Dog Food Questions - merged

Beebop

My Puppy lab gets Hills complete food - has been on it since 10 weeks old and is in fantastic condition.
I know some people say it's too expensive (and yes it is pricey) but the dog seems to be thriving on it, plus, there is noticeably less production at the other end (if you know what I mean!)
Gets bits of veggies plus mashed banana in his Kong - the greatest invention in the world for keeping a dog occupied imho!
Most labs will eat anything and everything if you let them - bless!

scheming_gypsy

Emmabeth wrote: »

I feed my dogs a raw diet and much of that I can get cheap in bulk, or free.

.

me too. i get lamb ribs and cow bones, although i think there was some cow ribs in there today. I get as much as i want for free. They both have amazing teeth, glossy coats and are both as healthy as they could be.
I throw them raw veggies as well when cooking.

BARF is as natural as you can get. In stead of buing chicken breasts when cooking i'll buy a chicken, cut the meat off and throw the carcass to the dogs.

pink_piggy17

All supermarket brands, e.g. pedigree chum, bakers etc. are rubbish. full of additives, colourings etc. Get a good quality dry food such as husse, burns, hills science plan, royal canin etc. or a natural soft food such as naturediet. (can all be bought online as far as I know)

suki1964

pink_piggy17 wrote: »

All supermarket brands, e.g. pedigree chum, bakers etc. are rubbish. full of additives, colourings etc. Get a good quality dry food such as husse, burns, hills science plan, royal canin etc. or a natural soft food such as naturediet. (can all be bought online as far as I know)

I do think its wrong to say they are "rubbish" as you will find that Purina, Pedigree, Waltham, Nestle etc pump a lot of money into their animal foods research to get a balanced complete food

They may not be the best foods you can choose though if you are wanting to avoid additives, colourings, high fat foods

pboae

A food can contain all the nutrients, minerals, vitamins, etc required and still be rubbish.

If you chose to live on diet of fast food burgers & fries, it wouldn't be malnutrition that killed you.

suki1964

pboae wrote: »

A food can contain all the nutrients, minerals, vitamins, etc required and still be rubbish.

If you chose to live on diet of fast food burgers & fries, it wouldn't be malnutrition that killed you.

Agree with you in all honesty but I still think you cant be saying on a public board that "all supermarket brands are rubbish" - that's just asking for trouble

Sure there are some of us who choose to feed what we perceive to be better quality foods and sure its good that we advise and share experience, but I still stand by that the food mentioned are not "rubbish" as there are millions of dogs living long and healthy lives fed on those brands mentioned and a lot of pet owners happy with their choice of food.

And I choose not to feed them myself now I know whats in them and how my dog reacts to certain ingredients

themanbearpig

pink_piggy17 wrote: »

All supermarket brands, e.g. pedigree chum, bakers etc. are rubbish. full of additives, colourings etc. Get a good quality dry food such as husse, burns, hills science plan, royal canin etc. or a natural soft food such as naturediet. (can all be bought online as far as I know)

Almost right, but Hills science plan is not a good quality dog food. Its essential overpriced rubbish, but with brilliant marketing by the iams-hills group. Vets get very little training in pet nutrience, and the little they do get is by the iams-hills group. They market the food as special veterinary formulas, but all it really is is slightly better quality than the supermarket stuff. The vets then sell the food in the clinics, making it appear to be high quality. It makes the vet's clinic lots of easy money.

I urge you all to take a look at this site:
http://www.dogfoodanalysis.com/dog_food_reviews/
Its not completely independant, based mainly on opinion, but it is worth a look.
and read up a little about the companies that make pet foods. I dont mean to sound like im posting conspiracy theories, but the pet food industry has a lot to answer to.


I personally havnt got the time to feed my dog a BARF diet, so I feed him Orijen. Its not actually anymore expensive than something like Hills(actually a little cheaper, since you feed much less per meal), but is MUCH better.

themanbearpig

suki1964 wrote: »

Agree with you in all honesty but I still think you cant be saying on a public board that "all supermarket brands are rubbish" - that's just asking for trouble

Sure there are some of us who choose to feed what we perceive to be better quality foods and sure its good that we advise and share experience, but I still stand by that the food mentioned are not "rubbish" as there are millions of dogs living long and healthy lives fed on those brands mentioned and a lot of pet owners happy with their choice of food.

And I choose not to feed them myself now I know whats in them and how my dog reacts to certain ingredients

Supermarket brands are rubbish though. Yes they give the dog enough nutrient to stay alive, but they are packed with sugar, additives that are illigal in human grade food.
The fact is that most contain around than 4% real meat is beyond a joke. Lets not forget cats and dog are not omnivores - their bodies have evoloved with a short digestive tract, to be able to process 80% meat. Grains are no good to a these animals. They physically cant processes and extract the nutrients, but its a cheap filler, so pet food companies usually use it.

Now lets look at the ingredients of pedigree dog food as an example (a typical supermarket brand)

Ground Whole Corn, Meat and Bone Meal (Natural Source of Calcium), Chicken By-product Meal (Natural Source of Glucosamine†), Corn Gluten Meal, Rice, Animal Fat (Preserved with BHA/BHT), Wheat Flour, Dried Beet Pulp, Natural Flavor, Salt, Potassium Chloride, Wheat Mill Run, Caramel Color, Vegetable Oil (Source of Linoleic Acid), Vitamins (Choline Chloride, dl-alpha Tocopherol Acetate [Source of Vitamin E], L-ascorbyl-2-polyphosphate [Source of Vitamin C†], Vitamin A Supplement, Thiamine Mononitrate [Vitamin B1], Biotin, d-Calcium Pantothenate, Riboflavin Supplement [Vitamin B2], Vitamin D3 Supplement, Vitamin B12 Supplement), Minerals (Zinc Sulfate, Zinc Proteinate, Copper Sulfate, Copper Proteinate, Manganese Proteinate, Potassium Iodide), Iron Oxide, Added FD&C and Lake Colors (Yellow 6, Yellow 5, Blue 2, Red 40).


First ingredient is a cheap filler. Corn is a difficult to digest grain of limited value in dog food, and which is also commonly associated with food allergies. The second ingredient meat and bone meal is an extremely low quality ingredient. It is the rendered product from mammal tissues, including bone, exclusive of blood, hair, hoof, horn, hide trimmings, manure, stomach and rumen contents. The third and last meat is of course a by-product. The AAFCO definition of chicken by-product meal is “consisting of the ground, rendered, clean parts of the carcass of slaughtered chicken, such as necks, feet, undeveloped eggs and intestines.
Animal fat is an ingredient of unidentified origin for which it is impossible to determine species, source or quality. Unidentified ingredients are usually very low quality.This product uses chemical preservatives. BHA and BHT are allowed in dog food products but are banned in human food production.
It also seems to include colours for our benefit. There is no excuse for adding artificial colorings to dog food products.


There is absolutely no way that anyone can argue that they are feeding their pets well with food like this. There are studies that suggest the decline of pet health, and the increase of cancers and other diseases is linked to the shockingly bad food sold to the masses.

Spudnik_2

themanbearpig - if you don't feel that you have time for BARF, what with the processing of vegetables and organs, you should perhaps have a look into feeding your pet a prey model diet - no preparation there, really, apart from cutting up chunks of meat. I used to follow the Ian Billinghurst model (BARF) of raw feeding but now follow the Tom Lonsdale model (prey model) and am very happy with the results. If you're interested, join the raw feeding yahoo group and have a browse - I find it to be an invaluable resource.

Also, much related to the above two posts, some of you might find www.dogfoodproject.com useful. Although it's an American site, much of it is also relevant over here. Do remember that the author doesn't really have any formal qualifications, but I still find it to be, for the most part, a very interesting and accurate site.

wuno

themanbearpig wrote: »

Vets get very little training in pet nutrience, and the little they do get is by the iams-hills group.

Which vet school did you go to? I went to Bristol University and don't remember that particular lecture.

Of course companies market their products. And of course they overstate their benefits and understate their weaknesses. And all big businesses are to a certain extent liars and cheats. But vets don't just sell Hills, we sell all sorts of brands, and if you think us selling bad food rather than good food is a money making scheme, you clearly have never run a business.

Dog food choice is a matter of "horses for courses" if that is not a mixed metaphor. Some dogs do perfectly well on what you describe as "rubbish". The proof of the pudding is in the eating. There I go again...

Yes a lot of dogs have problems because of grain in food, and for them potato may be a better starch alternative. However, can you genuinely hand on heart say that potato starch will never cause a problem in dogs? Potato starch foods such as Orijen have simply not been fed to enough dogs of different breeds for us to know. I'm not knocking that particular food but it's clearly wrong to say that grains are not natural foods for dogs but potatos are. How many wolves grow their own potatos?

There are obviously a lot of "natural" dog foods coming on to the market. It mirrors our preoccupation with living a natural life in general. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but when you look at some of the ingredients lists, whilst they generally do well on meat quantity and ingredient quality, they are often stuffed full of "natural" herbs, that have never been tested for clinical efficacy, or even safety in a variety of dog breeds over a long period of time. What I like to see is an ingredient list that is as short as possible and doesn't contain any of these faddy ingredients that are designed (and cleaverly marketed) to appeal to a certain type of dog owner.

Concerning your comment that feeding "bad" food is linked to an increase in cancer in dogs, whilst I don't entirely rule out the possibility that some ingredients in some foods might be carcinogenic (though I haven't seen any evidence for it), obviously the main reason why cancer is more common in dogs is that dogs are living longer due to advances in veterinary medicine (and nutrition!), and as the saying goes, "if nothing else gets you, cancer will...."