Best Dog Food

[Guest Kaila]

About 4D meats.. Be aware that you can't know feom reading the label what the quality of meat is in a product. It requires knowing about the company and where they source their ingredients from, how the meat is handled, treated, stored and preserved prior to being added to the formula, etc. A cow that died during transport and was dead for who-knows-how-long before finally being diverted from the human market to a pet food facility can still show up as "beef" or "beef meal," just like a free-range cow slaughtered in the prime of life that was allowed to graze in organic pastures! I wish they were required to list the ranking as they do on fresh meat labels for human consumption, but they don't.

[Hubcitypam]

About 4D meats.. Be aware that you can't know feom reading the label what the quality of meat is in a product. It requires knowing about the company and where they source their ingredients from, how the meat is handled, treated, stored and preserved prior to being added to the formula, etc. A cow that died during transport and was dead for who-knows-how-long before finally being diverted from the human market to a pet food facility can still show up as "beef" or "beef meal," just like a free-range cow slaughtered in the prime of life that was allowed to graze in organic pastures! I wish they were required to list the ranking as they do on fresh meat labels for human consumption, but they don't.

Which leads us back to another recurring theme of mine. It is more than interesting that the owner of a company that produces "5 star" super premium foods owns several dead livestock removal services.

 

They produce canned that retails for well over $2 and canned that retails for around .75 under another label. Are they really using different beef in each? Is the beef in their high end 5 star dry different than the beef in the 50 pound bags of dry?

[4My2Greys]

About 4D meats.. Be aware that you can't know feom reading the label what the quality of meat is in a product. It requires knowing about the company and where they source their ingredients from, how the meat is handled, treated, stored and preserved prior to being added to the formula, etc. A cow that died during transport and was dead for who-knows-how-long before finally being diverted from the human market to a pet food facility can still show up as "beef" or "beef meal," just like a free-range cow slaughtered in the prime of life that was allowed to graze in organic pastures! I wish they were required to list the ranking as they do on fresh meat labels for human consumption, but they don't.

Which leads us back to another recurring theme of mine. It is more than interesting that the owner of a company that produces "5 star" super premium foods owns several dead livestock removal services.

 

They produce canned that retails for well over $2 and canned that retails for around .75 under another label. Are they really using different beef in each? Is the beef in their high end 5 star dry different than the beef in the 50 pound bags of dry?

 

Pam, this goes to Kaila's point of knowing the company your dealing with. Champion Foods and Honest Kitchen are 2 of the best companies out there. However, their products are so expensive, especially Honest Kitchen, that it puts it out of the price range most can afford. It is fine for those who have small dogs or maybe 1 grey, but for those who have multiple large dogs it is extremely price prohibitive. When I was trying to figure out Nadir's latest incontinence problem I tried Honest Kitchen for awhile. I calculated that it would cost me right around $200 a month just to have him on it. That is why I say the best food is the one that you can afford and your dog does well on. That though is with the assumption that a person is not dining regularly on a steak and lobster diet while their dog has to settle for Kibbles and Bits.

[Hubcitypam]

Yes, but how does one know what goes on in the actual plant other than what the company tells you? I just can't see them using different beef for their high end and low end lines that come out of the same plant...and find it a tad hard to believe they are selling really good beef for .75 a can.

[4My2Greys]

I'm not sure which company your referring to, but Champion and Honest Kitchen do not sell 75¢ cans of food. This is from Honest Kitchens website regarding their quality controls they have in place.

 

http://www.thehonestkitchen.com/products/learn/product-integrity/

 

As much as they charge for their food I'm sure they are not going to risk their reputation by selling inferior products.

 

 

[Guest Kaila]

Champion Pet Foods (Orijen/Acana) does not manufacture any canned food. I personally use Weruva and Merrick canned food for my dog.

[Hubcitypam]

I personally use Weruva and Merrick canned food for my dog.

Merrick is the company that makes .75 a can dog food...and owns the dead livestock removal service...and has a rendering plant on site.

[Guest Kaila]

Yes, but how does one know what goes on in the actual plant other than what the company tells you? I just can't see them using different beef for their high end and low end lines that come out of the same plant...and find it a tad hard to believe they are selling really good beef for .75 a can.

 

Not that this isn't advertising (which can of course be a company putting their "best foot forward" in front of the public eye) but Champion has a video showing off some of their facility. Most companies won't just allow a regular consumer off the street to tour their facility (this would be risky, not only in terms of sanitation, but because someone could release information about their formula to a competing company and put them out of business). But the only issue I've ever heard coming from Champion was that just recently they had a fire from an overheated dryer that caught flame. From everything I've read, they've put a lot of emphasis on not wanting to lose any employees on their team and supporting them for the few months until that second kitchen is up and running, etc., and the quality of their food hasn't suffered, only the amount produced.

 

http://morinvillenew...r-factory-fire/

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONnTH-flAhs

Edited October 20, 2012 by Kaila

[Guest Kaila]

I personally use Weruva and Merrick canned food for my dog.

Merrick is the company that makes .75 a can dog food...and owns the dead livestock removal service...and has a rendering plant on site.

 

Do you have any information that points to Merrick being involved in the manufacturing of a cheap canned dog food? The rendering plant.. I do think I remember reading about that somewhere, but it must have slipped my mind. It's located in Texas, I think. We've been moving away from Merrick foods at our store for other reasons--we no longer carry any of their dry food or small dog food cans, only the large 13oz cans of five-star canned food. We're going to stop carrying the canned cat food as well.

 

It's not impossible that they're separating their quality of meat, diverting the better stuff to their "premium" formulas, but to be honest it's not likely that there is no cross-contamination. I'm glad you brought this to my attention. I think I'll go ahead and get an e-mail confirmation from them about this issue (and in the meantime, stop feeding it to my little guy--he's always liked Weruva better anyhow).

Edited October 20, 2012 by Kaila

[Hubcitypam]

I personally use Weruva and Merrick canned food for my dog.

Merrick is the company that makes .75 a can dog food...and owns the dead livestock removal service...and has a rendering plant on site.

 

Do you have any information that points to Merrick being involved in the manufacturing of a cheap canned dog food? The rendering plant.. I do think I remember reading about that somewhere, but it must have slipped my mind. It's located in Texas, I think.

http://www.beefnmore.com/can.php Call and ask if it is made by Merrick. It is a really good cheap canned dog food though. I wish Wal-Mart still sold it.

 

Garth Merrick built his empire selling Beef n More dry to Wal-Mart and Sams by the trainload. For many years every dog that came out of the Amarillo pound (including several greys I sprung) came with a 40 pound bag of Beef n More and that may still happen. Merrick and Beef n More are both produced down the road in Hereford, TX which is, like Amarillo, about 2 hours from Lubbock. That's practically next door in West Texas terms.

 

Beef n More was originally called "Garth Merrick's Beef n More". When Merrick reinvented itself to the high end a few years ago they removed any references connecting Merrick to Beef n More. For quite some time Beef n More canned and Merrick Cowboy Cookout canned had virtually identical ingredients except for one vegetable.

 

You can look up Tejas Industries and Hereford Services, which are the dead stock removal industries. At one point Merrick owned 5 livestock disposal services.

[Guest Kaila]

That's so disappointing. Merrick was sort of an impulse buy for me since I needed a lot of small cans to travel with (I have a Chihuahua, my Greyhound-to-be isn't with me yet). He likes the taste but honestly has been a little urpy (upset tummy) lately so I had stopped feeding canned food at a to give his tummy a rest. I'm glad you told me about Merrick, ugh! Back to Weruva and Honest Kitchen Thrive for us.

[JJNg]

Can you explain in more detail how you gauge the "quality" of a dogfood? This is the concept that I feel is not well defined and not necessarily well understood. It seems to me that there is a lot of focus on specific ingredients and very little on the amount of nutritional research that actually goes into the food. Obviously both are important, but discussions like this seem to only look at ingredients.

 

So you can see.. for me, it's a matter of 1) company transparency and communication, including the level of customer service and information available on the website, and 2) the quality control standards, including having fewer brands to manage and fewer recalls that would put lives (both human and canine) at risk.

 

Thanks for the explanation. I agree that ingredients, company policy, and quality control are important, but I'm still not seeing any discussion that takes nutritional research into consideration. The major pet food manufacturers, especially the ones that produce prescription foods, invest a lot of funding and effort into research with the goal of better understanding pet nutrition to improve their formulas, optimize health, create new formulas for specific disease conditions.

 

I believe that the research and testing that go into these formulas are the reason that many find that they get good results when they feed these foods. Sure, many of these formulas may not contain ideal ingredients based on popular opinion and the latest fads (often not backed by science), but IMO, the proof is in the results.

 

I often hear people comment about how their dogs do well on products like Iams, Purina ONE, Hill's Prescription i/d, Science Diet Sensitive Stomach, etc. I find it sad and frustrating that these same testimonials are often accompanied by people admitting that they feel guilty for feeding "junk". IMO, there is no reason to feel this way, as these are all good quality, well-researched foods, and there's a reason why dogs do well on them.

[gr8kids]

You go with what works for you and the dog. You will always have multiple responses of every dog food out there. My dog does better on grain free. I also do a blend of food, mix a few brands so that when I get something new its easier and the dog gets the benefit of the different kibble for each has their own benefits.

Edited October 23, 2012 by gr8kids

[Guest Kaila]

Thanks for the explanation. I agree that ingredients, company policy, and quality control are important, but I'm still not seeing any discussion that takes nutritional research into consideration. The major pet food manufacturers, especially the ones that produce prescription foods, invest a lot of funding and effort into research with the goal of better understanding pet nutrition to improve their formulas, optimize health, create new formulas for specific disease conditions.

 

I believe that the research and testing that go into these formulas are the reason that many find that they get good results when they feed these foods. Sure, many of these formulas may not contain ideal ingredients based on popular opinion and the latest fads (often not backed by science), but IMO, the proof is in the results.

 

I often hear people comment about how their dogs do well on products like Iams, Purina ONE, Hill's Prescription i/d, Science Diet Sensitive Stomach, etc. I find it sad and frustrating that these same testimonials are often accompanied by people admitting that they feel guilty for feeding "junk". IMO, there is no reason to feel this way, as these are all good quality, well-researched foods, and there's a reason why dogs do well on them.

 

Think specifically about something like Hill's, which is widely known for its prescription Science Diet formulas. I would not say that Hill's as a company has done any more research into nutrition than any other company. They are, first and foremost, a business. And every business, whether you agree with the ethics behind the company or not, exists to make money so that they can thrive in the business world and continue making money. And it doesn't serve them to produce "prescription" formulas that don't get results (people would stop trusting in their company and thus stop buying their products). But getting results doesn't necessarily equate with better health, and if people don't understand the mechanism for GETTING those results, they might be happy just to get results at all and not look further for answers. Businesses with poor ethics DEPEND on this to make money. (An example of this might be something like weight loss in humans. Before Ephedra was banned, it was widely popular as a weight-loss supplement. No one knew about the health costs--stroke, heart attack, sometimes death--until they became widely popularized and the herbal ingredient responsible was banned by the FDA. The standards are very lax in pet foods--for example, it is technically illegal to use euthanized cats and dogs from rendering plants in a pet food, but the FDA does not consider it an "actionable" offense unless some other crime has been committed as well. This means that pet food is not regulated to the same standards as human foods and a lot of risks creep under the radar.)

 

When a prescription food like Hills Science Diet gets results, it's often because of additives that treat the symptoms of whatever the food is for (i.e. digestive upset) without addressing the main cause (ex. gastritis caused by a food allergy). I liken this to taking pain medication for migraines when you really have a brain injury. Maybe your pain gets better or even goes away, but it doesn't change the underlying cause of your migraines.

 

Hills Science Diet Adult Sensitive Stomach:

Brewers Rice, Whole Grain Corn, Corn Gluten Meal, Chicken By-Product Meal, Dried Egg Product, Animal Fat (preserved with mixed tocopherols and citric acid), Chicken Liver Flavor, Flaxseed, Lactic Acid, Soybean Oil, Oat Fiber, Dried Beet Pulp, Potassium Chloride, Dicalcium Phosphate, Iodized Salt, L-Lysine, Calcium Carbonate, Choline Chloride, Vitamin E Supplement, vitamins (L-Ascorbyl-2-Polyphosphate (source of vitamin C), Vitamin E Supplement, Niacin, Thiamine Mononitrate, Vitamin A Supplement, Calcium Pantothenate, Biotin, Vitamin B12 Supplement, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride, Riboflavin, Folic Acid, Vitamin D3 Supplement), L-Tryptophan, minerals (Ferrous Sulfate, Zinc Oxide, Copper Sulfate, Manganous Oxide, Calcium Iodate, Sodium Selenite), preserved with mixed Tocopherols and Citric Acid, Phosphoric Acid, Beta-Carotene, Rosemary Extract.

In spite of the fact that the above formula contains MANY known allergens to dogs and cheap, unidentifiable fillers, it also contains a few different sources of fiber (oat fiber) including a stool hardener (dried beet pulp). This is probably the cause of the results that pet owners are seeking when they buy a formula for their dog who has been experiencing loose stools. Hills can thus save money by producing a dog food comprised mostly of rice and corn (remember that ingredients are listed by weight), and yet still get the desired results by adding a few choice quality ingredients. Without knowing any better, people continue buying the food based on the fact that, FINALLY, their incredibly sensitive dog is having firm bowel movements.. yet when they are told to read the nutrition labels on food, they feel guilty about all of the "junk" found in a formula such as this.

 

A better solution, in my opinion, would be to start off with a good formula with moderate amounts of protein and fat, low carbohydrates, and add a fiber supplement (ex. carrot pulp, plain oatmeal, sweet potato, unsweetened canned pumpkin, etc.) until one fiber supplement works for their dog and essentially does the job of a natural stool hardener that is present in many commercial foods. I had a Golden Retriever who had a very sensitive stomach and did not thrive on Orijen Large Breed Puppy. I was not willing to compromise the quality of her food for firmer stools, so I added cooked oatmeal to her food.. and voila. Normal stool, and I didn't need to sacrifice anything.

 

The problem is that many people either know one of two things really well: 1) My dog does well on this food (regardless of what the ingredients are), or 2) Here's a list of what to look for in a high quality dog food. MOST people don't know how to marry the two. What is it about that commercial food that cures your dog's symptoms? And how can you get the quality of a premium natural dog food without sacrificing those kinds of results? For that, there's no easy answer--it depends on your individual dog and what works for them. But in my opinion, there is USUALLY (I'll say "usually" rather than "always" to cover all of my bases here) a way to solve the problem without sacrificing quality ingredients.

Edited October 26, 2012 by Kaila

[Guest Kaila]

I also want to add.. The above Hills Science Diet formula that I listed is, essentially, meat-flavored corn.

 

Hills Science Diet Adult Sensitive Stomach:

Brewers Rice, Whole Grain Corn, Corn Gluten Meal, Chicken By-Product Meal, Dried Egg Product, Animal Fat (preserved with mixed tocopherols and citric acid), Chicken Liver Flavor, Flaxseed, Lactic Acid, Soybean Oil, Oat Fiber, Dried Beet Pulp, Potassium Chloride, Dicalcium Phosphate, Iodized Salt, L-Lysine, Calcium Carbonate, Choline Chloride, Vitamin E Supplement, vitamins (L-Ascorbyl-2-Polyphosphate (source of vitamin C), Vitamin E Supplement, Niacin, Thiamine Mononitrate, Vitamin A Supplement, Calcium Pantothenate, Biotin, Vitamin B12 Supplement, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride, Riboflavin, Folic Acid, Vitamin D3 Supplement), L-Tryptophan, minerals (Ferrous Sulfate, Zinc Oxide, Copper Sulfate, Manganous Oxide, Calcium Iodate, Sodium Selenite), preserved with mixed Tocopherols and Citric Acid, Phosphoric Acid, Beta-Carotene, Rosemary Extract.

 

Here's the formula again. The bulk of the food is made up of the underlined ingredients. The italicized ingredients are added vitamins and minerals. Now let's talk a little about the nutrient profile of a food.. It's easy to create the correct analysis with cheap ingredients. If I wanted to create a very cheap dog food, I could get plenty of protein from a leather shoe, plenty of fat from a can of oil, and plenty of fiber from peanut shells. Once vitamins and minerals are added to fill in the large nutrient gaps, the food would pose no direct risk of malnutrition to a dog. So what's wrong with a food like that?

 

Namely, these ingredients have very low bioavailability. Bioavailability is a measure of how easily the body absorbs and utilizes the components of different ingredients. The body has to expend lots of energy and water in order to break down a poor quality protein into its various amino acids, and then use those amino acids where they're needed. Or the fat is a low quality fat that has no function in promoting better health (such as in the case of omega fatty acids, which have a function in promoting or reducing inflammation and building the myelin sheathe around nerves), so it just ends up being stored in the body as adipose tissue or in various organs (such as the liver). Ingredients with low bioavailability generally result in poorer overall health, even if the effects are not immediately apparent, as well as larger stool output. Since a large portion of what is being consumed is not able to be used by the body, it ends up as waste.

Edited October 26, 2012 by Kaila

[Hubcitypam]

...and plenty of fiber from peanut shells. Once vitamins and minerals are added to fill in the large nutrient gaps, the food would pose no direct risk of malnutrition to a dog.

Hey, Hill's quit putting peanut shells in w/d and tarter control about 4 years ago!!! Now it's powdered celluose as the second ingredient in w/d -

Whole Grain Corn, Powdered Cellulose, Corn Gluten Meal, Chicken Liver Flavor, Chicken By-Product Meal, Soybean Mill Run, Chicken, Dried Beet Pulp, Soybean Oil, Lactic Acid, Caramel Color, Calcium Sulfate, Potassium Chloride, Flaxseed, L-Lysine, Vitamin E Supplement, Choline Chloride, vitamins (L-Ascorbyl-2-Polyphosphate (source of vitamin C), Vitamin E Supplement, Niacin, Thiamine Mononitrate, Vitamin A Supplement, Calcium Pantothenate, Biotin, Vitamin B12 Supplement, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride, Riboflavin, Folic Acid, Vitamin D3 Supplement), Calcium Carbonate, Taurine, minerals (Ferrous Sulfate, Zinc Oxide, Copper Sulfate, Manganous Oxide, Calcium Iodate, Sodium Selenite), L-Tryptophan, L-Carnitine, Iodized Salt, preserved with Mixed Tocopherols & Citric Acid, L-Threonine, Phosphoric Acid, Beta-Carotene, Rosemary Extract.

 

Notice the first meat source is after chicken liver flavor. Either they use a heck of a lot of flavoring or there's very very little meat.

[Batmom]

I would not say that Hill's as a company has done any more research into nutrition than any other company.

 

They've certainly done more research than the boutique dog food companies, who do none. They also do feeding trials, which most boutique dog food companies don't do. Those feeding trials are what tell us about the bioavailability of a given food. You can have the nicest ingredients list in the world and the prettiest white trucks pulling up to your loading dock with fresh blueberries and fish, and that does not guarantee the end result is more bioavailable than Hills' or Purina's.

 

But getting results doesn't necessarily equate with better health, and if people don't understand the mechanism for GETTING those results, they might be happy just to get results at all and not look further for answers.

 

Getting results is exactly what is wanted.

When a prescription food like Hills Science Diet gets results, it's often because of additives that treat the symptoms of whatever the food is for (i.e. digestive upset) without addressing the main cause (ex. gastritis caused by a food allergy).

 

Food isn't going to cure most medical conditions. It does help manage them, and the Hills prescription foods do that very well. K/D, U/D, Z/D, even I/D ... these foods have saved lives. It is not always possible to make an equivalent food from your own ingredients, and it certainly isn't necessary.

[Guest 2dogs4cats]

Thanks for the explanation. I agree that ingredients, company policy, and quality control are important, but I'm still not seeing any discussion that takes nutritional research into consideration. The major pet food manufacturers, especially the ones that produce prescription foods, invest a lot of funding and effort into research with the goal of better understanding pet nutrition to improve their formulas, optimize health, create new formulas for specific disease conditions.

 

I believe that the research and testing that go into these formulas are the reason that many find that they get good results when they feed these foods. Sure, many of these formulas may not contain ideal ingredients based on popular opinion and the latest fads (often not backed by science), but IMO, the proof is in the results.

 

I often hear people comment about how their dogs do well on products like Iams, Purina ONE, Hill's Prescription i/d, Science Diet Sensitive Stomach, etc. I find it sad and frustrating that these same testimonials are often accompanied by people admitting that they feel guilty for feeding "junk". IMO, there is no reason to feel this way, as these are all good quality, well-researched foods, and there's a reason why dogs do well on them.

 

Think specifically about something like Hill's, which is widely known for its prescription Science Diet formulas. I would not say that Hill's as a company has done any more research into nutrition than any other company. They are, first and foremost, a business. And every business, whether you agree with the ethics behind the company or not, exists to make money so that they can thrive in the business world and continue making money. And it doesn't serve them to produce "prescription" formulas that don't get results (people would stop trusting in their company and thus stop buying their products). But getting results doesn't necessarily equate with better health, and if people don't understand the mechanism for GETTING those results, they might be happy just to get results at all and not look further for answers. Businesses with poor ethics DEPEND on this to make money. (An example of this might be something like weight loss in humans. Before Ephedra was banned, it was widely popular as a weight-loss supplement. No one knew about the health costs--stroke, heart attack, sometimes death--until they became widely popularized and the herbal ingredient responsible was banned by the FDA. The standards are very lax in pet foods--for example, it is technically illegal to use euthanized cats and dogs from rendering plants in a pet food, but the FDA does not consider it an "actionable" offense unless some other crime has been committed as well. This means that pet food is not regulated to the same standards as human foods and a lot of risks creep under the radar.)

 

When a prescription food like Hills Science Diet gets results, it's often because of additives that treat the symptoms of whatever the food is for (i.e. digestive upset) without addressing the main cause (ex. gastritis caused by a food allergy). I liken this to taking pain medication for migraines when you really have a brain injury. Maybe your pain gets better or even goes away, but it doesn't change the underlying cause of your migraines.

 

Hills Science Diet Adult Sensitive Stomach:

Brewers Rice, Whole Grain Corn, Corn Gluten Meal, Chicken By-Product Meal, Dried Egg Product, Animal Fat (preserved with mixed tocopherols and citric acid), Chicken Liver Flavor, Flaxseed, Lactic Acid, Soybean Oil, Oat Fiber, Dried Beet Pulp, Potassium Chloride, Dicalcium Phosphate, Iodized Salt, L-Lysine, Calcium Carbonate, Choline Chloride, Vitamin E Supplement, vitamins (L-Ascorbyl-2-Polyphosphate (source of vitamin C), Vitamin E Supplement, Niacin, Thiamine Mononitrate, Vitamin A Supplement, Calcium Pantothenate, Biotin, Vitamin B12 Supplement, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride, Riboflavin, Folic Acid, Vitamin D3 Supplement), L-Tryptophan, minerals (Ferrous Sulfate, Zinc Oxide, Copper Sulfate, Manganous Oxide, Calcium Iodate, Sodium Selenite), preserved with mixed Tocopherols and Citric Acid, Phosphoric Acid, Beta-Carotene, Rosemary Extract.

In spite of the fact that the above formula contains MANY known allergens to dogs and cheap, unidentifiable fillers, it also contains a few different sources of fiber (oat fiber) including a stool hardener (dried beet pulp). This is probably the cause of the results that pet owners are seeking when they buy a formula for their dog who has been experiencing loose stools. Hills can thus save money by producing a dog food comprised mostly of rice and corn (remember that ingredients are listed by weight), and yet still get the desired results by adding a few choice quality ingredients. Without knowing any better, people continue buying the food based on the fact that, FINALLY, their incredibly sensitive dog is having firm bowel movements.. yet when they are told to read the nutrition labels on food, they feel guilty about all of the "junk" found in a formula such as this.

 

A better solution, in my opinion, would be to start off with a good formula with moderate amounts of protein and fat, low carbohydrates, and add a fiber supplement (ex. carrot pulp, plain oatmeal, sweet potato, unsweetened canned pumpkin, etc.) until one fiber supplement works for their dog and essentially does the job of a natural stool hardener that is present in many commercial foods. I had a Golden Retriever who had a very sensitive stomach and did not thrive on Orijen Large Breed Puppy. I was not willing to compromise the quality of her food for firmer stools, so I added cooked oatmeal to her food.. and voila. Normal stool, and I didn't need to sacrifice anything.

 

The problem is that many people either know one of two things really well: 1) My dog does well on this food (regardless of what the ingredients are), or 2) Here's a list of what to look for in a high quality dog food. MOST people don't know how to marry the two. What is it about that commercial food that cures your dog's symptoms? And how can you get the quality of a premium natural dog food without sacrificing those kinds of results? For that, there's no easy answer--it depends on your individual dog and what works for them. But in my opinion, there is USUALLY (I'll say "usually" rather than "always" to cover all of my bases here) a way to solve the problem without sacrificing quality ingredients.

 

I am not sure about the USUALLY, maybe SOMETIMES. A lot of dogs that are on a Rx diet have serious medical issues. Very hard to experiment with different foods when you have a dog that bleeds out their butt or has uncontrollable blood sugar when you try to switch foods.

[Guest Kaila]

Getting results is exactly what is wanted

 

Again, I refer you to my example about taking migraine medication when you actually have a brain injury. You may control your symptoms with pain medication, sure, and that's valuable in and of itself because it increases the person's quality of life. But without addressing the root cause of the pain, you're allowing it to perpetuate and grow into something even more dangerous down the line. Some people say that they never see any negative consequences of feeding their dog a poor diet for their entire lifetime--this is probably due in part to the fact that dogs have a very limited lifetime. We're only able to extend their life so far. But you might have them with you even longer if you take good health into mind.

 

Saying that a high quality kibble is not any more nutritious than meat-flavored corn with added vitamins/minerals is like saying you can eat McDonald's every day for your entire life, take a multivitamin and some metamucil, and you'll live a normal, healthy lifetime. If you seriously believe that that's possible, or if you fail to see the comparison, then I doubt I'll change your mind here. You're free to do what you want with your own dog's feeding. I'm not here to lecture anyone or tell them that they're wrong. I'm just trying to answer the questions that were presented and explain what I know.

 

Basically, my opinion is that I am only satisfied with the results of a commercial dog food if I have no other healthier alternatives that will work and the dog's quality of life would significantly suffer if taken off a specific diet.

 

I am not sure about the USUALLY, maybe SOMETIMES. A lot of dogs that are on a Rx diet have serious medical issues. Very hard to experiment with different foods when you have a dog that bleeds out their butt or has uncontrollable blood sugar when you try to switch foods.

 

I should've made this more clear. I'm sure there ARE dogs whose quality of life would be so significantly damaged by going off of the artificial ingredients in a commercial dog food. For whatever reason, they work and natural ingredients have failed to take their place. I was talking more about issues like dermatitis, yeast, gastritis, chronic itching, chronic diarrhea/vomiting, etc.

 

Although, I can say that we have more than a few customers who are controlling their dog's pancreatitis or diabetes with help from a vet and a good diet. I'm not a vet so I'm not qualified to speak on the subject of curing diseases. A few dogs have cancer but they don't come in often enough for me to hear about how they're doing.

 

They've certainly done more research than the boutique dog food companies, who do none. They also do feeding trials, which most boutique dog food companies don't do. Those feeding trials are what tell us about the bioavailability of a given food. You can have the nicest ingredients list in the world and the prettiest white trucks pulling up to your loading dock with fresh blueberries and fish, and that does not guarantee the end result is more bioavailable than Hills' or Purina's.

 

If you've ever taken a nutrition course in college, you know that the availability of nutrients in fruits and vegetables for human consumption varies by how they are prepared and preserved. For example, thermal processing of canned fruits/vegetables leaches vitamins into the water media that the cultivar is preserved in. In order to obtain close to the same nutritional value of its fresh or frozen counterpart, the water would also have to be consumed. Assuming no added sugars, salt, or fat, and taking into consideration the shelf life of fresh fruits/vegetables, canned varieties CAN be equally nutritious.. with the aforementioned criteria in place.

 

A company that vows to minimally process their dog food (as Champion Pet Foods does with Orijen) DOES in fact offer greater nutrient availability because there will be less denaturation of proteins (proteins have a specific temperature/pH range they can exist at--less thermal processing equals more amino acids available for use by the body), less leaching of vitamins and minerals due to thermal processing, and less chance for the introduction of bacteria during processing. (Let's remember that Champion Pet Foods has never had a recall, while Science Diet has. DIamond Pet Foods, which manufactures a variety of low-quality formulas, was just involved in a salmonella outbreak at their Gaston, SC facility. In 2010, Iams and Eukanuba were both recalled for salmonella poisoning.)

 

Recalls

One Prescription Diet line and five products of the Science Diet line were involved in the 2007 pet food recalls for their inclusion of melamine tainted wheat gluten received from China.

Source: http://en.wikipedia....s_Pet_Nutrition

 

My point here is to illustrate that two companies can use the exact same ingredients, but that the handling of the food itself can impact what nutrients are still available after the food consumed. The dog food industry started when one guy got the genius idea to take leftover grain that couldn't be consumed by humans and turn it into dog food. Well, dogs started dying because the food was not nutritionally balanced, so they added very low quality meat to the food and that seemed to do the trick. The industry is constantly evolving. These days, we can't imagine ever feeding a dog JUST grain, without it being nutritionally balanced. And maybe in ten years we won't be able to imagine adding chemical preservatives in levels that we don't even allow in human food to be used in pet food. Adding melamine to artificially inflate protein levels will be some archaic thing of the past (I'm referring to the 2007 recalls that involved melamine in China).

 

As far as animal trials go, this could quickly escalate into an ethical debate due to the fact that laboratory animals and surgical fistulas are often involved. (Click HERE for an example of a fistula in a cow.) Orijen does do animal trials, but only performs non-invasive tests. Taken directly from their website:

 

ANIMAL TESTING

This is a question we’re asked a lot, and our position on animal testing is simple - we conduct only those tests we would allow our own companion dogs and cats to participate in. If it’s not OK for our dogs and cats, then it’s not OK for any other cats and dogs. We perform only non-invasive tests, which including palatability (taste), urine pH and digestibility (the latter through stool analysis only). These tests are never performed with dogs or cats kept in a laboratory environment (cages).

 

Anecdotally, none of my dogs (of four) personally have ever succumbed to a chronic disease, while the animals of friends and relatives have. My grandparents' English Bulldog died of stomach cancer (he was fed Iams) and my parents' cat died from mammary cancer that metastasized to her brain (she was fed Friskies).

Edited October 26, 2012 by Kaila

[Guest 2dogs4cats]

Anecdotally, none of my dogs (of four) personally have ever succumbed to a chronic disease, while the animals of friends and relatives have. My grandparents' English Bulldog died of stomach cancer (he was fed Iams) and my parents' cat died from mammary cancer that metastasized to her brain (she was fed Friskies).

 

Which means you are lucky. Most chronic conditions are genetically linked. Also means you don't know how hard it is (the emotional heartache, the financial hardship and the constant worry) to find a food that works for a chronic medical condition. All the "best" foods in the world don't mean a thing if your dog can't eat it, digest it and stay well on it.

[Guest Kaila]

Which means you are lucky. Most chronic conditions are genetically linked. Also means you don't know how hard it is (the emotional heartache, the financial hardship and the constant worry) to find a food that works for a chronic medical condition. All the "best" foods in the world don't mean a thing if your dog can't eat it, digest it and stay well on it.

 

Because of my chosen path of education and my job experience, I was there the whole time advising family members to switch to a better food (which they ignored far before the diagnoses of cancer). The vet who euthanized both animals for my family agreed that the problem might have been at least lessened with a better quality diet (if for no other reason than it would boost the immune system and give the body more energy to deal with being chronically ill). I was also the one who held my parents' dying cat in my arms while she had multiple seizures and eventually died an agonizing death. For weeks afterwards I was incredibly emotional as it was a very traumatizing experience. It was *MY* pet too, I just had no power over how she was cared for because I don't live with them and I can't force my family to act in accordance with what I've learned and what I believe.

 

Please don't turn this into a personal attack. It's truly uncalled for. I fully admitted on more than one occasion that some dogs do well on commercial dog foods because we don't have natural counterparts that do the same trick as things like artificial stool hardeners, etc. Use what works. I'm not saying to do otherwise. I think it would make complete sense if someone said, "A high-quality kibble would be more nutritious, but I simply can't find something that works to lessen his symptoms and his quality of life was suffering. Therefore, this (Iams, Eukanuba, Purina, etc.) is our only option." But to argue that a higher quality food is NOT more nutritious makes no sense. It's as silly as saying "A McDonald's chicken sandwich and french fries is just as nutritious as lean chicken breast and a baked potato from your grocery store." Would anyone be willing to argue that? If you can find a way to make it work for your dog and your budget, a high quality food (in my opinion) will always be superior to a food containing low-quality ingredients. [Emphasis added.] That STILL doesn't mean that it's right for every dog.

 

I also stated that this evidence is specifically "anecdotal" (def: based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation). It's my personal experience, nothing more. The fact that my animals are healthy could be nothing more than sheer luck, or it could be because of the choices I've made. There's no way to tell without cloning them and subjecting them to two different forms of treatment throughout their lifetime. But I've spoken to hundreds if not thousands of other pet owners who have their dogs on high-quality diets and have seen them come back from the brink of death, recover spontaneously after battling a chronic ailment or allergy, or improve in energy and quality of life (especially seniors). It's all anecdotal, but it's there, and it matters to me. But ultimately, you should do what makes the most sense to YOU for you and your pet.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Kaila

[Hubcitypam]

Because of my chosen path of education and my job experience, I was there the whole time advising family members to switch to a better food (which they ignored far before the diagnoses of cancer). The vet who euthanized both animals for my family agreed that the problem might have been at least lessened with a better quality diet (if for no other reason than it would boost the immune system and give the body more energy to deal with being chronically ill). I was also the one who held my parents' dying cat in my arms while she had multiple seizures and eventually died an agonizing death. For weeks afterwards I was incredibly emotional as it was a very traumatizing experience. It was *MY* pet too, I just had no power over how she was cared for because I don't live with them and I can't force my family to act in accordance with what I've learned and what I believe.

 

Please don't turn this into a personal attack. It's truly uncalled for. I fully admitted on more than one occasion that some dogs do well on commercial dog foods because we don't have natural counterparts that do the same trick as things like artificial stool hardeners, etc. Use what works. I'm not saying to do otherwise. I think it would make complete sense if someone said, "A high-quality kibble would be more nutritious, but I simply can't find something that works to lessen his symptoms and his quality of life was suffering. Therefore, this (Iams, Eukanuba, Purina, etc.) is our only option." But to argue that a higher quality food is NOT more nutritious makes no sense. It's as silly as saying "A McDonald's chicken sandwich and french fries is just as nutritious as lean chicken breast and a baked potato from your grocery store." Would anyone be willing to argue that? If you can find a way to make it work for your dog and your budget, a high quality food (in my opinion) will always be superior to a food containing low-quality ingredients. [Emphasis added.] That STILL doesn't mean that it's right for every dog.

 

I also stated that this evidence is specifically "anecdotal" (def: based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation). It's my personal experience, nothing more. The fact that my animals are healthy could be nothing more than sheer luck, or it could be because of the choices I've made. There's no way to tell without cloning them and subjecting them to two different forms of treatment throughout their lifetime. But I've spoken to hundreds if not thousands of other pet owners who have their dogs on high-quality diets and have seen them come back from the brink of death, recover spontaneously after battling a chronic ailment or allergy, or improve in energy and quality of life (especially seniors). It's all anecdotal, but it's there, and it matters to me. But ultimately, you should do what makes the most sense to YOU for you and your pet.

Whew. I am just plumb wore out after reading all that.

[Guest Kaila]

I think I'll be staying far away from the food and dietary section of this particular forum.. lol! I haven't seen as much division over diet on other breed forums and I can surely get my fill of nutrition talk there.

[4My2Greys]

Kaila, unfortunately no matter how much sense your argument makes in favor of quality ingredients this is all some will ever hear.

 

[a_daerr]

I do understand where this is coming from- people are doing what they think is best for their pets, which includes feeding good food. But IMHO, all the natural, grain-free, holistic, organic foods are just a passing fad. Companies like Hills, Iams, and Purina have researched and produced pet food for decades. The whole "dogs are carnivores!" idea didn't come about until the last five years or so. Even my vet (who also practices holistic therapies like acupuncture and chiropractics) admits that most of it is a marketing scheme to guilt you into paying $60-$70 per bag for dog food. The truth is that dogs are omnivores. There is nothing wrong with grain being a staple in their diet. I think I speak from some experience when I say that it is difficult to make premium foods work for greyhounds. When I first adopted Henry almost three years ago, I tried the premium food route. After trying four different high-end brands, we were still battling constant diarrhea and general intestinal upset. I thought maybe it was because of his history as a racer, he had digestive intolerance from "track food." But as it turned out, I had terrible experiences feeding premium food to my 12-week-old greyhound puppy who never raced a day in his life.