# Champion Pet Foods...



## meggels (Mar 8, 2010)

Do you think they are as great of a company as they make themselves out to be? I feel like I can trust fewer and fewer companies these days...

http://www.freshwaterfish.com/system/files/L2PNewsletter Winter 2011.pdf

MARKET UPDATE

Freshwater Fish is always looking to expand its market reach and to strengthen existing markets – even non-human ones! We recently signed an exclusive arrangement with Alberta based Champion Petfoods, *whereby we sell all minced by-products to them and they in turn buy all the product we have to offer. *

We began working with Champion in 2005 when we sent them samples of minced by-products for testing after it was extracted from fish during the filleting process. Prior
to sending the product to Alberta, we had been paying to have the waste trucked to a rendering facility in Winnipeg. After the samples were tested by Champion, a product was developed that met their high quality specifications.

This business brings in several hundred thousand dollars in revenue for a product that previously cost us money to dispose of – and we’re thrilled to be building on a relationship that dates back more than five years.

On October 28 we welcomed Champion Petfoods team members Jeff Johnston (Nutrition, Research and Product Development Manager) and Andre Minnaar (Quality
Assurance Manager) into the plant so they could conduct their quality assurance audit and plant tour.

While visiting our facility, Jeff relayed the following message: “At Champion Petfoods we have been extremely pleased with the freshness and quality of the raw material we
receive from Freshwater Fish. We are proud to be affiliated with one of the best sources of raw freshwater fish protein in the world. Freshwater Fish is one of our key raw material supply partners and the growth and reputation of our products is directly related to our high quality raw materials.

Thank you for sustainably harvesting and processing such a high quality freshwater fish product.” We are so proud of this success story and look forward to working more with Champion Petfoods in the future!


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

So.. Champion is buying Canadian the by-products - i.e. the bones, organs, heads, tails from caught and prepared fish, all of which can go into meals anyway, and would probably be fed by PMR feeders who feed fish - from fresh-caught, freshwater Canadian fish to use in their fish formulas? Could you clarify your concerns further?


----------



## meggels (Mar 8, 2010)

For $90 a bag or more people expect fish ingredients that were not destined for the dump. The word "waste" is even used. 

In the context of how this company markets, this just shows how they really, really stretch the truth ie lie.


----------



## Miss Bugs (Jul 4, 2011)

not really, that company considers it waste because THEY don't need it, that doesn't mean its literally garbage. I looked into Goat a few months ago and found that its hard to find because millions of unneeded goats are killed and just burned because the farmers dont need the meat and dont have enough buyers for it, the whole goat is "waste" to them which they would need to pay to dispose of. "waste" is whatever supply and demand dictates people don't want at that moment in time.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

meggels said:


> For $90 a bag or more people expect fish ingredients that were not destined for the dump. The word "waste" is even used.
> 
> In the context of how this company markets, this just shows how they really, really stretch the truth ie lie.


Firstly, I don't know where you're buying your food, but I've never seen it for more than $90/bag (And it is NOT cheap where I live).

Second, "waste" is something that has no use. Once it has a use it is no longer waste. Personally I think it is a sustainable, and local, option for sourcing fresh, (relatively) local fish. Lobster used to be considered "waste" from fishing, poor-mans food, only fit for the poorest of dirt poor, and look at it now. Stop focusing so much on the labels other people are placing on things, and rather look at the facts. If you think other premium dog food companies are not using the same kinds of ingredients, then you are out to lunch.


----------



## bowie (Apr 26, 2010)

I don't really see the issue with this, either. Most of Six Fish is made up of various fish meals anyway.

Whole salmon*, whole herring*, salmon meal, herring meal, Pollock meal, whole flounder*, boneless walleye*, boneless northern pike*, boneless lake whitefish*

I'm guessing the minced by-products are the boneless walleye, pike and whitefish. Not a big deal, IMO.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I don't think any pet food companies are putting table-quality ingredients into their pet foods. It's pretty much all stuff that humans don't want to use for themselves, whether it's just because it doesn't look right or whatever. For instance, millions of pounds of "ugly" carrots are sold to pig farmers or outright thrown into a landfill/burned, just because the American consumer expects pretty, carrot-shaped, unblemished carrots. Doesn't mean they're bad or dangerous or low-quality. Just ugly.

If you're concerned because the company is using "by-products" without labeling them as such, I don't believe there is an FDA designation for fish by-products. They would not be allowed to list it that way even if they wanted to.


----------



## NicoleIsStoked (Aug 31, 2012)

gingerkid said:


> Firstly, I don't know where you're buying your food, but I've never seen it for more than $90/bag (And it is NOT cheap where I live).
> 
> Second, "waste" is something that has no use. Once it has a use it is no longer waste. Personally I think it is a sustainable, and local, option for sourcing fresh, (relatively) local fish. Lobster used to be considered "waste" from fishing, poor-mans food, only fit for the poorest of dirt poor, and look at it now. Stop focusing so much on the labels other people are placing on things, and rather look at the facts. If you think other premium dog food companies are not using the same kinds of ingredients, then you are out to lunch.


I can say that here in Toronto, the 13kg bags of Orijen are in fact $80-95 plus tax. 
http://www.renspets.com/canine-regional-red.html here is probably the closest thing to a "big box franchise" and they sell the big bags of regional red for $92.50


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

Are they as good as their marketing makes them out to be? No, probably not. I do see inconsistencies in their labeling and marketing but mainly it is that no company is really as good as they make themselves out to be in their marketing. Champion tends to make it sound like their raw ingredients are ready to be served at a nice restaurant to people and that just ain't happening in any dog food.

That said, I have no issue at all with by-products or "waste" products like described above if they are safe to eat and processed properly. Many of those random animal parts are very nutritious.

I lived in East Asia a while back and kind of got used to some pretty odd things on my plate, some of which were quite tasty like fish heads. Fish heads are tender and fatty and flavorful compared to the rest of the fish. Bony but tasty. I was down in South America about a year ago and the people where I was staying had roasted up a bunch of huge fresh fish and they hadn't touched the heads. I asked if I could have them and most everyone looked at me very funny except a girl from France who commented that she too was wondering why they weren't eating the good part.

Granted, I'm not about to chow down on feathers or hooves or such, but there are many "waste" products when meat is processed for human consumption that are quite healthy and safe for dogs or cats. Like, I learned that lung isn't allowed for sale for human consumption in the US but I was served it in Mongolia and while it wasn't yummy IMO, it was edible and not all that yucky even.


----------



## Jacksons Mom (Mar 12, 2010)

No, I'm done with Champion, not simply for this though. I'm just irritated they're changing ingredients again. My dog does/did great on Acana. Once the GF's changed, he didn't do as well, but we still had the duck/pear and now they're changing that... 

As far the by-product, it does amuse me that so many people let Champion 'pass' but if it were Purina using marketing schemes to lie about things, people would flip out. At least Purina will list by-products on their menu, Champion just has a 'sexier' ingredient panel, but it's probably not much better.  And you're probably paying 2-3x the price.

I think "minced fish" is what goes into food like fishsticks. The by-products from minced fish go to rendering (or Champion). If it was edible for human (actual mince), it wouldn't have been sent to rendering previously.

I am SURE it's fine for dogs and it doesn't bother *me* but but so many think very highly of Champion and hate by-products, so it's worth reading into. Champion really shouldn't be passing it off as whole fish in their product.

They play a lot of word games in their marketing claims. Champion claims they are fit for human consumption (which theoretically, they were at some point). Once sent to a rendering facility, they are not fit for human consumption.

All companies have their skeletons in the closet. Just the way it is. You are never going to find a 100% everything company in any industry, but especially dog food industry, where lots of terms are unregulated and misused, etc. Every dog food manufacturer has a slick marketing campaign with descriptions of their products that can be criticized, including both Champion and Purina.

So basically I don't feel that Champion is much better/if at all than many of the companies people on forums bash.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

Jacksons Mom said:


> I think "minced fish" is what goes into food like fishsticks. The by-products from minced fish go to rendering (or Champion). If it was edible for human (actual mince), it wouldn't have been sent to rendering previously.


I feel that you're missing (what I feel is) Shell's entire point that what most people accept as "edible for humans" is a small fraction of what is ACTUALLY edible for humans.

Lastly, no where on the bags or on Champion's website does it say "whole fish". All the website/bag says is that it is delivered fresh, not frozen, on the same day. Since there are no "fish by-products" in the ingredients list, that also indicates that the fish that is being used isn't 

I do sympathize on the formula changes though. That sucks, and I'd probably do the same in your position.


----------



## bowie (Apr 26, 2010)

gingerkid said:


> Lastly, no where on the bags or on Champion's website does it say "whole fish". All the website/bag says is that it is delivered fresh, not frozen, on the same day.


Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but right on the ingredient list it says whole salmon, whole herring, and whole flounder...


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

gingerkid said:


> I feel that you're missing (what I feel is) Shell's entire point that what most people accept as "edible for humans" is a small fraction of what is ACTUALLY edible for humans.
> 
> Lastly, no where on the bags or on Champion's website does it say "whole fish". All the website/bag says is that it is delivered fresh, not frozen, on the same day. Since there are no "fish by-products" in the ingredients list, that also indicates that the fish that is being used isn't
> 
> I do sympathize on the formula changes though. That sucks, and I'd probably do the same in your position.


Yep-- edible is a lot wider definition then many people think it is. I mean, if there was a bag of dog treats made of whole ground spiders and silk worms, would that make you go "eeww" or "yum"? Both are highly popular human snacks in Cambodia and South Korea respectively and are perfectly edible. (Fried tarantulas and stir-fried silk worms, even canned silk worms which were probably the nastiest thing I've ever tried to eat)

I don't like label games though and I wish that the percentages of ingredients had to be listed but if the source of the ingredient is safe, then I'm not going to apply human taste standards to my dog. 

The Six Fish does have whole fish listed:
INGREDIENTS
Whole salmon*, whole herring*, salmon meal, herring meal, Pollock meal, whole flounder*, boneless walleye*, boneless northern pike*, boneless lake whitefish*, salmon oil, herring oil, chickpeas, red lentils, green lentils, green peas, pea fiber, canola oil, sun-cured alfalfa, yams*, pumpkin*, butternut squash*, spinach greens*, carrots*, Red Delicious apples*, Bartlett pears*, cranberries*, blueberries*, kelp*, licorice root, angelica root, fenugreek, marigold flowers, sweet fennel, peppermint leaf, chamomile, dandelion, summer savory, rosemary, Enterococcus faecium.

Neither whole fish nor "fish by-product" are AAFCO defined but fish meal is- 
Fish Meal - the clean, dried, ground tissue of un-decomposed whole fish or fish cuttings, either or both, with or without the extraction of part of the oil.


Here's an example of the kind of minor label /marketing games that are just kind of unneeded and annoying:


> FISH-FREE OMEGA-3
> *Conventional Limited Ingredient foods often feature canola and sunflower oils,* which do not contain a viable source of DHA and EPA essential fatty acids.
> 
> *ACANA is different.*
> ...


But when you read the ingredients.... (emphasis mine)



> INGREDIENTS
> Lamb meal, deboned lamb*, green lentils, red lentils, lamb liver* apples*, lamb fat, green peas, yellow peas,* canola oil,* algae, garbanzo beans, pumpkin*, carrots*, lamb tripe*, lamb kidney*, freeze-dried lamb liver*, kelp*, chicory root, ginger root, peppermint leaf, lemon balm, mixed tocopherols (preservative), dried Enterococcus faecium fermentation product.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

bowie said:


> I don't really see the issue with this, either. Most of Six Fish is made up of various fish meals anyway.
> 
> Whole salmon*, whole herring*, salmon meal, herring meal, Pollock meal, whole flounder*, boneless walleye*, boneless northern pike*, boneless lake whitefish*
> 
> I'm guessing the minced by-products are the boneless walleye, pike and whitefish. Not a big deal, IMO.


Yes, the mince would be the Walleye, pike, and whitefish, which are sourced from "Northern Canada" and are freshwater fish.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

> As far the by-product, it does amuse me that so many people let Champion 'pass' but if it were Purina using marketing schemes to lie about things, people would flip out. At least Purina will list by-products on their menu, Champion just has a 'sexier' ingredient panel, but it's probably not much better.


The thing about this is, there is no such ingredient as "fish by-products" according to the rules for pet food labels. I mean, I'm pretty sure, say, Special Kitty canned tuna cat food is using only the cheapest bits of the tuna, and that still doesn't say "tuna by-products" on the ingredient list. So Purina would not be allowed to list whatever fish parts they're using as "fish by-products" either. And if you don't think Purina is using marketing schemes. . .I would point out any of the fine Beneful commercials currently on the air .

Anyway, if this mince is boneless I have to say it's probably fairly high-quality. If they wanted the really cheap fish ingredients they'd get all the leftovers, not just the boneless parts. I suspect this is the bits of fish that aren't quite fish-stick quality. Funny colored or something (people hate dark bits in their fish sticks ). 

As for them calling it "by-product", their terminology is not the same as the legal definition of by-products in pet foods. Anything they don't want is considered a by-product. Bull calves are a by-product of the dairy industry, and are frequently wasted if the veal market isn't looking too profitable. Any fish they weren't trying to catch that day is "by-catch" and it doesn't always get into the market even if it's a desirable species. Similarly, any fishy bits they can't use for their intended product is, by business terminology, by-product.


----------



## melaka (Mar 31, 2010)

I'd rather see Champion get it from there than from China. And I like that it sounds like a local source too and that they're working with sustainably in mind.

I've read various things about Champion over the past few years that have made me think twice about ever trying them (at one point I thought Acana would be the best food for Buff), but whatever I get from this article doesn't bother me. I thought I remembered hearing about it before. And since I'm not an expert, I just stick with the companies I trust most.


----------



## Little Wise Owl (Nov 12, 2011)

*shrug*

Other than price, I still think Acana is a pretty good food. Charlie is on Pacifica right now and she went from smelling like a rotten corn chip with a greasy coat, to not smelling at all. Her poops are also better. I almost DISLIKE this improvement because now I'm considering spending an arm and a leg to keep feeding her this food... lol 

I've yet to read anything about either Orijen or Acana that's truly made me turn away from the company. They're not perfect and I wouldn't trust ANY pet food company completely but I've yet to see anything outright BAD about them.


----------



## Miss Bugs (Jul 4, 2011)

for me, I've never cared WHO the company is, I've never expected table ready food in my dogs food, even the raw I feed my dogs is mostly leftover stuff that I wont feed myself or my rabbits, if its food that would get tossed, I "toss" it in my dogs food bowls. I also have no objection to by products in any brand of dog food, what I do object too is by products being the ONLY animal source.


----------



## Jacksons Mom (Mar 12, 2010)

Willowy said:


> The thing about this is, there is no such ingredient as "fish by-products" according to the rules for pet food labels. I mean, I'm pretty sure, say, Special Kitty canned tuna cat food is using only the cheapest bits of the tuna, and that still doesn't say "tuna by-products" on the ingredient list. So Purina would not be allowed to list whatever fish parts they're using as "fish by-products" either. And if you don't think Purina is using marketing schemes. . .I would point out any of the fine Beneful commercials currently on the air .
> 
> Anyway, if this mince is boneless I have to say it's probably fairly high-quality. If they wanted the really cheap fish ingredients they'd get all the leftovers, not just the boneless parts. I suspect this is the bits of fish that aren't quite fish-stick quality. Funny colored or something (people hate dark bits in their fish sticks ).
> 
> As for them calling it "by-product", their terminology is not the same as the legal definition of by-products in pet foods. Anything they don't want is considered a by-product. Bull calves are a by-product of the dairy industry, and are frequently wasted if the veal market isn't looking too profitable. Any fish they weren't trying to catch that day is "by-catch" and it doesn't always get into the market even if it's a desirable species. Similarly, any fishy bits they can't use for their intended product is, by business terminology, by-product.


I hear ya! Oh, I'm certainly not saying Purina doesn't use fancy marketing. Quite the contrary! Just that Champion isn't really 'better' as far as that goes and they BOTH use a huge amount of marketing and wording to sell their foods.

Like I said, I don't even have a problem with Champion using these by-products at all. It's just that they're not exactly forthcoming about it and make it sound a lot fancier than it really is, and if another company (like Purina) got caught doing that, every one would be all up in arms, not defending them.


----------



## BennySimpson (Mar 18, 2014)

The double standards with this company are just mind boggling. I guess people have so much emotionally invested in using and recommending this company that all the misinformation just gets rationalized. When Champion was sold, it was called a "partnership". When Zukes and Natura sold to Purina and P&G, stores and people boycotted in a rage. When Diamond and other had recalls, people were furious vowing never to use the products again. When Champion had 5 recalls and other quality controls issues, they were called "bag exchanges" or were someone else's fault. 

I could go on but the OP in this thread is totally correct. This company carries itself, prices the foods and markets itself in a way that is totally inconsistent with reality. That is the issue at hand. The other thread about Acana Singles being stuffed with peas and lentils is another examples of how people just drop by parachute to come up with factually incorrect explanations. I noticed on the Acana Singles website that pears are delivered fresh every day. Does Canada grow pears all year round? 

I am waiting for the rationalization when production starts coming from the United States, in the heart of America's industrial chicken producing region.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

> It's just that they're not exactly forthcoming about it and make it sound a lot fancier than it really is, and if another company (like Purina) got caught doing that, every one would be all up in arms, not defending them.


I guess I'm not sure what the industry standard is for boneless fish sourcing. To me, locally sourced boneless fish mince sounds like a high-quality ingredient. I'm not sure how they're making it sound fancier ("boneless walleye". . .how else would they say it?) and I don't think I'd feel differently if Purina was doing the same. I understand Champion has a lot of fanboyz who might overlook egregious marketing but this particular issue seems pretty. . .non-issuey to me .


----------



## BennySimpson (Mar 18, 2014)

Willowy said:


> I guess I'm not sure what the industry standard is for boneless fish sourcing. To me, locally sourced boneless fish mince sounds like a high-quality ingredient. I'm not sure how they're making it sound fancier ("boneless walleye". . .how else would they say it?) and I don't think I'd feel differently if Purina was doing the same. I understand Champion has a lot of fanboyz who might overlook egregious marketing but this particular issue seems pretty. . .non-issuey to me .


*"Inspired by the rich diversity of fish indigenous to our local waters, ORIJEN 6 FISH features unmatched inclusions of saltwater and freshwater fish that are caught-wild within our region and whisked to our kitchens as fresh and cold as the waters they came from."*

Maybe its me, but this doesn't sound like fish "waste" that has been recycled and processed into a "product" rather than disposed of.

*"AUTHENTIC REGIONAL INGREDIENTS
DELIVERED FRESH DAILY"*

This suggest that the ingredients are of a nature other than "waste" that is recycled and processed into a "product" rather than disposed of.

Again perhaps its just me.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Again, just because a product is considered waste in one context does not mean that it's low-quality or useless. And, yeah, that's marketing. I don't think Champion is more egregious in their marketing than any other brand. I've yet to see a pet food advertise as "stuff you wouldn't want to eat so we made pet food out of it".

Beneful® brand Dog Food Original helps keep your dog happy and healthy with a perfect balance of healthful ingredients, quality nutrition and superb taste. It’s made with wholesome grains and real beef, and accented with vitamin-rich vegetables.
PROTEIN-RICH NUTRITION, WITH REAL BEEF, TO HELP BUILD STRONG MUSCLES

Sounds better than "artificially colored sugar corn puffs with beef as the 7th ingredient", yes?


----------



## Flaming (Feb 2, 2013)

one persons waste is another persons meal. 
I love fish napes but you will not find a processing plant that doesn't throw them away. by-product isn't always bad either, I love molasses which is a by-product of the sugar industry. 

My judgement of food stems partially on how quickly and easily they answer my questions when I email or phone in. 

Purina just gives me cookie cut non answers (doesn't usually answer my questions but with run around the topic) but when I phoned the alberta plant for Champion, I got decent answers and by questions were answered. Yes there were some answers that I didn't like but for the most part I like them.

(I still like raw and properly made home-made better though)


----------



## BennySimpson (Mar 18, 2014)

Willowy said:


> Again, just because a product is considered waste in one context does not mean that it's low-quality or useless. And, yeah, that's marketing. I don't think Champion is more egregious in their marketing than any other brand. I've yet to see a pet food advertise as "stuff you wouldn't want to eat so we made pet food out of it".
> 
> Beneful® brand Dog Food Original helps keep your dog happy and healthy with a perfect balance of healthful ingredients, quality nutrition and superb taste. It’s made with wholesome grains and real beef, and accented with vitamin-rich vegetables.
> PROTEIN-RICH NUTRITION, WITH REAL BEEF, TO HELP BUILD STRONG MUSCLES
> ...


Look at the picture of Bert and Herb holding the fish that is "whisked to our kitchen"

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

Gimme a break folks...


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

And look at the yummy-looking steak chunks on the Beneful bag: http://www.beneful.com/Products/Dry-Dog-Food/Original

I am not sure why there's so much hate for Champion. They don't do anything any other pet food company doesn't do. Is it the price? That's why I don't buy it. But it doesn't mean they're worse than any other pet food company.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Oh man it starts again....


----------



## Jacksons Mom (Mar 12, 2010)

Willowy said:


> And look at the yummy-looking steak chunks on the Beneful bag: http://www.beneful.com/Products/Dry-Dog-Food/Original
> 
> I am not sure why there's so much hate for Champion. They don't do anything any other pet food company doesn't do. Is it the price? That's why I don't buy it. But it doesn't mean they're worse than any other pet food company.


^ Agree with this. And was the point I was trying to relay. Heck I feed Champion (but probably won't/can't anymore due to ingredient changes). I just don't put more trust into them (like I used to) than most other companies.


----------



## Little Wise Owl (Nov 12, 2011)

Laurelin said:


> Oh man it starts again....












No kidding. lol

In Ontario, finding a decent priced dog food that works for my dog is a nightmare. Choices are very limited up here when it comes to budget. There are like 3 affordable brands and so far Charlie's gotten greasy/stinky/itchy on all of them. I could honestly care less that there's a buttload of lentils in Acana. Any other food I'd feed would either be filled with rice, barley or oatmeal so what difference does it make. Charlie does well on a bag of lentils, who knew.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

Laurelin said:


> Oh man it starts again....


Maybe the mods should add "Champion Petfoods" to the Newbie's List of Things That Start Arguments.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

I asked a couple follow-up questions and got the reply this morning. I'm attaching it for general information.



> Hi (Gingerkid),
> 
> Thank you for your follow-up questions.
> 
> ...


----------



## bowie (Apr 26, 2010)

Thanks for posting that, gingerkid. I just noticed today the ingredients list on my bag has some of the percentages listed (for other countries, don't know how I didn't see that before!).

Dehydrated duck (23%), deboned duck (17%), steel-cut oats, peas, whole pears (10%), whole potato, duck fat (5%), duck liver (5%)

Looks like they're using less duck meal, albeit it's not a huge difference percentage wise. From what I can see on their website, the bag still claims 50% duck ingredients, so maybe the inclusion of duck liver twice in the ingredient list made up for the small difference, although the freeze dried is pretty darn low on the list with the botanicals. Ugh, I don't know.


----------



## BennySimpson (Mar 18, 2014)

bowie said:


> Thanks for posting that, gingerkid. I just noticed today the ingredients list on my bag has some of the percentages listed (for other countries, don't know how I didn't see that before!).
> 
> Dehydrated duck (23%), deboned duck (17%), steel-cut oats, peas, whole pears (10%), whole potato, duck fat (5%), duck liver (5%)
> 
> Looks like they're using less duck meal, albeit it's not a huge difference percentage wise. From what I can see on their website, the bag still claims 50% duck ingredients, so maybe the inclusion of duck liver twice in the ingredient list made up for the small difference, although the freeze dried is pretty darn low on the list with the botanicals. Ugh, I don't know.


In the old formula, the animal protein protein was only 17.25/25 or 69%. Since pears are 10%, that means oats and peas are at least 20%, probably closer to 27%, around there. 

It is logical that in the new formula, the 5 legumes are about 27% as well, meaning that the plant protein percentage is higher than the 7.75% (out of 25%) it used to be.

So in the new formula, the animal protein percentage is closer to 60%, which as I said is pretty bad for a food that price and one that is advertised as "Biologically Appropriate".

It is funny how they count duck fat in the 50%, that is also misleading. Fat is Fat.


----------



## BennySimpson (Mar 18, 2014)

gingerkid said:


> I asked a couple follow-up questions and got the reply this morning. I'm attaching it for general information.


That is not correct..sorry..what you were told is mathematically impossible. That implies that all five legumes are only 3.24% of the weight of the food. If you look at my earlier posts I calculated .81% as well and refuted it.

If the food is 20% Duck Meal that would mean 13/27, or 48% of the GA protein is from Duck Meal, not anything like that person stated. Remember Duck Meal is not 100% protein it is around 65% protein.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

gingerkid said:


> So.. Champion is buying Canadian the by-products - i.e. the bones, organs, heads, tails from caught and prepared fish, all of which can go into meals anyway, and would probably be fed by PMR feeders who feed fish - from fresh-caught, freshwater Canadian fish to use in their fish formulas? Could you clarify your concerns further?


I agree for the price I would expect more then just the "yucky" parts, but from a nutritional standpoint its not a bad thing, the fish is freshwater and fresh.

we'll have to face it, dog food makers are going to use by products and parts from animals we humans would other wise turn our noses up at, but after seeing what my dogs are willing to eat, left to their own devices, I don't think they will mind LOL. As long as the meat /protein / fat source is named.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

bowie said:


> Thanks for posting that, gingerkid. I just noticed today the ingredients list on my bag has some of the percentages listed (for other countries, don't know how I didn't see that before!).
> 
> Dehydrated duck (23%), deboned duck (17%), steel-cut oats, peas, whole pears (10%), whole potato, duck fat (5%), duck liver (5%)
> 
> Looks like they're using less duck meal, albeit it's not a huge difference percentage wise. From what I can see on their website, the bag still claims 50% duck ingredients, so maybe the inclusion of duck liver twice in the ingredient list made up for the small difference, although the freeze dried is pretty darn low on the list with the botanicals. Ugh, I don't know.


Decreasing the duck meal, they may have increased the deboned duck?

The bag says "50% Cage-free Duck Ingredients", not "50% Duck Meat". Duck fat is still an duck ingredient, fat or not.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> I agree for the price I would expect more then just the "yucky" parts, but from a nutritional standpoint its not a bad thing, the fish is freshwater and fresh.
> 
> we'll have to face it, dog food makers are going to use by products and parts from animals we humans would other wise turn our noses up at, but after seeing what my dogs are willing to eat, left to their own devices, I don't think they will mind LOL. As long as the meat /protein / fat source is named.


I agree. 

And honestly? I would rather the by-products from human food get used rather than just thrown away and -more- animals farmed and their extra parts thrown away too.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

ireth0 said:


> I agree.
> 
> And honestly? I would rather the by-products from human food get used rather than just thrown away and -more- animals farmed and their extra parts thrown away too.


I agree, I mean most people who feed raw feed many of the things that to into making dog food (necks, livers, hearts leg bones, feet, etc ...) why is it any different when it's done on a "commercial" scale?


----------



## Flaming (Feb 2, 2013)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> I agree, I mean most people who feed raw feed many of the things that to into making dog food (necks, livers, hearts leg bones, feet, etc ...) why is it any different when it's done on a "commercial" scale?


There's a lot on that list that I eat as a human


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

I to feed kibble I do make my own "wet" food for Josefina. its cheaper and I can control what I put in there, like, if I need say, more fat (like during the winter) I can add more fat, and in summer when I don't need as much fat I can back off.


----------



## Woofie2 (Oct 5, 2013)

Not sure Champion is worth $90 a bag; honestly...that's the going rate for Canadian feeders.

Think one could feed raw or homecooked for the same price with more actual meat - just my honest opinion.

That said, Champion is no worse then numerous other companies out there; as one person pointed out, Purina's Beneful commercials portraying fresh meat cuts, etc is a HUGE laughing joke not to mention false advertisement, and the commercials should be labeled as false advertisement.

Any pet food on the market is going to contain what's classified as *waste* or ingredients not fit for human consumption - there is no regulation of what *quality* of ingredients are allowed and what's not. 

Personally, my dogs are not eating anything that I wouldn't eat myself - quality wise. Yes, my dogs might eat the head of a fish that I'm not going to eat, but the quality better be the same, or they're not eating it. 

Over the years, I've read and read so much into the dog food companies that I just don't care to play the game anymore - not one of them, IMHO are worth the constant rising cost of their product.

I spend less money feeding my dogs raw then I ever did feeding them commercial dry foods; and the dogs are happier and healthier.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

BennySimpson said:


> I could go on but the OP in this thread is totally correct. This company carries itself, prices the foods and markets itself in a way that is totally inconsistent with reality. That is the issue at hand. The other thread about Acana Singles being stuffed with peas and lentils is another examples of how people just drop by parachute to come up with factually incorrect explanations. *I noticed on the Acana Singles website that pears are delivered fresh every day. Does Canada grow pears all year round? *


I missed this earlier. Canada does not grow pears year round, however BC-grown Bartlett pears (and BC-grown apples too) are available in grocery stores year-round, thanks to the miracle of cold storage. If Safeway can get fresh BC-grown Bartlett pears, I don't see why Champion would have a problem.


----------



## Jacksons Mom (Mar 12, 2010)

Eh, as someone who is well aware of the issues surrounding Champion sometimes, and well... almost all dog foods, this really doesn't bother me that much. I've made myself very much aware regarding dog food brands and have done almost a 360 on my views in the last few years, so I'm not just delusional Champion lover. But this doesn't really bother me that much.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Jacksons Mom said:


> Eh, as someone who is well aware of the issues surrounding Champion sometimes, and well... almost all dog foods, this really doesn't bother me that much. I've made myself very much aware regarding dog food brands and have done almost a 360 on my views in the last few years, so I'm not just delusional Champion lover. But this doesn't really bother me that much.


Oh I am not delusional either, they all do something we aren't happy with. For me its all about am I more comfortable with a company who does *this* but doesn't do *that* VS one who does *that* but doesn't do *this*. How my dogs DO on a food and if they enjoy eating it/get excited about eating it is also an importable factor. I have tried foods that are supposed to be some of the best out there and my dogs haven't done very well on it or are too expensive for us to even try.

Long story short, if there is nothing *bad* in there for them or anything that will trigger Bear's allergies (grains of any kind) and they all do well on it, then I consider that a win LOL.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

No company in the history of the world is/was as great of a company as they make/made themselves out to be. 

That's why they have marketing departments.


----------

