What Is Considered Too Rich

[Guest Celestrina]

Is it based on protein? Fat? Several people have said that certain foods are "too rich" (especially lamb) and I was wondering what that meant.

[Batmom]

Meaningless. Or I should say, ambiguous. Their dog didn't do well on the food for some reason, which is more likely to be type and amount of fat or fiber than to be anything to do with a specific meat source (althouth intolerances to particular meats do exist).

Edited May 14, 2012 by Batmom

[Hubcitypam]

I'd say in Rex's case he needed food with some fillers. He did horrible on the higher end and no grain foods, much better on foods with the evil "cheap filler" corn.

[4My2Greys]

I believe for the most part that those whose dogs had issues from too "rich" foods was due mainly to over-feeding of the food. I also think the fat content, like Batmom mentioned, possibly could also play a role in how they react to it. It could be that in addition to the fat that is added some meats are naturally fattier than others, which is maybe why they don't seem to do good on a particular meat source.

 

I'd say in Rex's case he needed food with some fillers. He did horrible on the higher end and no grain foods, much better on foods with the evil "cheap filler" corn.

 

I would be willing to bet it wasn't the "cheap filler" corn that made the difference, because even grain-free foods have fillers, but the beet pulp it contained that helped him. However, all that matters in the end is that he did well on it and you were happy with it.

[Hubcitypam]

When times were really tough they ate Purina Dog Chow which I don't think has beet pulp. He didn't do quite as well as the food with beet pulp, but WAYYYY better than on Blue Buffalo.

I had free food from them that I donated. The chicken one gave not only Rex but Poodle and Bella loose poops one we went past 50/50 in transition. Solid Gold and Wellness didn't sit well with him either.

[Guest sirsmom]

I think it means too much protein and fat for a particular dog which would result in stomach upset or even pancreatitis. I would guess an active sled dog could handle a lot more fat & protein than a sedentery house dog that only walks twice a day.

[Feisty49]

I believe for the most part that those whose dogs had issues from too "rich" foods was due mainly to over-feeding of the food. I also think the fat content, like Batmom mentioned, possibly could also play a role in how they react to it. It could be that in addition to the fat that is added some meats are naturally fattier than others, which is maybe why they don't seem to do good on a particular meat source.

 

I wonder why you would make such a sweeping statement regarding overfeeding, and I for one take exception to it. My dog has never been overfed, and unlike probably many people on here, she very seldom gets people food and even then, it's usually only when administering her monthly heart worm pill. Sounds mean? ::shrug:: She's a dog. She doesn't know, but I know what negatively affects her digestive system and keeping her pooing properly is my focus. BTW, she cannot tolerate high-end food. Within 24 hours she's pooing soft serve which deteriorates from there and it takes a solid week to get her back to normal using a 'script food from the vet.

[Guest MyCody]

I have to stop watching politics, I thought this was going to be about the top 1%!!!!!

 

Wanted to see if anyone in here was listed.

Edited May 14, 2012 by MyCody

[Guest Roadtripper]

I have to stop watching politics, I thought this was going to be about the top 1%!!!!!

 

Wanted to see if anyone in here was listed.

 

Funny

[JohnF]

'Rich' to most people I know means 'high in protein and also too fatty and greasy'. Waste of time feeding Peggy any of the 'wonder' kibbles. Iams Green Proactive works well with her, so does a local one in my part of the UK: 'Gelert Country Choice Chicken and Rice'.

[4My2Greys]

I believe for the most part that those whose dogs had issues from too "rich" foods was due mainly to over-feeding of the food. I also think the fat content, like Batmom mentioned, possibly could also play a role in how they react to it. It could be that in addition to the fat that is added some meats are naturally fattier than others, which is maybe why they don't seem to do good on a particular meat source.

 

I wonder why you would make such a sweeping statement regarding overfeeding, and I for one take exception to it. My dog has never been overfed, and unlike probably many people on here, she very seldom gets people food and even then, it's usually only when administering her monthly heart worm pill. Sounds mean? ::shrug:: She's a dog. She doesn't know, but I know what negatively affects her digestive system and keeping her pooing properly is my focus. BTW, she cannot tolerate high-end food. Within 24 hours she's pooing soft serve which deteriorates from there and it takes a solid week to get her back to normal using a 'script food from the vet.

 

This is not the type of over-feeding I was referring to. It's kind of hard to over-feed something you'd most likely stop feeding when the soft serve poo starts. What I was referring to is people not taking into account the calorie differences between the two foods and feeding the same amounts. For example, if you feed Iams the calorie count I believe is around 330kcals/cup conversely EVO Chicken was over 550kcals/cup.

As far as "better" quality kibbles go, I prefer to judge them not only on their ingredients, but on the quality controls in their production process. Unfortunately costs of these foods are often very prohibitive, especially if you have several dogs.

I find it funny that people constantly poor mouth for their reasons what they refer to as "better" kibbles, but when I express my dislike for some of the Science Diet prescription foods there is immediate outrage. Seems like a double standard here.

 

 

 

I think it means too much protein and fat for a particular dog which would result in stomach upset or even pancreatitis. I would guess an active sled dog could handle a lot more fat & protein than a sedentery house dog that only walks twice a day.

 

I really think this is probably the best explanation, certainly better than my reasoning.

[Guest happygrey]

Meaningless. Or I should say, ambiguous. Their dog didn't do well on the food for some reason, which is more likely to be type and amount of fat or fiber than to be anything to do with a specific meat source (althouth intolerances to particular meats do exist).

 

This is exactly my thinking. I think it really depends on the dog. If one of my dogs didn't too well on a food, I'm not sure I would say it was too rich. Just that it didn't agree with him.

I believe for the most part that those whose dogs had issues from too "rich" foods was due mainly to over-feeding of the food. I also think the fat content, like Batmom mentioned, possibly could also play a role in how they react to it. It could be that in addition to the fat that is added some meats are naturally fattier than others, which is maybe why they don't seem to do good on a particular meat source.

 

I wonder why you would make such a sweeping statement regarding overfeeding, and I for one take exception to it. My dog has never been overfed, and unlike probably many people on here, she very seldom gets people food and even then, it's usually only when administering her monthly heart worm pill. Sounds mean? ::shrug:: She's a dog. She doesn't know, but I know what negatively affects her digestive system and keeping her pooing properly is my focus. BTW, she cannot tolerate high-end food. Within 24 hours she's pooing soft serve which deteriorates from there and it takes a solid week to get her back to normal using a 'script food from the vet.

 

This is not the type of over-feeding I was referring to. It's kind of hard to over-feed something you'd most likely stop feeding when the soft serve poo starts. What I was referring to is people not taking into account the calorie differences between the two foods and feeding the same amounts. For example, if you feed Iams the calorie count I believe is around 330kcals/cup conversely EVO Chicken was over 550kcals/cup.

As far as "better" quality kibbles go, I prefer to judge them not only on their ingredients, but on the quality controls in their production process. Unfortunately costs of these foods are often very prohibitive, especially if you have several dogs.

I find it funny that people constantly poor mouth for their reasons what they refer to as "better" kibbles, but when I express my dislike for some of the Science Diet prescription foods there is immediate outrage. Seems like a double standard here.

 

 

I agree. I've noticed the same thing.