you go with the cheaper foods your dog prob does ok, but just like a humans bad diet the chances of bad things do go up. I hope my rambling makes any sense


----------

