Dog Food Questions - merged

vwman_3

I get my Burns in Swansea and it costs £34.75p for a large sack, but it is made locally.

suki1964

user55 wrote: »

Help me out here because I'd love to be able to feed my 2 on Burns but currently it's twice the price per 15kg bag of the Burgess I do feed them.

Presumably Burns is basically higher in calories than the Burgess, therefore you need to feed less of it. But don't the dogs still fee hungry? I mean, if I eat a mars bar at 300kcals, I'm going to feel hungrier than if I eat a 300kcal balanced meal. Hmmm, bad example.

I need to go away and think my question through! But my hounds are somewhat greedy and one of them is a terrible food thief as it is, so I'm worried that feeding a smaller qunatity of food will fill them up less, even though the calories and nutrition may be better. Do you see what I mean?

If you have naturally greedy dogs then burns might not be for them. It is a very small amount of food given per meal because its very dense. I have tried two cockers and a springer on Burns - neither done well. Mind I know a lot of cocker owners who feed burns no problems and I know a lot who bulk it with cabbage.

High end kibbles are very dense. Even comparing the bag sizes they are smaller. I think you need to compare eating a mars bar to a milky way. Theres a lot of fresh air and junk in cheaper kibbles.

One thing you can do is ring Burns and talk to them. They are fantastic and they send out good sized samples to try. Also try arden grange and JWB - all will send out samples see how you go,

You might find the food thief gets filled up better on a better quality food. I know you will be needing far fewer poo bags

Rosie111

I vote for Wagg.

I have a two year old Lab who was previously fed on Burns and would not put on weight (she was very skeletal!!). Even tried upping the amounts, no luck. Tried JWB but not much better than Burns. Poor coat and the most horrendous smelling wind (Same on Buens and JWB).

Switched to Wagg, have saved a fortune. She's put on weight and is maintaining a healthy weight. Her coat is soft and shiny and its cheap!!! Most importantly - very occasional wind.

Sue

5AM

.............................

5AM

Rosie111 wrote:

I vote for Wagg.

I have a two year old Lab who was previously fed on Burns and would not put on weight (she was very skeletal!!). Even tried upping the amounts, no luck. Tried JWB but not much better than Burns. Poor coat and the most horrendous smelling wind (Same on Buens and JWB).

Switched to Wagg, have saved a fortune. She's put on weight and is maintaining a healthy weight. Her coat is soft and shiny and its cheap!!! Most importantly - very occasional wind.

Sue

Your dog must be unique to have such a bad reaction to Burns and JWB! Yes some may not like the "taste" but thrive well.

Wagg is a good (ish) cheap complete so well done on finding one that suits your dog.Today 5:15 PM

A point to note, if your dog has trouble putting on or maintining weight then it would usually suggest dietry issues.

Speaking from personal experience Burns has a protein content of 18.5 which is generally ideal for most dogs (should not go higher than 20% as a general rule). Maybe your dog is overly active? One of mine eats more than the other despite being similar weight because he is such a fidget!

Something else to note, never take notice of the recommended rations on the bag.

ZootHornRollo

foreign_correspondent wrote: »

if you top them up with veggies are you not just re-creating the sort of proportions found in cheaper foods - regarding which, people's main grumble seems to be that 'meat is not the main ingredient'?

I do not think this is a bad thing for dogs as canines have evolved to eat more than just meat, but it is often one of the arguments used against cheaper foods.

i think the bigger issue when meat is not the main ingredient is that other very poor nutritional substances like husk and animal derivatives (read crushed up beaks and trotters) are used to bulk out the mixture.

5AM

ZootHornRollo wrote: »

i think the bigger issue when meat is not the main ingredient is that other very poor nutritional substances like husk and animal derivatives (read crushed up beaks and trotters) are used to bulk out the mixture.

Exactly

suki1964

5AM wrote: »

Your dog must be unique to have such a bad reaction to Burns and JWB! Yes some may not like the "taste" but thrive well.

Wagg is a good (ish) cheap complete so well done on finding one that suits your dog.Today 5:15 PM

A point to note, if your dog has trouble putting on or maintining weight then it would usually suggest dietry issues.

Speaking from personal experience Burns has a protein content of 18.5 which is generally ideal for most dogs (should not go higher than 20% as a general rule). Maybe your dog is overly active? One of mine eats more than the other despite being similar weight because he is such a fidget!

Something else to note, never take notice of the recommended rations on the bag.

Point to note I know of many dogs for who Burns doesnt not suit. My own cocker was skin and bone and dull coated on it and if you go talk to some of the cocker owners on cockers online, you will hear the same thing time and time again.

However for other dogs its the best food for them

So the only dietry issue in my dogs case and many others is that Burns just doesnt suit him

And also if you ring burns they do not suggest upping the amount of food reccomended, they always suggest adding veggies if the dog is hungry. They say that to up the intake will just cause diowotsits

mirrorimage0

i use arden grange but the cheapest supplier i have fount is berriewoods and i believe they also do burns so may be worth a try

Glpark01

we use pets at home senior for large dogs, it has a high meat % and allt he oils and vitamins my dogs need i've certainly noticed a difference in them. When i went in i asked about which food would be best and they gave me a full bag to try free of charge and said if it doesn't agree with your dog at all they'll give you a full refund.