# The scam of "super premium" dog food



## McSweeney (Feb 1, 2010)

I have been a lurker on this forum for a long time but have never felt compelled to speak up until now. By way of quick introduction, I've done foster work for the Humane Society and local lab rescue groups for about 14 years. Last November I put down my lab mix "Chief" after he gave my family 13-1/2 wonderful years--an amazing lifespan for a large dog--and then in December adopted a year-old husky/border mix ("Hank") from my local animal shelter. All told, since 1996 I've fostered upwards of 20-30 dogs. In that time, I've tried the following brands of dog food: Solid Gold, Nutri Life, EVO, Innova, Canidae, Chicken Soup for the Soul, National, Premium Edge, Authority, Pro-Pac, Earthborn Holistic, Nutro, Iams and Purina.

Anyone care to guess the difference in digestible protein between a cut of raw chicken and chicken by-product meal? (EIGHT percent.) How about a cut of premium beef and beef by-product meal? (ZERO percent.) If you had to rank the most common food allergies in dogs, where would you rank corn? (Hint: it's safer than beef, chicken, lamb, fish, dairy products or eggs.) Any idea of the number of studies linking holistic, organic or BARF diets to longer canine lifespans? (Again, ZERO.) "Holistic" is in fact a total marketing gimmick, with no USDA or AAFCO-mandated standards for the word whatsoever.

The simple truth is animal digest and by-products are as nutrient-rich as their whole-meat counterparts, but super-premium petfood manufacturers prey on people's human sensibilities when marketing food. They convince the customer that "gross" equals "unhealthy," when in fact farm and ranch dogs for literally thousands of years have subsisted on nothing but the necks, backs, viscera, and entrails of discarded bovine/swine/equine. It's one thing when you can throw discarded horse organs in a bucket and have your hound eat it out of sight and out of mind. It's another thing entirely when you're trying to market that bucket on a pretty new bag of kibble at your local Petsmart. Better that the ingredients list "mechanically de-boned chicken meal" or "organic free-range bison," right? 

If you dig even deeper into the process, by-product meal is also the more environmentally sound choice compared to whole meat-based kibble. Consider the numbers of animals slaughtered in the United States for food in 2008: about 3 million sheep, 35 million cattle, 117 million pigs, 264 million turkeys, and 9 billion chickens. Humans do not eat much of the organs and bones--the offal--of these animals even though many of these by-products are just as nutritious as the parts we do eat. (Again, the "gross" factor inhibits our decision-making.) But by-products account for 49% of the weight of cattle, 44% of pigs, and 37% of chickens. Animal by-products add up to 54 billion pounds a year in the United States alone. Small amounts of animal waste can be composted, but quantities like this overwhelm any disposal system. None of the obvious disposal options--incineration, burial, and dumping in landfills--is adequate to the task. All are environmentally hazardous, and all are wasteful of useful nutrients.

When my lab mix was three years old he developed hot spots. His coat was in horrible shape. Up until that point the only food I had ever fed Chief was Premium Edge as a puppy (Chief's obedience instructor cut me a deal) and then Innova as an adult. I switched him to Purina ONE on the recommendation of a fellow lab rescue volunteer, and his coat shined up within weeks. I tried a handful of other brands, but always came back to Purina ONE. And ultimately, I got 10-1/2 more years out of my sweet ole' 100-pound black bear. 

I'm not about to tell you what you should or should not feed your dog. If his energy is good, and if he has good coat and stool quality, KEEP FEEDING HIM WHAT YOU'RE FEEDING HIM. In the meantime, is it too much to ask to have a honest debate about pet food? If you've never fed your dog a certain product, if you've never personally witnessed his quality of life on a certain food, then NO, you are NOT qualified to judge the quality of that food simply by copying and pasting the ingredients label and telling people to check out dogfoodanalysis.com. (On that same note, can we dispense with the intellectually lazy "I bet some people can live their whole lives on McDonalds" one-liners?)

And if anyone's curious, I feed my current husky/border Purina ONE Adult Chicken and Rice, which I amend with one can of sardines on Mondays and one egg on Thursdays. (I've noticed after fostering a few husky/malamute mixes that sardines make the wolf/spitz breeds' coats practically glow in the dark.) I tried transitioning Hank to Canidae All Life Stages from Pro Plan Chicken & Rice in the first couple weeks after I adopted him from the shelter, but his wet, bloody stools scared me back to Purina ONE. (Why didn't I just put Hank back on Pro Plan? That's a story for another thread, but let's just say the new "Shredded Blend" sucks. For whatever reason, Purina likes to tinker with the formulas in its Pro Plan line, and it shows in animals' skin and stool quality.)


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Purina One isn't bad in general. I just prefer not to feed my dog Corn. I know that almost ALL Dalmatians have to eat Purina Proplan (the one with the Dal on the bag) because of their problem with stones.

That said, I wouldn't pay $50 for a bag of Purina when I can get a higher quality food for $40.


----------



## McSweeney (Feb 1, 2010)

*Where are you buying your food, Xeph?*

Wal-mart sells 40# bags of Purina One for $28. Compare that to something like Solid Gold Barking at the Moon, which runs $67 for 33# at my local specialty petstore.

By saying "I can get a higher quality food for $40," you're illustrating the exact point I tried to make in my original post. The super premium petfood manufacturers have got you right where they want you: i.e. equating "gross" with "unhealthy" and anthromorphizing your dogs. You're wanting something that's _your definition of higher quality_, not empirically speaking higher in quality. If there's no difference in protein digestability between a bucket of chicken guts ground and cured into meal and mechanically de-boned all-white meat chicken, why pay the extra money? Answer: because as a person it makes you feel better, not because it's any healthier for your dog. Again, that's your right as a consumer and a pet owner, and I'm sure your dog appreciates your love and compassion.


----------



## Triskit (Feb 1, 2010)

I have learned in the 20 years I have worked in the pet industry that not all pet by products are created equally, and that some of the lower end pet foods have things in them that are severely detrimental to your pets health and life. I am not saying your pet's food is bad at all, I don't know, but research is a must for all pet owners. If the by products are made with organs and bone from healthy animals that we use meat from it is totally different then by products used from ill or euthanized animals.


----------



## misty073 (Mar 31, 2009)

I feed my dogs raw (and a higher end kibble sometimes) and my cat a higher quality urinary tract kibble and I wont switch.

Dog 1 (Harley) had itchy skin and chewed his fur switched him to raw grain free and it went away. (dog was tragically taken from us in OCT)

Dog 2 (Maggie) came to us at 5 months eating Iams puppy food. Switched her to raw that same day. My husband was allergic to her, itchy watery eyes and asthma. She needed to go to the groomers that week to have her anal glands expressed (it hasnt needed to be done again) My husbands allergies to her have gone and its been 1 year (although we just got a puppy and have been suplimenting both dogs with kibble and guess what...he has mild asthma when he comes home now)

Cat (max) 2 years old was eating purina cat food...at the vets last Nov with complete urinary blockage. $700 in vet bills later...he finished his vet food and I have been feeding higher quality food from the pet store and checking his Ph levels a few times a week and its been completely normal.

Dog 3 (Bella) just came to us a week and a half ago. She was eating purina puppy chow and had a Ph of over 8 (my strips only go up to 8) right away switched her to a good quality kibble (from the pet store) and started raw (she is now on 75% raw) and her PH is in normal range again and has been every time I have checked.



Thanks for your info but I will stick with my raw and high quality Kibble...My animals are the best proof for me.


----------



## Active Dog (Jan 18, 2010)

Personally by-products are "unwanted" and unwanted pieces of meat are not cared for in the same manor as "premium" cuts of meat. It is not that I do not believe the internal organs of animals are bad for a dog, on the contrary it very well can be better (I have not studied this so I can't say for sure). Do you have information on how by-products are processed, and if it is in the same way as "human" food? I myself am disgusted with the thought of eating meat that has been pumped full of medicines, we are effect as much as our dogs on "premium" food. So if I can get a food that is processed the same way as "human" food, and it is at LEAST up to par for us, then I feel that is one step closer to a healthier dog.

I also do not agree with corn, it is something that even live stock isn't supposed to have. I would never give my horse corn, just because it can cause serious health problems. Also naturally wolves eating the stomach of their pray would not be eating corn, so it is completely foreign to their digestive system.

I see your point in that "by-products" are nutritious too, but it is low cost food, and industries will treat it as such.


----------



## KarenJG (Jan 31, 2010)

Personally, I feed Kirkland (Costco's brand), which is $21.00 for 40lbs, and ranks as high or higher on the "dogfoodanalysis" system than most of the "premium" brands at twice or three times the price.

I agree that there's some food snobbishness and "gross=unhealthy" in dog-food discussions, and I understand that dogs and their big brothers, wolves, ate offal and thrived for millenia. But, there's a difference between the offal provided on a farm, and that which is swept up off the mass-slaughterhouse floor, along with god knows what else.

Bottom line, I look the analysis system, because it includes information that I feel is important, then take convenience and price into account. I've not yet found a food to beat the Kirkland combination of those three things.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

I don't feed my dogs Solid Gold or Innova. #1 my dogs can't tolerate it. It is EXTREMELY rich and making the switch seems to be harder for older dogs (dogs not raised on it). I had extreme diarrhea (no bloody stools) and gas. #2 I can't afford it.

My dogs started out on ProPlan...their coats were absolute CRAP. Dry, brittle, dandruff, itching. My Shepherd has a bit of an allergy to wheat, so anything with wheat in it is immediately cut out.

Fish based diets my Shepherd refuses, he is also not a fan of chicken (unless fed raw), and I won't feed him beef. He and the Labrador currently eat a grain free venison based food (though I'm sure when I move the Lab will go back to getting crap).

I'd love to check out Kirkland for myself, but it doesn't seem to be available in my area.


----------



## Mr. V (Jan 28, 2010)

Well, he is right about the allergies...


----------



## KarenJG (Jan 31, 2010)

Kirkland is only found at Costco - it's their private label - and they only have Chicken, Rice & Vegetables, and Lamb, Rice, & Veggies. (The Lamb is $2.00 more, though.)

They also don't sell it on line, you have to go the the physical store, which is a bummer if you don't have one in your area!

Costco's brand is made by Diamond, so you could try to find that, but it can't be the same formula as Diamond's own label, because it ranks higher than Diamond does. I don't know what Diamond costs, though.


----------



## Elocin (Jan 30, 2010)

My vet said something similar when I took Charlie there on Saturday. He was having loose stools so my vet said that if I put him on something of a lower quality it probably wouldn't harm him and wouldn't make him live less. He was on Blue Buffalo and now I'm trying him on Eukanuba naturally wild. He seems to like it but I haven't seen stellar results yet. The vet also recommended Purina One. That made his skin itchy though.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

i tend to equate.."contaminated" with unhealthy.

im a raw feeder and often feed what is known as byproducts. ill feed every piece of a deer save for the bladder and intestines. same with any other animal..but ive seen the place where the meat is butchered and packaged..i hired the butcher myself. i do not have that reassurance at all with what is known as low end kibble and i barely have assurance of that with the higher..at least by my anal retentive standards. "human grade" isnt about what part of the animal it is..its about the standards of cleanliness and sanitation used to butcher, prepare and package it...and the cleaner, the better.


----------



## aisling (Feb 1, 2010)

My families now 11 year old dog who has been and still is in great condition (with the exception of arthritis) was fed Pedigree up until she was 9.5 years old and we never had any issues. Now that I'm back home she's eating a bit better.  I like what the OP said though: if it works for your dog, keep feeding it.


----------



## McSweeney (Feb 1, 2010)

*Honest question: what are the "serious health problems" related to corn?*

Corn can provide a high level of digestible complex carbohydrates, essential amino acids and important fatty acids, like linoleic acid. Corn gluten meal, an ingredient derided as "filler" by the uninformed, has in fact one of the higher protein concentrations (60%) of any item on a petfood label. And in food allergies among dogs, corn and rice have the exact same number of cases (about 2.4% of all allergies), with beef, chicken, lamb, fish, dairy and eggs continuing to be the leading food allergens.

As for the whole meat by-product stigma, most of it is anecdotal evidence, evidence that's hard to take seriously when pound-for-pound by-product meal actually has less ash and more protein than its whole-meat counterparts. Yes, it's probably best to avoid the foods with the more ambiguous ingredients like "meat" by-products, but can't we steer people to better dog foods without the ceaseless fearmongering? There isn't feces in commercial dog foods, and it's you, not the dog, who's grossed out by eating slaughterhouse scraps. Digestable protein is digestable protein, Kcals are Kcals, and more dogs thrive on "marginal" food than don't thrive. 

I mean come on, does a petfood manufacturer have your pet's interest at heart or your interest when they use certain ingredients? One of the foods I tried had the following listed as ingredients 13-17: apples, blueberries, carrots, peas, and spinach. Translation: these ingredients are so far down the list they add no nutritive value whatsoever but are included anyway for suckers. If the "label police" is so eager to break down the meat percentages in pet food labels, then be consistent in your critiques. Call out these companies for hiding behind the word "holistic" and touting the benefits of one dehydrated blueberry and one-eighth of a teaspoon of spinach in a 40# bag of kibble. Call out these companies for feeding dogs multi-source protein kibbles--"made with fresh duck, turkey, chicken meal, lamb, and menhaden fish meal!!!"--when simpler, single-source proteins are almost always more digestable. Quick, name the only petfood manufacturer in the last five years to drastically change its ingredients without informing its customers or even its resellers: that would be Canidae. 

If you have the money, BARF diets are great, and the time and effort companies like Natura Pet (Innova, EVO, California Natural, et al) put into their commercial feeds is commendable. But don't jump all over a fellow pet owner if he's feeding his forever friend something that works for him. Don't continue to perpetuate the myth that "icky" automatically means "bad" when it comes to pet food. And above all, if at the end of the month you look at your grocery bill and realize you're spending more money per pound feeding your dog than your children, know that this makes you insane, not altruistic.

Postscript: Now that I'm off my soapbox, I will add that I don't buy Iams for ethical reasons, as they conduct regular animal testing.


----------



## GreatDaneMom (Sep 21, 2007)

*Re: Honest question: what are the "serious health problems" related to corn?*



McSweeney said:


> I mean come on, does a petfood manufacturer have your pet's interest at heart or your interest when they use certain ingredients? One of the foods I tried had the following listed as ingredients 13-17: apples, blueberries, carrots, peas, and spinach. Translation: these ingredients are so far down the list they add no nutritive value whatsoever but are included anyway for suckers


so i should feed my dogs pedigree which is preserved with BHA/BHT which is KNOWN to cause cancer? because ya know, its sooo far down on the list it probably doesnt matter.....


----------



## McSweeney (Feb 1, 2010)

*Re: Honest question: what are the "serious health problems" related to corn?*



GreatDaneMom said:


> so i should feed my dogs pedigree which is preserved with BHA/BHT which is KNOWN to cause cancer? because ya know, its sooo far down on the list it probably doesnt matter.....


Yeah, because that's exactly what I said. Good grief.


----------



## GreatDaneMom (Sep 21, 2007)

im saying that just because an ingredient is far down on the list doesnt mean it shouldnt play a role in what youre feeding.


----------



## Active Dog (Jan 18, 2010)

But it does matter, because they are eating it EVERYDAY, eventually it will have an effect.


----------



## GreatDaneMom (Sep 21, 2007)

Active Dog said:


> But it does matter, because they are eating it EVERYDAY, eventually it will have an effect.


this is what i am saying


----------



## wolfsnaps (Apr 27, 2007)

I just want to say that I do not agree with corn/wheat gluten being an ok protein. I believe that proteins from animals are more bioavailable to a dog. Dogs can survive on a lot of things, but I think they are more carnivorus than anything (based by their teeth, digestive tract, etc) and they should get ANIMAL proteins, not plant proteins. I think that is a cheap way into boosting the protein level of a food. 


I think ultimately, a raw diet is best for dogs. We can't all do it for one reason or another, but thats why I choose a higher quality food and pay a little more for it. Even the lower quality foods are raising their prices these days and some foods are very close in price but far apart as far as quality.


----------



## GreatDaneMom (Sep 21, 2007)

wolfsnaps said:


> i think that is a cheap way into boosting the protein level of a food.


...................bingo!


----------



## McSweeney (Feb 1, 2010)

> But it does matter, because they are eating it EVERYDAY, eventually it will have an effect.


So what you're saying is that there are concrete, scientific studies that confirm the cumulative effect of non-animal proteins on an animal--an animal FWIW that genetically split from wolves 75,000 to 135,000 years ago--and that a grain-free or BARF "ancestral" diet ensures that said animals will live longer and healthier lives? Yeah, right.

Just because a food is convenient doesn't make it evil. Dogs are great companions, but with all due respect to Temple Grandin, we really need to stop imposing our humanity on them.


----------



## Jordan S (Nov 21, 2009)

The beef i have with grocery store pet food is not so much the by products but how they are extremely grain-heavy, and many contain fake colors, fake flavors, and even sugar. Ever looked at the ingredient list on the back of a pouch of moist n meaty. You will find high fructose corn syrup, corn syrup, wheat flours, ethoxyquin. how could those possibly be good for a dog?

None of those things are ever going to end up in my dog's food dish.


----------



## McSweeney (Feb 1, 2010)

> I think that is a cheap way into boosting the protein level of a food.





> Bingo!


Why does that comment merit a "bingo"? Just trying to inject a little bit of realism into the conversation, folks. If there's a cheap way to boost my dog's protein and an expensive way to do it, but neither is proven to be superior in terms of my dog's wellness, I'm not going to drop $50-$60 on a bag of kibble just to stick out my chest at the next ASPCA meeting.


----------



## McSweeney (Feb 1, 2010)

*Moist and Meaty*



> Ever looked at the ingredient list on the back of a pouch of moist n meaty. You will find high fructose corn syrup, corn syrup, wheat flours, ethoxyquin. how could those possibly be good for a dog?


I agree most soft foods are garbage. HFCS and similar sugars have no place in dog food (no place in human foods either). That being said, cane molasses--used by Bill-Jac and National, just to name a couple--does have several nutritive advantages.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

McSweeney said:


> So what you're saying is that there are concrete, scientific studies that confirm the cumulative effect of non-animal proteins on an animal--an animal FWIW that genetically split from wolves 75,000 to 135,000 years ago--and that a grain-free or BARF "ancestral" diet ensures that said animals will live longer and healthier lives? Yeah, right.
> 
> Just because a food is convenient doesn't make it evil. Dogs are great companions, but with all due respect to Temple Grandin, we really need to stop imposing our humanity on them.


Who's imposing their humanity on them? The person feeding a diet designed by a human, or a diet designed by a dog? Irrelevant argument. There is little proof backing up what you say, and little proof backing up what raw feeders say.

I have no scientific studies (neither do you). All I have is this.

Ollie, on whatever garbage he was on before I adopted him (he lived in terrible conditions)


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

To Ollie, months after he was on raw fed diet:




























Empirical scientific data? No, of course not.

But it's proof enough for me.


----------



## GypsyJazmine (Nov 27, 2009)

"I'm not going to drop $50-$60 on a bag of kibble just to stick out my chest at the next ASPCA meeting."

I get SO tired of reading that people only are feeding their dogs what they do for bragging rights...It is insulting to people that have done tons of research & are feeding their dogs what they think is good for them!...I am so over the dog food arguments...I switched to raw & am happy with it...No, i don't brag about it because people think that I am nuts for feeding "good meat" to my pack...I will answer questions about it when asked however.
I do keep an emergency kibble for if we travel or I run out of or forget to thaw meat...I feed Diamond Naturals in those situations which is cheaper than a lot of the brands that the o.p. mentioned & not full of cheap fillers & artificial preservatives, colors, & flavors.


----------



## GypsyJazmine (Nov 27, 2009)

McSweeney said:


> Why does that comment merit a "bingo"? Just trying to inject a little bit of realism into the conversation, folks. If there's a cheap way to boost my dog's protein and an expensive way to do it, but neither is proven to be superior in terms of my dog's wellness, I'm not going to drop $50-$60 on a bag of kibble just to stick out my chest at the next ASPCA meeting.


Even if neither is proven to be better doesn't common sense say that a protein from meat would be better for our dogs than, say, corn?


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

McSweeney said:


> So what you're saying is that there are concrete, scientific studies that confirm the cumulative effect of non-animal proteins on an animal--an animal FWIW that genetically split from wolves 75,000 to 135,000 years ago--and that a grain-free or BARF "ancestral" diet ensures that said animals will live longer and healthier lives? Yeah, right..


genetically split? by how much? the physical differences between dogs and wolves are there but they are minimal and have more to do with proportion and size. the major differences are behavioral...as in intellegence/drives/intensity of behavior/response to humans. Dogs arent wolves. but dogs and wolves are canines...a classification based on diet, digestive system/dentition, habitat, social behaviors etc.

no one is claiming dogs are wolves so we should feed meat. but here's a thought.

wolves are far more intelligent than dogs. their skull size and thus brain size is larger in proportion to their bodies than that of a dog.their behavior is far more complex. Wolves feed on primarily animal proteins. scavenging dogs circling primitive human camps were thought to feed on whatever they could find..

now...do you suppose..just suppose that there is the possibility of a correlation here? hmmmm....


----------



## Thracian (Dec 24, 2008)

> I get SO tired of reading that people only are feeding their dogs what they do for bragging rights...It is insulting to people that have done tons of research & are feeding their dogs what they think is good for them!


Amen to that. I feed my pup a kibble I researched, tried, and feel my dog does well on it. It has nothing to do with wanting to brag or to stick my chest out at a meeting.

Wow, RBark, those are some pretty amazing pics. Ollie looks so much better!


----------



## Elocin (Jan 30, 2010)

I would love to feed Charlie the best of what is out there as long as it is within my budget. I'm not a dog nutrition expert but I try to make sure that there is some sort of meat as one of the first ingredients and no corn. I also try to research what kinds of foods are best for certain breeds but I'm really not too sure about what dogs need to eat.

My last dog, Minnie, ate pedigree for all of her life and was a happy healthy dog. She lived 2 1/2 years longer than the vet thought she did and eventually died of liver failure/ cancer at 14 1/2 years. i still miss her, I will miss her forever, and I always wonder if she would have lived longer if she ate better.


----------



## amdeblaey (Jun 27, 2009)

Thracian said:


> Amen to that. I feed my pup a kibble I researched, tried, and feel my dog does well on it. It has nothing to do with wanting to brag or to stick my chest out at a meeting.
> 
> I second this-I have found on this forum, that people are here to ask advise to what might be best for their dogs-people take it with a grain of salt, and compose their own opinions. If you think you know everything there is to know about food-more power to you-educate people on it then-don't preach to people that you know more then everyone else and start an argument about it.


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

Dogs and wolves are not that "genetically split" considering their ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring. As opposed for example to the horse and donkey which produce the rarely fertile mule. Yet those animals still go for the same diet...

As for the offal etc not being "human grade"-- its all about processing. I have eaten freshly slaughtered sheep lung, heart and intestines. I've eaten ants, silk worm larvae, congealed blood soup, chicken ass (yep, deep fried chicken anus), and other lovely things. But none of that was swept up off the floor of a slaughterhouse and mixed with chemicals.


----------



## FilleBelle (Aug 1, 2007)

You are preaching to the choir, OP. Every single thread I have read on this forum in which a poster asks about dog food has included the advice, "Use whatever works for your dog!" We have done our own personal research on our own personal dogs and we feed what we believe is best for them, regardless of its label, its cost, or what some random internet dude has to say about it.


----------



## upendi'smommy (Nov 12, 2008)

GypsyJazmine said:


> I get SO tired of reading that people only are feeding their dogs what they do for bragging rights...It is insulting to people that have done tons of research & are feeding their dogs what they think is good for them!


This exactly. I don't feed my dogs what I do so I can brag about it, seriously who would I brag to? I researched for MONTHS before settling on a food. The results that occurred when I switched were enough proof for me that I had made the right choice. Just to mention a few, a dramatic reduction in shedding, no more dandruff, soft shiny coats, higher energy levels, smaller poops (which means the dog is actually digesting more of what their eating i.e. common sense if you are feeding the same amount and less is coming back out more is being used)


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

I have had a bad day and spent very little time on the net. Nice to see somebody else sticking pins in the premium food balloons. 

Have you seen my reports of the service dog school programs feeding common brands?


----------



## Michiyo-Fir (Jul 25, 2009)

I don't care if it's a marketing gimmick. If I seem to feel better about it knowing the ingredients are 'premium' and my dog seems to do no worse than grocery brands, I'm still going to go with premium..

Although I'm not sure if there is no benefits to premium food and raw why our police force feeds their dogs a raw diet supplemented by grain free kibble.

Same with the shelter in my area...

Since I have a 7 lb dog I don't really care about spending a bit more because it adds up to only a few dollars more a month.



Labsnothers said:


> Have you seen my reports of the service dog school programs feeding common brands?


Our service dog school feeds Wellness, I emailed and asked them a while back.

One last thing, sled dogs almost always eat raw supplemented by high fat high protein low carb kibble. Those dogs are made to work! And I don't see them doing just as well on common brands like Iams and Pedigree, etc.

I do believe food makes a difference but I'm just sticking to what works for my dog.


----------



## dieterherzog (Sep 28, 2009)

*Re: Honest question: what are the "serious health problems" related to corn?*



McSweeney said:


> Corn can provide a high level of digestible complex carbohydrates, essential amino acids and important fatty acids, like linoleic acid. Corn gluten meal, an ingredient derided as "filler" by the uninformed, has in fact one of the higher protein concentrations (60%) of any item on a petfood label. And in food allergies among dogs, corn and rice have the exact same number of cases (about 2.4% of all allergies), with beef, chicken, lamb, fish, dairy and eggs continuing to be the leading food allergens.


From another post about IAMS that I wrote:

The problem then with corn is not digestibility but with its nutrient content (applicable for dogs) and the purpose of it being in dog food in the first place.

* Corn provides more carbohydrates than protein and is made up of 70% starch. In order to process carbohydrates and turn it into nutrients for the body in digestive systems, you need to use amylase. Dogs have lower amylase enzymes, they do not even have salivary amylase - which means that a diet high in carbs can cause the pancreas to malfunction (the pancreas has the highest amylase concentration). 9.8% of corn is protein out of which 50 - 60% is digestible, the rest needs to be processed by ruminant intestinal bacteria which dogs do not have (they only have a short, single, acidic tummy).

* Corn is low in calcium and high in phosphorus - all grains are.

* Corn gluten meal has such high nitrogen content that it is now being used as an organic herbicide. What does excess nitrogen do? It causes the kidneys to work overtime in expelling excess nitrogen through urine. What happens to overworked kidneys? We all know what happens. Corn gluten meal = Science Diet K/D, how convenient.

* The outer kernel of corn is not easily digestible and thus becomes a source of fiber. Even properly ground corn meal contains the outer kernel. More fiber = more poop = more feedings = more waste.

Also, the reason why chicken and beef are as common an allergen as corn is because dogs are fed these things every single day. Chicken and corn and beef tallow are the main ingredients in almost every kibble brand out there. If you had chicken and corn bread and a multivitamin every single day, you'll develop an allergy yourself. Rotating foods can help avoid allergies.

Not all of us who question the benefits of corn are misinformed or uninformed. Raw feeders feed every "icky" part of an animal - I highly doubt your argument about the 'ick' factor is valid.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

> Not all of us who question the benefits of corn are misinformed or uninformed. Raw feeders feed every "icky" part of an animal - I highly doubt your argument about the 'ick' factor is valid.


Yeah, I vomited the first time I handled cow liver. And my throat went dry when I was handling cow heart.

I'm fine with it now but ugh, in the beginning... UGH. Just.. UGH. Green tripe.... UGH UGH UGH.


----------



## GypsyJazmine (Nov 27, 2009)

"Raw feeders feed every "icky" part of an animal - I highly doubt your argument about the 'ick' factor is valid."

I agree!...Cut a cow tongue, liver or heart into a piece each for 5 dogs & tell me about ick!


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

RBark said:


> Yeah, I vomited the first time I handled cow liver. And my throat went dry when I was handling cow heart.
> 
> I'm fine with it now but ugh, in the beginning... UGH. Just.. UGH. Green tripe.... UGH UGH UGH.


lol...one of the hunters i get my meat from called me one day and said he had a special treat for Bolo that his dogs absolutely loved...

im fine with hearts, livers, pancreas etc...

but there is something about brains that totally wigs me out. i still havent gotten over it...and zombie dog lurrves her some brains...*pukes*


----------



## chrisn6104 (Jun 8, 2009)

Anyone want my freezer with the frozen meats I have in it? I'm going out and buying 5 50lbs bags of Old Roy. I hear it's power food for dogs.


----------



## GypsyJazmine (Nov 27, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> lol...one of the hunters i get my meat from called me one day and said he had a special treat for Bolo that his dogs absolutely loved...
> 
> im fine with hearts, livers, pancreas etc...
> 
> but there is something about brains that totally wigs me out. i still havent gotten over it...and zombie dog lurrves her some brains...*pukes*


Brains...I don't know if I could do it & watch...lol!


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

GypsyJazmine said:


> Brains...I don't know if I could do it & watch...lol!



i watch her eat. i actually am rather grotesquely fascinated by the spectacle. but when she gets brains i have to wear earplugs..its not so much the sight as it is the sound.


----------



## dieterherzog (Sep 28, 2009)

McSweeney said:


> So what you're saying is that there are concrete, scientific studies that confirm the cumulative effect of non-animal proteins on an animal--an animal FWIW that genetically split from wolves 75,000 to 135,000 years ago--and that a grain-free or BARF "ancestral" diet ensures that said animals will live longer and healthier lives? Yeah, right.
> 
> Just because a food is convenient doesn't make it evil. Dogs are great companions, but with all due respect to Temple Grandin, we really need to stop imposing our humanity on them.


Dogs and wolves differ in DNA by about 2% that's equivalent to the difference between humans and a chimpanzee. A chimpanzee subsists on a diet of vegetables and fruits which the occasional bug and fellow chimpanzee, which is what is recommended for humans as well since we have almost the same digestive systems, being herbivores with the ability to digest meat (veges and fruits, not fellow chimpanzee). However, it took humans about 6 millions years to evolve from apes to modern homosapiens - dogs were only domesticated about 140,000 years ago.

If humans are recommended the same diet as their ancestors (and proven to be much healthier in general), why would recommending an ancestral diet for a dog be any different?


----------



## GypsyJazmine (Nov 27, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> i watch her eat. i actually am rather grotesquely fascinated by the spectacle. but when she gets brains i have to wear earplugs..its not so much the sight as it is the sound.


I can handle all of my before mentioned but I think I'd need the earplugs for brains too!
I LOVE the sound of kitchen wolves & I love to watch them go at it!...But brains is a special situation!


----------



## dieterherzog (Sep 28, 2009)

I think tripe is the ickiest - the smell, oh my god - I shudder just thinking about it. At least the other organs don't smell like fermented crap!


----------



## Midnight351 (Nov 26, 2008)

What an interesting debate. I like to hear different peoples' opinions and like to learn from it. Anyways, I am one that feeds innova and my dog does really well on it. I think that it is an excellent food and not too badly priced. My dog gets severe allergies on anything with corn in it and so most of the cheap brands are out, but just because something is cheap or expensive doesn't mean that it is great or not. The Innova that I feed my 57# dog is 25 dollars for 18 pounds. Now my coworker (I work at a vet) feeds the Science diet J/D. The ingredients are pretty terrible and at our discount she still pays almost 60 dollars for 30 pounds. She also feeds alot more. Her dogs are younger than mine which will be 10 next month, but my dog acts younger and looks better on the food I feed. 
There are a lot of good foods out there, not all of the premium foods are cracked up to be what they say they are, but I believe that manufacturerers that make cheaper foods like Purina, Iams, Pedigree, alpo and such don't take into account the quality of their food. They will get ingredients from the cheapest sources to keep costs low and then you get things like the recalls that happened in 2007. Plus normal practices for these companies will be to change sources for those ingredients, so bags of food may be slightly different from bag to bag. this may be ok for some dogs, but may set off more sensitive dogs. From my experience and education, I believe that you get what you pay for. If you are going to buy a bag of Ol Roy from walmart at 20 dollars for 40 pounds, then of course it isin't going to be the same caliber as something like Blue buffalo, Innova, or Wellness. 
I have seen many dogs come into the practice with bad skin, ear infections, anal sac issues ect. 8 times out of 10 they are being fed a lower quality food. When I suggest that they try a different food thats a little better in quality a lot of times these issues clear up. Sometimes the results are dramatic like the little doxie that had almost no hair on its belly, legs and tail. It was eating Purina Dog Chow. I told them to try Natural Balance and a month later the dog looked like a different dog. Everyone has their own opinion and thats great I just thought that I'd share what I've learned.


----------



## sagira (Nov 5, 2009)

I have been doing a lot of research on dog foods. Not just online, but reading books and talking to people. I don't think by-products are necessarily bad if

a) they are named (as in beef heart or chicken liver as opposed to meat by-products)
b) they come from a company that can be trusted 

This is the reason I like Nature's Variety - named offal in many of its products. I also like and trust Wellness and Innova.


----------



## RonE (Feb 3, 2007)

Sorry. I just don't understand the evangelical zeal with which people defend their choice of dog food.

If every minute spent debating kibble was actually spent with your dogs instead . . .


----------



## PureMutt (Feb 6, 2009)

RonE said:


> Sorry. I just don't understand the evangelical zeal with which people defend their choice of dog food.
> 
> If every minute spent debating kibble was actually spent with your dogs instead . . .


What brand do you feed? Just curious.


----------



## GreatDaneMom (Sep 21, 2007)

McSweeney said:


> Why does that comment merit a "bingo"? Just trying to inject a little bit of realism into the conversation, folks. If there's a cheap way to boost my dog's protein and an expensive way to do it, but neither is proven to be superior in terms of my dog's wellness, *I'm not going to drop $50-$60 on a bag of kibble just to stick out my chest at the next ASPCA meeting*.


REALLY? you think thats what its about??? far from it. i know its hard to think people might ACTUALLY be concerned for their dogs heath... but behold, we are! thats why we spend the time researching and reading and taking notes and learning like we do. we care, deeply care, about our dogs. i have 2 great danes with a short life span already, im going to do everything i can to make it last as long as possible. if my dog lives til 8 or 9, ive done well, very well. 10 or 11 and thats the best i could ever hope for. 

do you know why im so passionate about what im feeding my dogs? because i almost lost my first dane to bad food. the "breeder" was feeding them ol roy. at 10 weeks when i got her she was already sick, but we didnt know yet, we just thought she was a calm pup. at 13 wks it set in hard. she had HOD, if you dont know what it is look it up. for 3 MONTHS she couldnt even sit up, she couldnt walk, couldnt even eat on her own. her joints were swollen, she had fevers of 105*, had to have IV fluids, etc. i almost lost her a few times, put over $3,000 into vet bills the first month and a half (after that i stopped keeping track), and it was heartbreaking to wonder if i should keep fighting it or put her down. i finally found a food after doing my research that would help with the disease. and since then i never looked back.

so you can tell me how much premium foods are a "gimmick", but let me tell you, you think when you see the beneful commercials with the veggies, wheat, and meat chunks falling from the sky and the dog being told its spoiled because its on the food isnt a gimmick? you think when you see the commercials for these foods (cant remember what exact ones it is) that say "does my dog not like it as much, or its not as healthy just because i didnt spend as much on it?... nope!" arent a gimmick? you know WHY those commercials started? because recently the premium foods started with commercials and people started to listen, so now those other companies are trying to get business back. 

i dont mind spending extra for food if its whats keeping my dogs healthy. theyre worth it to me. plus i feed less of it so what difference does it make in price? if i have looked at it before... i believe it was beneful, i would have to feed my dogs atleast 6-7 cups a day each. with the food theyre on now, they eat a max of 4 cups each. it doesnt sound like much but in one month ive saved atleast 60 cups of food per dog!


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Such a serious conversation.

For zim:
BRAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINS!!!!!!!


----------



## mrslloyd09 (Jul 12, 2009)

Michiyo stop reading my mind!! I have nothing left for now but ditto.


----------



## ladyshadowhollyjc (Oct 28, 2008)

I must say, I am totally not sold on the whole dog food argument. 
BUT I will say that I definitely not a fan of corn. At work, our hospitalized patients are usually fed one of the prescription diets that Science Diet makes. In the cans, you can see the corn. It's not whole kernels, but you can see the corn. And when those dogs poop... you can see the corn again just as it was in the can. It's disgusting. Since there is basically no reason for the corn to be there... then why feed it? That's just my logic....


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

All I'll say is do your research, find a food you are comfortable with and your dogs do well on. That's about it. My two are on TOTW with raw supplements several times a week (can't do raw 100% right now) and they look great! If I'm being 'gimicked' oh well, my dogs are clearly not suffering because of it and I feel a little more comfortable about their diet.


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

I think one of the strongest arguments against premium foods is all the disinformation used to promote them. Maybe raw feeders get by the ick factor, but I see it all the time in food threads. Then there is the beaks, feathers, sawdust etc. posts. 

Corn is a ''bad'' ingredient because it lacks certain nutrients? How about a good ingredient such as human grade chicken breasts? Don't chicken based premium brands contain a dozen or more other ingredients to make up for what the chicken lacks? 

Having seen thousands of dogs doing very well on Pro Plan, I struggle to see it as the garbage it is often portrayed. Which brings up another point, If there are strong, logical arguments in favor of premium brands, why so much use of loaded words such as garbage? 

I haven't seen near as many dogs in the large service dog programs that feed Iams and Science Diet, but all the ones I have seen looked very good.


----------



## McSweeney (Feb 1, 2010)

*A couple final thoughts*



> Not all of us who question the benefits of corn are misinformed or uninformed. Raw feeders feed every "icky" part of an animal -I highly doubt your argument about the 'ick' factor is valid.


You speak of a small subset of pet owners--i.e. raw feeders--while I speak of the consumers who buy super premium kibble. And that industry's marketing engine is most certainly built upon ratcheting up the "ick factor" with by-products. Have you seen the new Blue Buffalo commercial? It opens with an attractive woman sitting on a park bench saying, "My bag of old dog food had pictures of chicken on it, but look at the ingredients: corn gluten, chicken by-product meal...where's the meat?" Can't get any more obvious than this. Blue Buffalo is telling the consumer, "By-products are not meat." 



> Anyone want my freezer with the frozen meats I have in it? I'm going out and buying 5 50lbs bags of Old Roy. I hear it's power food for dogs.


An earnest and considered discussion with nothing but well-intentioned pet owners, and someone has to throw a one-liner out there like this. As my old college debate coach used to say, "The last bastion of the person who has nothing left to say is absurdity."


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Again, you seem to ignore what people say in every other thread. Typical responses:

Service Dog org's = not a good source of dog food information.

Your version of looking good = Alive and shiny coat. Most of us in this thread expect more than that.

Garbage = I have never seen a dog on low quality foods that met my health standard. (which is more than your "Alive and Shiny")

You're the last person to argue "loaded" words since most of your arguments ultimately end in ad hominem.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

*Re: A couple final thoughts*



McSweeney said:


> You speak of a small subset of pet owners--i.e. raw feeders--while I speak of the consumers who buy super premium kibble. And that industry's marketing engine is most certainly built upon ratcheting up the "ick factor" with by-products. Have you seen the new Blue Buffalo commercial? It opens with an attractive woman sitting on a park bench saying, "My bag of old dog food had pictures of chicken on it, but look at the ingredients: corn gluten, chicken by-product meal...where's the meat?" Can't get any more obvious than this. Blue Buffalo is telling the consumer, "By-products are not meat."
> 
> 
> 
> An earnest and considered discussion with nothing but well-intentioned pet owners, and someone has to throw a one-liner out there like this. As my old college debate coach used to say, "The last bastion of the person who has nothing left to say is absurdity."


Still waiting for any scientific proof you have. Please tell me you have something new! A lot of scientific studies in the favor of low quality food have been debunked.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Labsnothers said:


> I think one of the strongest arguments against premium foods is all the disinformation used to promote them. Maybe raw feeders get by the ick factor, but I see it all the time in food threads. Then there is the beaks, feathers, sawdust etc. posts.
> 
> Corn is a ''bad'' ingredient because it lacks certain nutrients? How about a good ingredient such as human grade chicken breasts? Don't chicken based premium brands contain a dozen or more other ingredients to make up for what the chicken lacks?
> 
> ...


Actually most premium foods have FEWER ingredients than Grocery store foods. ALL foods have supplemental vitamins added, but most premium companies use a higher grade of the supplements. 

Oh, and lets not for get that wheat gluten is what got recalled from amny foods two years ago for having poisens in it from the Chinese manufacturers resulting the racall of 70% of grocery store food brands made by Pedigree, Ol Roy, Diamond, Science Diet and Nutro.


----------



## GreatDaneMom (Sep 21, 2007)

when did service dogs become the "poster pups" for dog food? in all honesty, im going to look at dogs that are high intensity activity dogs- something like sled dogs. 

service dogs are going to be your "poster pups" for temperment, not so much food.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

The proof is in the poop.


----------



## Active Dog (Jan 18, 2010)

McSweeney said:


> So what you're saying is that there are concrete, scientific studies that confirm the cumulative effect of non-animal proteins on an animal--an animal FWIW that genetically split from wolves 75,000 to 135,000 years ago--and that a grain-free or BARF "ancestral" diet ensures that said animals will live longer and healthier lives? Yeah, right.
> 
> Just because a food is convenient doesn't make it evil. Dogs are great companions, but with all due respect to Temple Grandin, we really need to stop imposing our humanity on them.


I was talking about this: "so i should feed my dogs pedigree which is preserved with BHA/BHT which is KNOWN to cause cancer? because ya know, its sooo far down on the list it probably doesn't matter....."

You know, I have done a lot of reading on foods for dogs, but no I do not feel like I know it all. That is why I came here, because I wanted to find out more about great foods. I noticed that people believe in doing what is right for your dog, but not pushing the foods that they feed. Never once have I read a post that tore someone a new one for feeding a low quality food. I love this site because it is full of realistic people who care about their dogs. 

Also it seems your intentions are not working, you are not going to change anyone's mind by coming in here and telling people all they are doing is using premium food as an ego trip. There are people from all walks of life on this site, but I think the one thing we all have in common is the love for our dogs. So why would ONE person who appears to have no conclusive evidence change months-years of research?


----------



## McSweeney (Feb 1, 2010)

*Nice bait and switch*



> Still waiting for any scientific proof you have. Please tell me you have something new! A lot of scientific studies in the favor of low quality food have been debunked.


Please point me to these studies and the alleged "debunking". My hypothesis is that the price markups on super premium kibble are not validated by longer canine lifespans--i.e. the onus is on the super premium foods, not me, to prove something. And I submitted plenty of concrete data in this thread. Corn, the single most used ingredient in commerical dog food, has an allergic rate of 2.4% in canines, which is equal to rice and a lower allergic rate than beef, chicken, lamb, fish or dairy. And yet, most every super premium manufacturer warns us, "Corn, soy, and wheat are three of the biggest culprits as far as food allergies in dogs go..." Conclusion? To suggest corn is a virulent allergen in dogs is A LIE.

My objective in this thread was not to tell people what to feed their dogs. It was merely to point out that the "holistic holy rollers" are just as guilty of peddling disinformation as the Hills, Purinas and Iams of the world. The reason I've been a lurker and not a poster for so longer is specifically because of the conceit and derision people spew at newbies who come on this forum for the first time and say something like, "I'm feeding my dog Ole' Roy, is that a good food?" The first responses are almost always variations on the "Stop feeding your dog garbage, you idiot" theme. How about asking these people what their economic situation supports in terms of food expenditures? How about asking these people if their dog likes the food, if he keeps his weight on, if his coat and stool quality is good, etc? I realize we all want what's best for our dogs and that most of us mean well, but laying a guilt trip on someone and then pointing them to a dog food north of $50 per bag is not my idea of good intentions.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

*Re: Nice bait and switch*

here's a funny thing about the net McSweeney. there's no inflection. any inflection on words you read on the net is given to them by YOU. not the person who wrote it. you could be assigning the same inflection to the words as the OP but its not likely considering the variability of people. it seems you are making some gross generalizations. note the word "seems". how about instead of what appears to be an all out attack on DF...how about simply asking "why?" without all the terminology like "holistic holy rollers" etc.. THOSE kinds of things are usually taken as insults because you are directly labelling people.


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

Corn as an allergen is a clever half truth, not a lie. The few dogs that develop food allergies, become allergic to something they eat. With the widespread feeding of corn, yes dogs do become allergic to it. 

Of course, the widespread use of common brands of dog food by the service dog schools is a big embarrassment to premium food advocates. If premium foods are so much better, why are highly trained, highly experienced, highly motivated professionals with every resource there choosing pro Plan, Iams, Science diet, etc.? Could it be the studies they have done show they are as good as anything? 

As for the quality of stools, the visually impaired and people in wheelchairs frequently have to clean up after their dogs as they go about their daily life. You really think they put up with large, soft stools? 

Recalls? While virtually all the brands of canned and semi moist foods were recalled, none, none of the major brands of dry food including Science were recalled. Many of the premium brands were spared the recall because they don't have the type of products that were recalled. Another common, deceptive tactic.


----------



## FilleBelle (Aug 1, 2007)

*Re: Nice bait and switch*



McSweeney said:


> And I submitted plenty of concrete data in this thread. Corn, the single most used ingredient in commerical dog food, has an allergic rate of 2.4% in canines, which is equal to rice and a lower allergic rate than beef, chicken, lamb, fish or dairy.


I don't remember seeing a study on this. Did you post one and I'm missing it?


----------



## CoverTune (Mar 11, 2007)

*Re: Nice bait and switch*



McSweeney said:


> My hypothesis is that the price markups on super premium kibble are not validated by longer canine lifespans--i.e. the onus is on the super premium foods, not me, to prove something.


Why is length of life the defining factor for you? Why not quality of life?


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Labsnothers said:


> Of course, the widespread use of common brands of dog food by the service dog schools is a big embarrassment to premium food advocates. If premium foods are so much better, why are highly trained, highly experienced, highly motivated professionals with every resource there choosing pro Plan, Iams, Science diet, etc.? Could it be the studies they have done show they are as good as anything?


Possibly because a lot of those brands give markdowns for bulk purchasing. I know they do to show people. It is important to note too that most performance dog people do NOT feed said brands.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

*Re: Nice bait and switch*



McSweeney said:


> Please point me to these studies and the alleged "debunking". My hypothesis is that the price markups on super premium kibble are not validated by longer canine lifespans--i.e. the onus is on the super premium foods, not me, to prove something. And I submitted plenty of concrete data in this thread. Corn, the single most used ingredient in commerical dog food, has an allergic rate of 2.4% in canines, which is equal to rice and a lower allergic rate than beef, chicken, lamb, fish or dairy. And yet, most every super premium manufacturer warns us, "Corn, soy, and wheat are three of the biggest culprits as far as food allergies in dogs go..." Conclusion? To suggest corn is a virulent allergen in dogs is A LIE.
> 
> My objective in this thread was not to tell people what to feed their dogs. It was merely to point out that the "holistic holy rollers" are just as guilty of peddling disinformation as the Hills, Purinas and Iams of the world. The reason I've been a lurker and not a poster for so longer is specifically because of the conceit and derision people spew at newbies who come on this forum for the first time and say something like, "I'm feeding my dog Ole' Roy, is that a good food?" The first responses are almost always variations on the "Stop feeding your dog garbage, you idiot" theme. How about asking these people what their economic situation supports in terms of food expenditures? How about asking these people if their dog likes the food, if he keeps his weight on, if his coat and stool quality is good, etc? I realize we all want what's best for our dogs and that most of us mean well, but laying a guilt trip on someone and then pointing them to a dog food north of $50 per bag is not my idea of good intentions.


You keep spouting numbers like we should take your word for it. I am saying, back those numbers up. The burden of proof lies on the accuser. YOU are the accuser. If you provide no sources for your numbers then there is nothing for me to debunk.

As it is, you just gave a lot of opinions with no scientific sources to back it up. As such, it is irrelevant.

There is no scientific proof to show the difference between high quality and low quality food. So my basis is, the vast majority of competitive dog owners (not conformation or service dog) noticed a tremendous difference between low quality and high quality food, and a tremendous difference between high quality food and raw.

Until YOU, the one trying to contradict me, provide proof that there is no difference: not your word, actual studies.. Then it remains nothing but a opinion most competitive dog owners disagree on.


----------



## misty073 (Mar 31, 2009)

Labsnothers said:


> As for the quality of stools, the visually impaired and people in wheelchairs frequently have to clean up after their dogs as they go about their daily life. You really think they put up with large, soft stools?



My neighbors dogs keep crapping in my yard, and they are crapping all along the side of the road across from their house...right where the mailboxes are. And I can 100% guarantee that they are eating cheap crappy dog food because of the color, size, and texture of their crap. Yes they are big dogs but the crap piles are as large as my 13 lbs dogs head


----------



## KarenJG (Jan 31, 2010)

*Re: Nice bait and switch*



McSweeney said:


> How about asking these people what their economic situation supports in terms of food expenditures? How about asking these people if their dog likes the food, if he keeps his weight on, if his coat and stool quality is good, etc? I realize we all want what's best for our dogs and that most of us mean well, but laying a guilt trip on someone and then pointing them to a dog food north of $50 per bag is not my idea of good intentions.


So far, I haven't seen a lot of scientific data in this thread either way, but this is a point I'd like to highlight. For many, many people, price IS a consideration, and I DO think a lot of premium dog-food makers price their food for the cachet, not for the actual production costs. But, as somebody pointed out, almost ALL dog owners want to do what's best for their dogs, and manufacturers prey on that urge in all SORTS of ways.

Me, I go back to the dog-food analysis system. Maybe everything in it isn't crucial to a dog's health, but it provides a yardstick with a rational explanation for the measurement. Something that price alone doesn't do.

For instance (and I swear, I'm not a Costco shill, honest!) Both Ol' Roy and Kirkland (Costco) are around $20 for a 40# bag. But Kirkland's food rates 110 (A+) on the system, Ol' Roy rates 9. Yes, that's nine, single digit. (Here's the link if you don't believe it: http://www.the-puppy-dog-place.com/dog-food-ratings.html ) Kirkland is actually *higher* than Bil-Jac, Royal Canin, Blue Buffalo, and some formulations of Solid Gold. And by the way, for those who sniff at anything Purina, Pro-Plan Natural Turkey & Barley scores an A+ too.

So, no, "super-premium" price doesn't mean super premium food. And low price doesn't mean bad food. It annoys me that super premium dog food manufacturers seem to have convinced a good many dog owners that the price of their food means that it's better.

I agree with you in that, at least. It's not the price. But I think it IS the quality of the ingredients. Again, I'm not sure all of the items on the "dog food analysis system" are crucial to a dog's health, so the rating might not be 100% predictive, but I believe a lot of them ARE important, and, to me, it's a good yardstick to use. Or at least to start with.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

*Re: Nice bait and switch*

i prefer this site over dogfoodanalysis.com


----------



## KarenJG (Jan 31, 2010)

*great site*



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> i prefer this site over dogfoodanalysis.com


Thank you for the link! Off to peruse...


----------



## FilleBelle (Aug 1, 2007)

I don't actually care so much for the dog food debate...I feed my dog what I feed my dog and I'm happy with it. I do care about logic, though, and I am having trouble following your logic. 



Labsnothers said:


> Corn as an allergen is a clever half truth, not a lie. The few dogs that develop food allergies, become allergic to something they eat. With the widespread feeding of corn, yes dogs do become allergic to it.


Isn't this the whole point? Don't put corn in dog food and dogs will never manifest an allergy to corn. That seems like a good thing.



Labsnothers said:


> Of course, the widespread use of common brands of dog food by the service dog schools is a big embarrassment to premium food advocates. If premium foods are so much better, why are highly trained, highly experienced, highly motivated professionals with every resource there choosing pro Plan, Iams, Science diet, etc.?


I feed a premium kibble with raw supplements and I'm not embarrassed. I would like to think that the service dog school to which you refer has done its research and determined that they are feeding the best food they can for their budget. I have done the same. The fact that we have come to different conclusions does not embarrass me any more than I am embarrassed by the fact that I wear suits from Nordstrom's to work while the employees at said service dog school wear uniforms bought in bulk from some internet supplier. Those uniforms are great for what the service dog school needs, but I would be laughed out of my job if I wore jeans and a yellow canvas apron to work.

I am not, of course, familiar with the way every major guide dog school is run, but I have some experience with CCI, both before and after I applied for a job there. One of their corporate partners is P&G Pet Care. I don't actually know what kibble they feed in their kennels, but I'd be willing to bet it's either Eukanuba or Iams. The shelter at which I work (spcaLA) no longer buys these brands when it is buying for itself, because too many of our dogs cannot eat the foods with high grain contents. We accept them if they are donated (as I suspect they are in the case of CCI), but we have to be careful which dogs we feed them to because many cannot eat them without developing skin and coat issues. I personally would not buy either Eukanuba or Iams because Proctor and Gamble is well known for their animal testing and I make it a point to stay away from all of their (many, MANY) brands.



Labsnothers said:


> Could it be the studies they have done show they are as good as anything?


I don't know. Could it be? I haven't seen such a study, but then again, I don't work in the laboratory of a major guide dog school.



Labsnothers said:


> As for the quality of stools, the visually impaired and people in wheelchairs frequently have to clean up after their dogs as they go about their daily life. You really think they put up with large, soft stools?


Again, I don't know. Do they? Has there also been some sort of study published on this topic?



Labsnothers said:


> Recalls? While virtually all the brands of canned and semi moist foods were recalled, none, none of the major brands of dry food including Science were recalled. Many of the premium brands were spared the recall because they don't have the type of products that were recalled. Another common, deceptive tactic.


This goes back to that first point you made about dogs who eat corn manifesting allergies to corn. If I understand you correctly, you are saying the only reason many of the premium foods were spared the recall is because they didn't have melamine-tainted wheat gluten in them. Isn't that a good thing? Given the choice between a brand I know uses wheat gluten in manufacturing their dog food and one I know doesn't, wouldn't it make sense to choose the one that doesn't, so as to continue to avoid the type of products that were recalled? I was under the impression that the recalled foods were traced back to a small handful of Chinese manufacturing plants with rather shady regulations. Wouldn't it be wise to avoid foods that are still made in those plants?

I don't disagree with you that a majority of dogs can do perfectly well on whatever is thrown into their bowls, but I have trouble understanding the points you are using to prove it.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Eh, I feed Wally some of everything - as long as it's not poisonous (like onions, chocolate, grapes).

Some raw bones and meat, Innova, some cooked food (like some homemade pasta, some carrots, roast beef, chicken, tuna/eggs "salad" he had yesterday)

So I guess I'm not on either side of this "war" over food.

My sole benchmark is how Wally is doing - both with his poop, his energy level, his vigor.

The only side I'm on is his, and he's healthy, active, good coat and skin, bright eyes, perfect weight, and a vibrant dog. Good enough for me.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

> Of course, the widespread use of common brands of dog food by the service dog schools is a big embarrassment to premium food advocates. If premium foods are so much better, why are highly trained, highly experienced, highly motivated professionals with every resource there choosing pro Plan, Iams, Science diet, etc.?


You're going to ignore this as usual because you have nothing to back it up, but I'll say it again.

Where is this info that service dog schools are going Iams, Science Diet, Pro Plan because it's healthier?

The former President of the San Francisco SPCA, and very well known behaviorist/trainer, who was also in charge of the 30 year long San Francisco SPCA Hearing Dog program, Jean Donaldson... fed the dogs common brands like Iams. The reason? Budget. Companies like Iam sand Science Diet were able to give them food in huge bulks for huge discounts. Something Preminum food companies can't afford to do.

The other reason was that it was common enough in stores that the people who adopt Hearing dogs would not have difficulty finding Science Diet and Iams in stores. They felt that ease is mandatory.

That said... SHE is a raw food diet advocate and preminum food advocate, despite what she does with her Service Dog org.

So tell me, where is this proof your service dog group is feeding for health, not budget and ease? Your word doesn't count.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

And as for why Preminum food is more expensive? That's not rocket science. Even disregarding quality of food, Solid Gold doesn't sell 5% as much food as Science Diet. And they still have to pay for a warehouse to produce food while selling less food than Science Diet. Consequently, they have to mark it up to pay for overhead.

That's how business works.


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

FilleBelle said:


> Isn't this the whole point? Don't put corn in dog food and dogs will never manifest an allergy to corn. That seems like a good thing.


True, don't feed corn and it will never become allergic to corn. However, if it is going to develop food allergies, it will develop allergies to whatever is in its food. Better to avoid buying a puppy with food allergies in its bloodlines. If the breeder is telling you that you must feed a grain free food, better ask some more questions.


----------



## Active Dog (Jan 18, 2010)

Labsnothers said:


> True, don't feed corn and it will never become allergic to corn. However, if it is going to develop food allergies, it will develop allergies to whatever is in its food. Better to avoid buying a puppy with food allergies in its bloodlines. If the breeder is telling you that you must feed a grain free food, better ask some more questions.


Not everyone gets puppies or dogs from a breeder. My dog is a mix and I believe that she has allergies to grains. So you are saying to not feed corn to dogs that have allergies? Didn't you say earlier that corn isn't bad? If that is so than you are contradicting yourself. The simple clear answer is that corn is bad for dogs...how hard is that? If some dogs get allergies to corn then there is a problem with it.


----------



## McSweeney (Feb 1, 2010)

*Per your requests, some links and sources*

U.S. National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health publishes results of clinical study about canine food allergens in which dogs were fed beef, chicken, chicken eggs, cows' milk, wheat, soy, and corn in single-ingredient provocation trials, and multiple adverse cutaneous reactions to these food ingredients occured with just beef and soy:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8755979

SMALL ANIMAL CLINICAL NUTRITION (4th edition) by Roundebush, Guilford, Shanely, Hand, Thatcher, Remillard, Roudebush, Lewis; 10 different studies, representing 253 dogs found that:

Beef, dairy products and wheat accounted for 65% of all reported cases of food allergies 
Chicken, egg, lamb and soy accounted for 25% of all reported cases of food allergies 
Only 6 confirmed (2.4%) cases of allergies could be attributed to corn, a stat even more revelatory considering corn is pound-for-pound the single most prevalent ingredient in dog food
http://www.amazon.com/Small-Animal-Clinical-Nutrition-Michael/dp/0945837054

Vet tech on medhelp.org speaks to corn myths, affirming 2.4% corn allergen stat:

http://www.medhelp.org/user_journals/show/104574

"Poultry Meal Vs. Poultry By-Product Meal" by Hilary Watson, Dogs in Canada magazine, January 2006; "when comparing diets made with poultry meal and poultry by-product meal, no differences were found in intestinal digestibility or amino acids when these diets were fed to dogs"; also cites distinct difference in protein quality between "pet food grade" by-product meal and "feed grade" by-product meal:

http://www.hilarywatson.com/chicken.pdf

Marion Nestle, best-selling author of WHAT TO EAT and Paulette Goddard Professor in the Department of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health at New York University will be publishing a book on dog food nutrition in May 2010 entitled FEED YOUR PET RIGHT that will back up a lot of what I'm saying about corn and meat by-products:

http://www.amazon.com/Feed-Your-Pet-Right-Authoritative/dp/1439166420/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_5


----------



## McSweeney (Feb 1, 2010)

*Corn is NOT bad*



> The simple clear answer is that corn is bad for dogs...how hard is that? If some dogs get allergies to corn then there is a problem with it.


More dogs are allergic to beef than corn. More dogs are allergic to chicken than corn. More dogs are allergic to lamb than corn. More dogs are allergic to eggs--the most acutely disgestible animal or vegetable protein on the planet--than corn. By your logic, we shouldn't be feeding dogs any of these ingredients.


----------



## Active Dog (Jan 18, 2010)

Cows are fed corn correct? Well (and I have no proof of this, I can't find any sources at the moment) but isn't it possible that the cows store the gluten from the corn and other things from the corn that could cause allergies? Many things do not get expelled from the body but retain it for many years. Again I have not looked into this so I have no facts, but this is the way it works for other things in meat like antibiotics. 

To me this seems like a very possible idea considering cows are almost exclusively fed corn. Prove that I could be wrong, but I'm not so sure that there are many studies that take that into consideration.


----------



## phoebespeople (May 27, 2009)

*Re: Corn is NOT bad*



McSweeney said:


> More dogs are allergic to beef than corn. More dogs are allergic to chicken than corn. More dogs are allergic to lamb than corn. More dogs are allergic to eggs--the most acutely disgestible animal or vegetable protein on the planet--than corn. By your logic, we shouldn't be feeding dogs any of these ingredients.


Wait a munite. When you say more dogs are allergic to beef, chicken, lamb, and eggs than to corn, do you mean beef formula kibble, or RAW beef muscle meat, organ and bone? Do you mean chicken formila Purina or a whole RAW chicken? 
I hear a lot of people say that their dog is allergic to some type of meat, but they have never fed that type of meat to their dog in RAW form. They have fed them a kibble made from rendered meal containing that type of meat, amonst other things. 
The only way to identify food allergies is to feed ony one type of food for a period of time. One type of pure, RAW, unprocessed, unrendered, unmixed, single type of food with no fillers or additives.


----------



## FilleBelle (Aug 1, 2007)

*Re: Corn is NOT bad*



McSweeney said:


> "Poultry Meal Vs. Poultry By-Product Meal" by Hilary Watson, Dogs in Canada magazine, January 2006; "when comparing diets made with poultry meal and poultry by-product meal, no differences were found in intestinal digestibility or amino acids when these diets were fed to dogs"; also cites distinct difference in protein quality between "pet food grade" by-product meal and "feed grade" by-product meal:.


I don't think anyone here would tell you they have a problem feeding by-products to their dogs. I think the problem many people have is the way those by products are treated. Chicken feet in my dog food is fine by me. Feathers in my dog food, not so much. And chicken feet tainted with melamine, definitely not cool. Many of the premium kibbles are manufactured in state-side plants with more strict regulations than those in China.



phoebespeople said:


> Wait a munite. When you say more dogs are allergic to beef, chicken, lamb, and eggs than to corn, do you mean beef formula kibble, or RAW beef muscle meat, organ and bone? Do you mean chicken formila Purina or a whole RAW chicken?
> I hear a lot of people say that their dog is allergic to some type of meat, but they have never fed that type of meat to their dog in RAW form. They have fed them a kibble made from rendered meal containing that type of meat, amonst other things.
> The only way to identify food allergies is to feed ony one type of food for a period of time. One type of pure, RAW, unprocessed, unrendered, unmixed, single type of food with no fillers or additives.


Good point.


----------



## Hallie (Nov 9, 2008)

For me it's not just corn that makes me want a premium food, it's feeding a food where all ingredients I can pronounce. One without color additives, harsh preservatives, and tons of tooth decaying sugars ect. I tried Purina dog chow with Hallie one time and within a week the never ending tear stains started as did the shedding and 5 poops a day. That's my dog's body telling me to upgrade foods, not an advertisement and that's fine by me! I can't tell you how many times I've seen Pedigree and Purina get recalled and thankfully not once was my dog's dog food affected although at least half of the grocery brands were recalled and dogs died from the contamination. Better safe than sorry, even if that means a few bucks more a month. I agree with feeding what works for your dog, then everyone's happy. I've just found grease coated corn filled kibble just doesn't belong in my dogs bowl...its much more suited for the garbage here.


----------



## aphioni (Nov 11, 2008)

Beemer has eaten Great Life for 2 years and has a shiny gorgeous coat and is wonderfully regular. He eats less than a cup of food a day so even if his food costs a bit more, it's not a financial strain in the least. 

I would never consider changing unless THEY change their formula. 

also- my brother feeds his dog purina dog chow, and she has a gorgeous coat and is wonderfully regular...


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

Give up McSweeney. You are confusing people with a bunch of facts that already have their minds made up.


----------



## Mr. V (Jan 28, 2010)

*Re: Corn is NOT bad*



phoebespeople said:


> The only way to identify food allergies is to feed ony one type of food for a period of time. One type of pure, RAW, unprocessed, unrendered, unmixed, single type of food with no fillers or additives.


This is incorrect. We conduct food trials all the time and when it really is food allergy (and only food allergy without any atopic dermatitis or any perpetuating factors), we have a very good success rate - All of it through different brands of kibble (depending on the case and how much the client can afford).


----------



## LittleFr0g (Jun 11, 2007)

*Re: Corn is NOT bad*



> Give up McSweeney. You are confusing people with a bunch of facts that already have their minds made up.


"Hello Pot? This is Kettle. You're black!"


----------



## Jordan S (Nov 21, 2009)

GypsyJazmine said:


> "I'm not going to drop $50-$60 on a bag of kibble just to stick out my chest at the next ASPCA meeting."
> 
> I get SO tired of reading that people only are feeding their dogs what they do for bragging rights...It is insulting to people that have done tons of research & are feeding their dogs what they think is good for them!...I am so over the dog food arguments...I switched to raw & am happy with it...No, i don't brag about it because people think that I am nuts for feeding "good meat" to my pack...I will answer questions about it when asked however.
> I do keep an emergency kibble for if we travel or I run out of or forget to thaw meat...I feed Diamond Naturals in those situations which is cheaper than a lot of the brands that the o.p. mentioned & not full of cheap fillers & artificial preservatives, colors, & flavors.




Totally agree!! Do you feed your kid their vegetables simply to get bragging rights?


----------



## Jordan S (Nov 21, 2009)

Shell said:


> Dogs and wolves are not that "genetically split" considering their ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring. As opposed for example to the horse and donkey which produce the rarely fertile mule. Yet those animals still go for the same diet...



totally Agree


----------



## PureMutt (Feb 6, 2009)

I feed Orijen, currently, because it's what she does best on. Before I adopted her, she was on Science Diet. She had tear stains, dull coat, inconsistent stools, and she was not lean. But I must say, I have seen dogs that have been feed Science Diet, and they look great. I would say that genetics has a MAJOR role in what dogs can, and cannot tolerate. But, that is just my opinion. It just makes sense in my head. LOL. So, I don't think its a scam, the ingredients do play a role in some dogs.


----------



## Jordan S (Nov 21, 2009)

Labsnothers said:


> I think one of the strongest arguments against premium foods is all the disinformation used to promote them. Maybe raw feeders get by the ick factor, but I see it all the time in food threads. Then there is the beaks, feathers, *sawdust* etc. posts.


Beaks and feathers are ok I suppose but the problem is foods use them as the only source of protein. If there was a food with the ingredient list that read
Chicken Meal, Turkey, Chicken by product meal, sweet potato. I'd buy it as long as I knew the by product meal was high quality. 

Now as for sawdust, which I italizied and bolded. I would think that even someone such as yourself wouldn't want to feed a food with sawdust.


----------



## BuddyandCaptain (Feb 3, 2010)

I have to say that I do not agree with anything you have said in your posts. You keep talking about the "length" of your dogs life like its a prize. What about the "QUALITY" of their lives? Just because a dog has shiny fur does NOT by any means mean they are healthy. Low quality dog foods put low quality oils in the food to produce a shiny coat and mimick healthy fur. Low quality food companies also put 3D meats, colors, preservatives, Corn (YES, its bad!!!! Really it has more to do with nutritional value than being an allergy problem. Corn is just a cheap filler to fill the dog up and boost the percentages without having to spend the money. Its empty calories which already means your dog is not getting the proper amount of nutrients) and other harmful ingredients to their foods. Premium brands include meat in the first ingredients and guess what.... no harmful preservatives, CORN, or any other thing I listed above. I do agree that there are a few brands that take advantage of the "premium" label, but you can't put all foods in that category. I have seen dogs that live their lives on bad foods and its very hard to see. Some dogs can handle it with their superior genetics, but why in the world would you want to put your dogs body through that? Whatever I eat makes me feel instantly bad or good whenever I eat it.... which is why I choose to eat healthy. Don't you think that unnatural chemicals pumped into dogs everyday make them feel horrible? Dogs are very good at hiding how they feel because a sick animal is a vulnerable animal. So, even if they appear healthy it might not be the case. I feed raw and won't go back to kibble, but I felt the need to express my opinion here. I don't understand how you can defend a food company (not to mention PAY them) that puts in cancerous additives in your beloved companion's food. They don't care about your dogs. At least the premium foods have your dogs best interest in mind!


----------



## Michiyo-Fir (Jul 25, 2009)

Labsnothers said:


> Of course, the widespread use of common brands of dog food by the service dog schools is a big embarrassment to premium food advocates. If premium foods are so much better, why are highly trained, highly experienced, highly motivated professionals with every resource there choosing pro Plan, Iams, Science diet, etc.? Could it be the studies they have done show they are as good as anything?
> .


BECAUSE ITS CHEAPER! The biggest schools for anyone including dogs, children, etc. never use the best quality stuff because of budget limitations. Even children's schools never use the best computers or the best crayons or whatever.

Are they mal-informed? No, they use what their budget allows. Something reasonably cheap and mid/low in quality but not so low to cause problems.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Bingo to the above.

There are some kennels that are quite large and they feed Purina or Eukanuba. They know that there's better stuff out there, but when you have a good line of pack hounds or hunting dogs going, you have to keep up with things to maintain that line, and sometimes you have to cut costs. You don't want to do it with the health testing and whelping of puppies and adults, so you by a "Lesser grade" food and work with what you have.

Purina Pro Plan is a staple of many of the larger GSD kennels. There is no way that most can afford to feed 5-12 dogs (let alone more) on $67 Solid Gold.


----------



## InkedMarie (Mar 11, 2009)

*Re: Nice bait and switch*



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> i prefer this site over dogfoodanalysis.com


That is a great site! I used it when I was trying to find a grain free, high protein, low carb food (Wellness Core reduced fat was what I chose)


----------



## InkedMarie (Mar 11, 2009)

I choose to feed a premium food because *I* feel it's best for my dogs. I'll bring up the McDonald's thing anytime I talk to people about dogs & feeding: if you ate fast food day in, day out for years, after awhile, you'd be unhealthy. The thing about humans is, we know and can vocalize when something is wrong. Dogs can't, we have to wait until we can visually see something is wrong. I'm not made of money but my dogs get what they need, not what I can afford. If that means I roll coins to buy the next bag of Orijen, that's okay by me. In real life, when people tell me they feed a grocery store food but their dogs are fine, I usually don't believe it, probably because when I look at the dogs, they're not fine: overweight, icky skin, icky coat, gunky eyes, lotsa poop, ear infections. JMO


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

*Re: Per your requests, some links and sources*



McSweeney said:


> U.S. National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health publishes results of clinical study about canine food allergens in which dogs were fed beef, chicken, chicken eggs, cows' milk, wheat, soy, and corn in single-ingredient provocation trials, and multiple adverse cutaneous reactions to these food ingredients occured with just beef and soy:
> 
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8755979


Interesting. I would like to know how they isolated which food they are allergic to. I don't see that information anywhere. I also very much dislike that the study was done on only 25 dogs. That's not even a halfway decent sample group. Given those two things, it's something to take into consideration, but not conclusive.



> SMALL ANIMAL CLINICAL NUTRITION (4th edition) by Roundebush, Guilford, Shanely, Hand, Thatcher, Remillard, Roudebush, Lewis; 10 different studies, representing 253 dogs found that:
> 
> Beef, dairy products and wheat accounted for 65% of all reported cases of food allergies
> Chicken, egg, lamb and soy accounted for 25% of all reported cases of food allergies
> ...


Would also be interested in seeing how the study is done here. I am going to look more into this one.



> Vet tech on medhelp.org speaks to corn myths, affirming 2.4% corn allergen stat:
> 
> http://www.medhelp.org/user_journals/show/104574


This is just one blog opinion piece, so irrelevant. I could easily find other Vets who are raw/premium food supporters. Disregarded.



> "Poultry Meal Vs. Poultry By-Product Meal" by Hilary Watson, Dogs in Canada magazine, January 2006; "when comparing diets made with poultry meal and poultry by-product meal, no differences were found in intestinal digestibility or amino acids when these diets were fed to dogs"; also cites distinct difference in protein quality between "pet food grade" by-product meal and "feed grade" by-product meal:
> 
> http://www.hilarywatson.com/chicken.pdf
> 
> ...


My only concern with By-Products is that I do not know what is in them. That it includes random parts of the animal that's left over does not concern me, as I feed all parts of the body. But there's so much evidence of stuff that doesnt belong there, being there. As such, I would elict to not feed it.



All that said, a couple interesting articles on allergens and by-products. There's nothing conclusive in those studies due to poor sample group and not publicizing how the trails were done. I'd like to see the raw data, if possible. 

Still, though, none of these have much to do with whether premium food is or is not better than the lower quality food. For instance, if it's proven true that corn is not the major source of allergies, it still contradicts my belief of the fact that dogs are Carnivores. Opportunistic carnivores that are highly adaptable, yes. Carnivores nonetheless. So the argument on corn being an allergen has little bearing on my belief that it doesn't belong in dog food.

The by-product thing is mostly the same. Without some concrete reassuration of what is and is not inside by-products, I will elict to go with *insert meat here* or *insert meat here* meal. (i.e. chicken and chicken meal, beef and beef meal, etc) I find it worthwhile to know what is in my dog's bag. I see little reason why one would put such complicated ingridents in dog food when dog food is not rocket science. 80% meat, 10% bone, 10% organ, viola! 

So in conclusion, while the articles are interesting and I learned something new, it does not do much to change my belief in premium food vs low quality food, only to make me re-evaluate whether corn is as major an allergen as "they" say. It's very counter intutive, because dogs being carnivores, it makes little sense for them to be more commonly allergic to meats. But again, something that I find merits more looking into.


----------



## losinsusan (Nov 20, 2009)

I'd like to say after reading all this that nothing has ever brought more debate to any dog forum than food does. The purina people take a beating!
I feel I do have something to add because for 9 years I was a Pro Plan product demonstrator. We tried to focus on the getting the grocery branded customer in Petsmart to try Pro Plan or at least move to Purina One. This was quite a few years ago before the organic/raw feeding fad took place. At that time Pro Plan was the no. 1 AKC champion food. One year we had like 85 of the top 100 dogs feeding our food. I loved my job and I loved our food. Slowly Nutro came in hard and back then we had little competition, maybe Iams/Eukanuba. Then slowly the big food companies all wanted a piece of the action. Nestle bought Purina, P & G, Heinz, and Del Monte all got in the game as well. It made sense it is a multi billion dollar business. People are became so passionate about dog/cat food. I didn't see dogs living longer but I do see dogs living better quality of life. I will say that many a customer came in with their print out of their pets allergy tests and I saw more poultry/chicken allergies than corn or wheat. My last two dogs at Pro Plan. I don't feel our last dog counts because he had epilepsy and his death was due to problems not food related but had major gut issues and was on Salmon and Rice pro plan and did well on it. I just felt it was another fad in the marketing dept to start with the holistic/organic foods. Raise the price, educated them and they will buy it. I resisted it for my own dogs even though I went to work demoing for one of the top ten holistic foods. I can't say who because I have a contract to not say so which is so odd to me. I need the job so I won't. Our new puppy came on Eukanuba and now after one month, not due to anything health wise at all, I have transitioned him to Wellness. I don't think I bought into the marketers. I think that I have a clean slate and I want to see for myself if using from the start a so called better quality food, will he live a better life than our others did. I will let you know how it goes!!! I do feel better knowing that I have eliminated things that he doesn't really need to be eating. Such as corn and wheat and soy. It's not alway about is it bad for them but is it necessary for them? Is it just filling the bag up so that the weight equals the label? I want the food to be somewhat better than just filling a bag up. My breed can have gluten intolerances, so why use them if that is the case and he doesn't need them?
I feel the Original poster is being rather harsh in making his point and your side is no less important than the other side. You aren't helping the situation at all, your more of the problem than the solution. I accept whatever anyone else uses. Even old roy. It's not my business to tell you what to feed, unless you ask for my opinion. I will then give it and I will do so in a polite and informative, non-combative way so that you hear me. I generally advice a meat first food, mid-grade if that is what you can afford or higher up if you can swing that. But I don't scream it and I don't offend someone's choice. You catch more flies with honey. Honey!


----------



## lucidity (Nov 10, 2009)

losinsusan, I completely agree with you... which I why I usually don't bother arguing with people about what food they decide to feed their pets. If they think that their pet is doing fine on a certain brand, good for them (and their pets)! Only when their pets start showing problems on whatever they're on will I give my opinion..

To the OP, seriously, people who decide to feed "super premium" food have obviously done their research and are going with what they feel is best for their pets. If they're willing to spend more on the food, why not? I'd rather pay more for a pet food that's made with human-grade ingredients rather than with by-products (meat and plant) that is not even allowed for human consumption.

The REAL question is just... are you willing to spend more on your pet's food? If you are, then go ahead! Why not? I don't mind--it only comes up to minimally more expensive to feed "super premium" foods.


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

InkedMarie said:


> I choose to feed a premium food because *I* feel it's best for my dogs. I'll bring up the McDonald's thing anytime I talk to people about dogs & feeding: i


Yes, that is one of the favorite pieces of misinformation that comes up again and again. The lower cost foods are more like the economical meals that meet nutritional guidelines than fast food. They are about value, not price. Is Starbuck's coffee really that much better than Dunkin Donut"s?


----------



## dieterherzog (Sep 28, 2009)

Labsnothers said:


> Yes, that is one of the favorite pieces of misinformation that comes up again and again. The lower cost foods are more like the economical meals that meet nutritional guidelines than fast food. They are about value, not price. Is Starbuck's coffee really that much better than Dunkin Donut"s?


They're both terrible. I liken Starbucks to Science Diet and Dunkin' Donuts to IAMs. One driven by popularity, one driven by mass marketing.


----------



## dieterherzog (Sep 28, 2009)

By the way, did you know Nutro calls themselves "super premium food", Science Diet "superior nutrition" and IAMS "premium nutrition"?


----------



## luvntzus (Mar 16, 2007)

I haven't read all of the posts, but on the first page no seemed to focus on the OTHER ingredients that foods like Pro Plan, Iams, Purina, etc. have. It's the BHA/BHT, Ethoxyquin, artificial colors and flavors, menadione bisulfite, etc. that keep me from feeding it.


----------



## McSweeney (Feb 1, 2010)

*Nice to see no one has an opinion on this subject.*

Holy crap! 

But seriously everybody, after all my talk I might in fact try a grain-free kibble. My husky/border (here's a picture of him) has started pooping ALL THE FREAKING TIME. Great energy, great coat, but I nearly sprained a wrist scooping my backyard yesterday.

Local speciality store carries EVO, TOTW and Earthborn Holistic's Primitive Natural, and in typical dogfood fashion, none of them are perfect: EVO is obscenely overpriced, TOTW doesn't have nearly enough kcals for being grain-free, and Primitive Natural has a gut-busting 717 kcals per cup.


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

I would have the vet do a fecal and perhaps go with a bland diet. Out of 20 dogs, I never had to change food to solve a soft stool porblem.


----------



## HersheyPup (May 22, 2008)

McSweeny, your dog is *gorgeous*!!


----------



## Zeiff (May 6, 2009)

Labsnothers said:


> I would have the vet do a fecal and perhaps go with a bland diet. Out of 20 dogs, I never had to change food to solve a soft stool porblem.


Simply because 20 dogs out of an estimated population of 72,114,000* pet dogs in the US does not mean it does not happen. Even if your sample was completely random, which it is not, the size would not be statistically meaningful. 

Ranger had soft stools on Pro Plan, Nutro, and Royal Canin. During his one year check up our Vet suggested switching him to a grain free diet. So in the next year and a half we have tried Merrick BG, EVO, and TOTW. We have not had soft stools since.

It can and does happen and apparently enough so that our vet could diagnose it during a consolation. 

* http://www.avma.org/reference/marketstats/ownership.asp


----------



## Zeiff (May 6, 2009)

HersheyPup said:


> McSweeny, your dog is *gorgeous*!!


*
I agree 100%*


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

If you're constantly having stool problems, I'd look to changing diets. It can really really help in some dogs. Not necessarily even to grain free, but just something different. Some brands don't sit well with individuals. My Beau had soft stools all the time on California Natural and EVO. I thought it was something we'd just have to deal with. Cleaning bums and adding pumpkin all the time. But I finally got tired of it and switched him over to Holistic Select and then TOTW and his problems were almost instantly gone. To me that is a sign that something about these foods is working better with his digestive system. It seems a better solution than constantly adding in pumpkin to his food.


----------



## McSweeney (Feb 1, 2010)

*Thanks, Hershey. And you can just call me Mac.*

In that first picture Hank is only 3-4 days removed from the animal shelter. Note the red mark on his chest: he was found by animal control last November dragging around a chain that was attached to an in-grown collar. Hank had to be put under and have his collar surgically removed from his neck. The people at the shelter said they figure he'd been on the streets for several months and people had just looked the other way. Sweetest and smartest dog I've ever been around--had him lead-trained, crate-trained and obeying sit/down/shake/stay/roll-over commands in less than a half-day--and people _just looked the other way_? Oh well, their loss and my gain.

Here's another pic:


----------



## PureMutt (Feb 6, 2009)

*Re: Nice to see no one has an opinion on this subject.*



McSweeney said:


> Holy crap!
> 
> But seriously everybody, after all my talk I might in fact try a grain-free kibble. My husky/border (here's a picture of him) has started pooping ALL THE FREAKING TIME. Great energy, great coat, but I nearly sprained a wrist scooping my backyard yesterday.
> 
> Local speciality store carries EVO, TOTW and Earthborn Holistic's Primitive Natural, and in typical dogfood fashion, none of them are perfect: EVO is obscenely overpriced, TOTW doesn't have nearly enough kcals for being grain-free, and Primitive Natural has a gut-busting 717 kcals per cup.


Evo is not over-priced when factor in the difference in how much less you feed. More nutrients in food, feed less, a lot less sprained wrists...


----------



## HersheyPup (May 22, 2008)

McSweeney, I'm glad he ended up with you...looks like a match made in heaven!
Very striking markings...love the blue eye with the black background!


----------



## McSweeney (Feb 1, 2010)

HersheyPup said:


> McSweeney, I'm glad he ended up with you...looks like a match made in heaven!
> Very striking markings...love the blue eye with the black background!


I'm glad he ended up with me too. I'm a runner, and for any of you not familiar with Huskies or Borders, I would never--ever--recommend either of these breeds to a non-active owner. I run 5-7 miles nearly every day with him, and as long as I do that Hank is docile, affectionate, perfect. But if you don't keep his brain engaged and his blood pumping, he chews things, herds children, etc. To me he's the ideal breed--a dog that rewards active owners and punishes lazy ones--but I imagine Husky and Border rescue groups keep pretty busy.


----------



## iim7v7im7 (Feb 1, 2010)

Yes people get extremely passionate and sometimes downright rude on the subject of dog food (this kibble vs. that kibble, raw vs. kibble, prey vs. barf etc.). There are many roads to Dublin these days and that's good for dogs. 

Personally, I look at first 5 ingredients. I look at the protein sources. Are they specifically identified? I look to see what the water content might have been (e.g. meal vs. meat) to interpret the order of ingredients. The words fresh, organic or other adjectives, I do not pay too much attention to. I try to pick foods with varied protein sources for good general health and palitant interest.

Here are some good choices in my view to rotate between:

*Orijen Adult*
Chicken
Chicken Meal
Turkey Meal
Potato
Salmon

*Instinct Rabbit *
Rabbit Meal
Salmon Meal
Tapioca
Chicken Fat
Tomato Pomace

*EVO Red Meat*
Lamb Meal
Potato
Egg
Sunflower Oil

*TOTW High Prairie*
Bison
Venison
Lamb Meal
Chicken Meal
Egg Product

*Orijen 6 Fish*
Salmon
Salmon Meal
Herring Meal
Potato
Whitefish



Bob


----------



## lucidity (Nov 10, 2009)

*Re: Nice to see no one has an opinion on this subject.*



McSweeney said:


> Local speciality store carries EVO, TOTW and Earthborn Holistic's Primitive Natural, and in typical dogfood fashion, none of them are perfect: EVO is obscenely overpriced, TOTW doesn't have nearly enough kcals for being grain-free, and Primitive Natural has a gut-busting 717 kcals per cup.


First off, your dog is very pretty!  Secondly, EVO looks expensive (I thought so too) mostly because they have bigger packaging sizes. For example, the smallest bag is 6.6lbs compared tot he usual 4 or 5lbs for other brands. EVO is actually one of the cheapest grain-free foods that I can get here... Dont know about your area. You should calculate the prices per lb and then make your comparison from there


----------



## Active Dog (Jan 18, 2010)

*Re: Thanks, Hershey. And you can just call me Mac.*



McSweeney said:


> In that first picture Hank is only 3-4 days removed from the animal shelter. Note the red mark on his chest: he was found by animal control last November dragging around a chain that was attached to an in-grown collar. Hank had to be put under and have his collar surgically removed from his neck. The people at the shelter said they figure he'd been on the streets for several months and people had just looked the other way. Sweetest and smartest dog I've ever been around--had him lead-trained, crate-trained and obeying sit/down/shake/stay/roll-over commands in less than a half-day--and people _just looked the other way_? Oh well, their loss and my gain.
> 
> Here's another pic:


Oh my goodness! He is so handsome!! I want your doggy  haha. I'm glad you guys have each other it sounds like the perfect match!


----------

