# What's A Good nutrient Profile Anyway???



## Dr Dolittle

I can't speak to those of you that feed raw or purchase your own ingredients. But I do want to talk with those that feed what we call kibble. When you think about it, we are trusting someone else to take about 50 to 55 some odd nutrients our dogs need and concoct a formula and press it into a kibble we feed our beloved dogs, whom we love very much. Talk about trust! Now I mention nutrient profile which just indicates i am a dinosaur in the pet food industry for over 30 years now. I have loved it, not becasue I am very smart, but nutirion is not that hard, of course we don't talk nutrient profiles anymore. We talk ingredients> And we talk about the ingredients ythat marketing people have gotten us to believe are good or bad, depending on what they want to sell us. What ever looks best gets the sale. I am seeing it with vet diets now too! Vets can be duped too, they are only human.

The nutrient profile is what is delivered by all those good and bad ingredients. There are no true deficiencies even in the worst foods like Old Roy becasue the govt ensures they all provide the minimum levels to keep an animal alive. The problem is the govt has no concern about imbalances or excesses. Thats where food companies get away with murder...sometimes sadly thats literal! We all know protein, fat, vitamins, minerals. I am looking for the optimum level of protein for my growing pup, and then appropraite levels as the dog ages. No, protein excess does not cause kidney disease but from the earliest stages once it starts, excess protein is not good! The minerals in a food might be the most important to your dog's health. Excess phosphorus found in protein sources is much more harmful on compromised kidneys than the protein itself, so while foods promote crazy wolf like protein levels, no one considers the phosphorus levels. Sodium excesses should also be addressed for kidney and heart health. Unlike many dog owners, I am not interested in feeding my dogs like wolves but feeding them so they live more than twice as long as wolves! Mineral restriction is expensive so few companies bother, especailly since no one is interested. Just keep promoting meat and grain free becasue that sells! Antioxidants are amazing and ironically I find higher levels in some grocery foods than in the expensive fad diets. Cellular damage is difficult to measure but oxidation does produce alkanol levels in the blood that can be measured so we are getting better at determining therapeutic levels. The vast majority of foods have way too low levels of E or C to do anything. We all know how awesome Omeag 3s and 6's are and they also shpould be made available to consumers, yet most you can't even dind out. There is so much research into all these things but instead we see Meat First, Holistic, etc, buzz words and gimmicks that mean absolutely nothing. Based on nutrient excesses, look at the bag of your dogs food. If it says it is formulated for ALL LIFE STAGES, the nutrient levels in that food by law are not deficient for all life stages, including puppies. So that makes it a puppy food! Now if you beleiev science and research has shown us the older dogs should eat puppy food than I will not reach you! I could ask what you base that opinion on, knowing it will go back to the marketing of some fad High Protein, grain free company. I am trying my best to be positive as Kritter has asked me but to be honest, as a dog lover and someone who has devoted most of my life to this topic, it is very difficult to not want to just give up! So all life stage foods should be avoided for obvious reasons. Since every company out there has their prettier, fancier, more expensive version of their diets, I honestly can say when I look at the Protein, phosphorus, sodium, Omega 3s and 6's and antioxidant levels, very often the original so called cheaper version is healthier for my dog!! Most of you say you judge a food by how well your dog does on it. : skin and coat, stool quality, etc. That's valid, but the vast majority of dogs will do fine on any food. (I know some of you have exceptions to that! They don't apply here!) The best food in my opinion is one that does all that but helps me reduce the risks of disease such as heart and kidney disease, and promotes good health thru Omega 6's and 3's and antioxidants. That's all. Nutrition can only do so much, woring with the genes your dog has been given. Not talking therapeutic diets here, but they are the best illustration of how ingredients that most consiumers see as cheal or bad are used becasue of their unique nutrient levels to manage diseases like liver, heart, and kidney disease, urinary stones, food allergies, etc. Somehow we have switched out thinking that a company with really cool colorfaul bags and the ingredients we like and a price that makes us cringe but buy anyway out of guilt is really good, even though that kibble was designed by a company with not even one nutritionist or chemist. Maybe a well meaning dog trainer! And we demonize companies with the top nutriionists in the world that collarate with universities and researchers around the world, with the top technology and safety standards becasue they are evil and greedy. I witnessed how that happened as smaller food companies who didn't have the expertise, quality control, or research abilities had to find their niche. They did well. Now even the big eveil companies have the same flashy ingredients and bags and the same high price. OOps! getting negative again! Sorry! A word about recall though. I am certain you will hear about many more in the future but for a different reason than you think. The reputable companies have amzing safety standards in place, which you are paying for by the way. The smaller companies don't. The larger companies will spot things very quickly as many if not all recalls are voluntary and if you look, it is usually a very small batch and whatever the concern, most times turns out to be a false alarm and no pets are harmed. How many batches of food contaminated with all kinds of things have gone out from smaller companies who , to be fair, simply cannot have such stringent standards. So recalls really should encourage us that the food chain for our pets is better than ever, though I am not stupid. Just like people food it could be better. But remember. You are not buying fresh ingredients. I buy all organic and fresh food for my family! But I am buying a kibble when I buy food. The fresh, organic, whatever your thing is, has little to do with your pets health than the nutrients that kibble delivers. I don't want to demonize brands or promote brands. Just look past the marketing and hype. Does the company make their own food? Do they have board certified nutrtionists and chemists that regularly publish peer reviewed studies. ( I just excluded 98% of the foods out there! Sorry!) Does their website or literature talk about nutrients instead of the same old baloney everyone says? Will they provide me with their nutrient levels? (If not, are you really trusting them?) So to finish this and really get someone mad out there, I would never feed a diet to my dogs that did not have corn in it! And I never even look at the ingredient panel becasue they are manipulated to look the way the marketers know you want it to look and tells me nothing about the nutrtional quality of the food......Like I said, I am a dinosaur! Just call me T Rex! But my last Berner, who I loved dearly, lived to be a month short of 13 years old. Sure, she had great genes but I believe my philosophy of optimal nutrients played a big part. If nothing else, I know I gave her the best chance to live long and be happy. I know thats what we all want. God Bless.


----------



## Kritter

So what are we looking for as ingredients in our kibble? Should meat be the first ingredient(s)? A Berner who lives to 13, wow! I am hoping my girls live into their 20s which is why I make their food But I do rely on kibble some and probably get sucked into the marketing, I feed Orijen a few times per week. I have one skinny dog who I think may need something with grains. I am hesitant to feed corn since it's usually GMO, right? I would lean towards oatmeal or rice myself. 

If I am understanding correctly, any food claiming to meet AAFCO guidelines is just a minimum. Do you place any value in NRC guidelines? And AAFCO trials just make sure 6-8 dogs survive over a 6 month timeframe?


----------



## Dr Dolittle

Purina back in 1988 was the first to manipulate the ingredient panel to make chicken the first ingredient. Back then Purina was just in the grocery store and was losing lots of business to Scoence Diet and Iams and some smaller companies like NF, Fromm, etc. The ingredeint panel by law lists ingredients by weight, not volume. You have to dig in Purina's current website but they state it there too. So now everyone uses some fresh chicken with the water weight still in it, to make chicken go to the front. Its all water weight! Look further down and you will find the actual protein source, usually chicken meal among other things. The scam is so effective evey company has to do it now to compete! They also will split up ingredients into different names to split the weight and have less attractive ingredients move further down the panel. All manipulation and no nutritional information as far as nutrients. I have no respect for origen after visiting their website. Their Senior ffod based on old wolves is laughable. Find me an old wolf! And the nutrient levels are high enough for growing puppies! Also in the research section they state the diets you find in vet clinics are all the same food, just in different bags! So the arthritis diet is indenticle to the renal diet and the urinary diet, etc. Absolutely no credibility. Yes, almost all if not all corn is GMO in America. I think it is tragic. As a Christian I think we are playing God and I worry whats next! Even foods that say non GMO here in the US are probably cross contaminated anyway. SO I am with you there. Its just the real concerns of nutrient excess can be documented scientifically, GMO is still a big scary question. I suppose if i found a non GMO diet with optimal nutrients I would feed it. Corn, even the adulterated kind here is just such agreat ingredient with so much good stuff its hard to settle for rice or oatmeal.
You are right. AAFCO guidelines are very vague and just minimums and soem maximums. the NRC National Research Council is more of a joke. The ranges for each nutrient are wide enough to drive a truck thru. No surprise though. They regulate grocery foods and since that is still where the big money is they are not going to get serious about making the ranges more suitable for health and cut into profits. Kinda like the fox guarding the hen house! LOL! And yes, AAFCO feeding trials are pretty basic as well but I still have a problem with a food being made and sold, having never been fed to a single dog! In the old days that would have been unheard of. Now look at the nutrieitonal statement on the bag. If it says FORMULATED instead of feeding trials it means it was simply made in a computer and produced without ever being fed. Doesn't mean it is bad, just the company didn't want to spend the 70 K to do a feeding trial. Purina and Hills are the last two companies that do feeding trials on every diet they make. Again, some of Purinas diets like beneful are pretty bad so feeding trials is just the beginning of testing how good a food is. Again, show me the nutrients! By the way, Europe doesn't allow any GMO. Scary when the Europeans are smarter than Americans!


----------



## Kritter

What nutrients does corn have that rice and oatmeal don't? And what about potato? I see that a lot on ingredient labels. Why would a company like Orijen get rated so highly in reviews, like on dogfoodadvisor.com? I mean, what are you seeing in their ingredient list that the rest of us are not?


----------



## Dr Dolittle

Corn is a great digestible carbohydrate as a secondary energy source after fat. it also contain excellent source of dietary fiber. The heart of the kernel, the gluten part is extremely digestible protein and compliments the amino acids in meat very well. it has high levels of antioxidants and it is a rich source of O mega 3 fatty acids, 5 times that of rice. it is an extremely low allergen contrary to what food marketers say and is highly digestible if ground and cooked correctly. All these are facts yet website will say corn has no nutritional value. Origen is praised by people who drive the marketing. they are looking at ingredients only and not the whole picture. Someone mentioned how awesome j/d worked on their arthritic dog in a recent thread going on now. J/ d was listed a a low quality food by dog food advisor. The guy is dedicated and I appreciate that but he does more harm than good. think of it this way. If I showed you all the parts of an airplane laid out before you and said can this plane fly well, you would say not one of those parts can fly, and that's true. But when I combine them all just right was end up with a plane that can carry thousands of lbs into the air! All those awful ingredients used in therapeutic diets have a specific purpose, especially the ones that look or seem so weird. And all those diets produce amazing results, giving dogs more years with us. but we all just keep looking at individual ingredients and let marketers, most who have no credentials, tell us what's good or bad. I am not seeing anything in their ingredient list that they don't see. I am seeing the nutrient profiles that no one else cares to look at. If the ingredient makes me feel warm and fuzzy, I buy, becasue I love my dog. If someone like me tells them stop wasting your money on the expensive stuff it's becasue I don't love my dog enough. Maybe someone should try the 'but why' game with these food companies. But why is it good chicken is first? but why? Why is it good you have no nutritionists at your company? Why is a small company better than a large one? LOL! I'm getting negative so I'm stopping!


----------



## Kritter

You do get a little worked up So I still have an issue with corn because of the GMO so gonna read up on it. It can't be good when it's in the top 3 ingredients in a food though. I've seen Orijen listed as one of "the best" in many reviews honestly, most recently in The Whole Dog Journal. I've begun looking at Farmina based upon some other threads on this forum. It's actually no cheaper for me than Orijen, but I am looking at the Ancestral Grain Lamb. In your opinion is Farmina another marketing ploy?


----------



## Dr Dolittle

Kritter said:


> You do get a little worked up So I still have an issue with corn because of the GMO so gonna read up on it. It can't be good when it's in the top 3 ingredients in a food though. I've seen Orijen listed as one of "the best" in many reviews honestly, most recently in The Whole Dog Journal. I've begun looking at Farmina based upon some other threads on this forum. It's actually no cheaper for me than Orijen, but I am looking at the Ancestral Grain Lamb. In your opinion is Farmina another marketing ploy?


Can't argue over the corn. Monsanto is one of the evil big companies in my book! Many of our govt officials and even on the Supreme Court are former monsanto employees! It is such a dishonest situation. I can really get worked up over that! LOL! You mentioned Farmina. I believe since they produce it in Europe it would be non GMO. I talked with them a ways back and yeah, they are playing the game but if you look at their mineral content it is OOOOO much better than just about everything in that type of food. I don't agree with the high protein bit, but again, they have to be using excellent meat sources to restrict the phosphorus the way they do and that is very impressive to me. I guess I would look at the antioxidants and Omegas too. I have no respect for Whole Dog Journal. They live with the same bias of Dog Food Advisor. If the ingredients make them happy the food must be good. Again, I look for credibility! For Origen to actually print that all vet diets are the same frood in different colored bags is about the stupidest thing even an idiot could say! And a Senior food for dogs that is guaranteed to have puppy level nutirents is obsurd! But you won't read that in Whole Dog Journal. Trying not to be so negative but there is always another perspective. People may even be sincere but we humans can really get blinded by our bias's. Especially we Americans! Kritter, you're looking at that ingredient panel again!! If corn is in the first 3, it could be the company is using only corn instead of other various grains/carbs or they are using more than one meat source, splitting up the weight and moving corn further up. I will have to tell you the story about Iams Chunks years ago when they improved their diet and lost tons of breeder business, all over the ingredient panel. But right now I have to go and try and beat the next snow storm!


----------



## Kritter

I know I am looking at the ingredient panel. And I understand that meat has a higher water content, weighs more, so is listed as the first ingredient. What I have not found so far, on this forum, or on the internet, is a good explanation of how to decipher the nutrient profile. It's becoming a lot of smoke and mirrors to me and I do wonder who works for who when people are so adamantly against certain foods, but pump up other foods every chance they get. Can you direct me to a source where I can figure out how to understand what a good nutrient profile is?


----------



## Dr Dolittle

Kritter said:


> I know I am looking at the ingredient panel. And I understand that meat has a higher water content, weighs more, so is listed as the first ingredient. What I have not found so far, on this forum, or on the internet, is a good explanation of how to decipher the nutrient profile. It's becoming a lot of smoke and mirrors to me and I do wonder who works for who when people are so adamantly against certain foods, but pump up other foods every chance they get. Can you direct me to a source where I can figure out how to understand what a good nutrient profile is?


People are passionate becasue they love their dogs! Thats understandable. You will notice I have never promoted a brand though I will defend brands if statements about them are untrue. And I will only say negative things if there is a valid reason. You mentioned origen. I don't have to look any further at their info or their nutrients after reading what they say on their website and how they formulate their so called senior food. People have all weird reasons why they hate a company or love a company. Lets face it. They are all out to make money. That is not bad. Just show me why I should feed their food to my dogs and I guess as I get older I like companies that do good with their profits, so that matters to me. It is hard to be objective in this world now. Same is true with relkigion, politics, dog food, etc. We all do our best I guess. (trying to be diplomatic tonite!)


----------



## Taser

If the NRC and AAFCO profiles have such huge holes in them, where exactly do you go to get a decent profile?


----------



## Kritter

Still waiting Dr. Doolittle. Where can I find the definition of a good nutrient profile for my pups?


----------



## Dr Dolittle

Taser said:


> If the NRC and AAFCO profiles have such huge holes in them, where exactly do you go to get a decent profile?


The NRC National research Council ranges are wide enought to drive a truck thru! They regulate grocery foods so obviously the levels in these foods are more determined by the industry than by sound nutrionl science. AAFCO suffers with the same problem. Small Animal Clinical Nutrition is a thick text book with about 60 contributors, edited by top nutritionists and has Key Nutritional Factors, nutrient ranges that are better. I will say more on Kritters note next!


----------



## Dr Dolittle

Kritter said:


> Still waiting Dr. Doolittle. Where can I find the definition of a good nutrient profile for my pups?


Kritter, sory about that! Kinda feel off the world for awile there! 
Protein 21 - 38 % as Fed basis
Phosphorus .65 - 1.5 %
Sodium .25 - .58 % 

Lower levels of these nutritnets would be best. These are actual ranges of real foods. Those higher levels can be very risky as dogs age and there is NO reason for them.The higher phosphorus shows bones and junk and high sodium is added just for taste. The high prtein will drive the phosphorus up too.

Below are actual levels in real foods. Here the higher the number the better.
Vitamin E 40 - 745 IU/kg
Vitamin C 0 - 460 mg/kg 
L-Carnitine 0 - 500 mg/kg

Lastly, is the food "formulated" rather than feeding trials?
Is it good "for ALL life stages" meaning it is puppy food?

Relax Kritter! There is no perfect number. I would still go back to the repuation of the company, but even that is hard to do with everyone demonizing everyone else. Does that help?


----------



## Kritter

Kind of helps, thanks.


----------



## channeledbymodem

Kritter said:


> Still waiting Dr. Doolittle. Where can I find the definition of a good nutrient profile for my pups?


I realize that this is an old thread but since a lot of people use this board as a research resource I thought I would chime in on this. 

I believe Dr. Doolittle is correct in pointing out that a "nutrient profile" is much more significant in evaluating a food than a list of ingredients. Think of it as a "recipe." Dog food labels are like a recipe that doesn't tell you how much of each ingredient to use, in what order or what methods to use to cook them. So different cooks could use the same ingredients and create dishes that tasted entirely different. One might have more salt than the other or not enough of an herb. 

To extend the analogy to dog food, it has been established that grainless kibbles which aim for the highest amount of meat protein as a selling point often have much higher levels of calcium and phosphorus than more mainstream grain-inclusive foods. Meat is expensive and the less ash (mineral content) the higher the price. You cannot tell from a label what grade of meat meal is used nor can you find out if "fresh" meat is used how much ash is left after processing. Dr. Tim (Hunt) is unique in stating how much of the protein in his formulas is derived from meat meal and states that he sources the lowest ash content possible (Victor also states the protein from meat percentage). As an aside Dr. Hunt also sources his vitamin blend from European rather than Chinese sources, which is rare and expensive. But this is not an ad for Dr. Tim's food.

Getting back to nutrient profiles, it is often said when a dog does not do "well" on Orijen or Wellness Core that the food is too "rich" for her, a vague term that usually means "the protein is too high." Which in itself is probably not a problem. But over the long term there might very well be a problem with the ash content of the meats used and/or the high levels of calcium and phosphorus in the formula. The point being that in formulating a dry food to have the highest possible meat content in order to sell the food as a more "evolutionary" diet, the manufacturer may not be doing the animals any favor. Particularly if they are not testing the feed over time through trials. Recognizing this as a potential problem you will notice that many grain-free foods are increasingly using legumes which are rich in protein and lower in calcium and phosphorus to balance their formulas. This makes a certain amount of scientific sense although now the foods are being criticized for having "too many peas." And in fact corn gluten is probably the cheapest and most effective way to create a balanced nutrient profile along with meat and by-products but "holistic" companies can't use glutens for protein because "everybody knows glutens are allergenic."

Two last points about nutrient profiles:

1) A nutrient profile is like a recipe and recipes cannot be patented. A dog food company is no more likely to make their nutrient profile public than Smokey Joe is going to give you his recipe for barbecue sauce. So yes, there are "smoke and mirrors" everywhere in the pet food business because like Coke and Pepsi their nutrient profiles are "trade secrets." But do you really want to trust someone like Bill Bishop, the CEO of Blue Buffalo, who told the Wall Street Journal: “You can get into the market small with contract manufacturers making the stuff,” he says, displaying an easy candor. “Slap on a good label, come up with a slogan, and off you go,” he says. “There were already a lot of smoke and mirrors in how pet food was advertised, and that was the sort of stuff we were good at.”

2) In defense of prescription foods, whose ingredients often look like the "worst of the worst": the nutrient levels in foods that are AAFCO approved for maintenance of adult animals will often aggravate a pet's illness no matter how good they look on paper. A good example are the diets formulated to slow down the progression of chronic kidney disease. There is no cure for kidney disease and while a cat or dog can survive on very little remaining kidney function by the time the condition is revealed by blood tests very little function remains. It is imperative that the phosphorus content of the animal's food be lowered well below AAFCO standards. This is very challenging to do with a raw or home made diet (although not impossible). The last thing a kidney challenged pet needs is a food like Evo, that emulates the "ancestral" diet. So Hill's k/d (which has been proven effective for many years although my pets haven always hated the taste of it) needs to use nutrient sources other than meat to get the phosphorus level down. Are they using the cheapest ingredients? Maybe. But there is definitely tested science behind their formula. A pet caregiver who ignores her vet's advice to try a prescription diet because she "can't stand the ingredients" is being very short-sighted if she doesn't give the food a try. The power of positive thinking only goes so far when your pet is sick.

The two greatest threats to our pets' health are not the poor ingredients in foods from large corporations. They are over-feeding to the point of obesity, aggravated by feeding "rich" high calorie grain-free foods. And congenital defects in purebred dogs that are guaranteed to occur when the gene pool is so small, the stud book is closed, out-crosses are forbidden and breed clubs refuse to enforce testing that would preclude many dogs and bitches from procreating. If your King Charles spaniel develops heart disease by the age of three, I feel sorry for you, but I guarantee it wasn't what she was eating that brought it on. Nor could you have prevented it by rotating Orijen and Acana from the time she was weaned onto solid food.


----------



## Dr Dolittle

LOL! I want to like this twice! no, 3 times!


----------



## Kritter

I'm taking that as a sarcastic response Dr. D. Or no? What's so funny to you?

And, do we humans eat such balanced diets then obsess over the food we feed our dogs? Or is it just that most people feed their dog the same kibble daily for years? I recently told a family member that IF I ever had to feed solely kibble, I would pick a few brands and rotate through their proteins. That is the best way I can think of feeding on a budget. Plus adding fresh food If the pup does well on it. 

When I feed kibble, right now we are using Zignature and Fromm. Next I will use Acana. Plus we use canned Zignature and PetKind. We feed mostly raw though, homemade and commercial. Point (and question) being, isn't variety the key?


----------



## Dr Dolittle

Kritter, No sarcasm at all! it was totally refreshing! It wasn't funny. I don't have a smiley face or that would have been more appropriate. After 30 plus years in the pet food business I now see 90% of everything said by pet food companies is BS and has nothing to do with nutrition. And I suppose it will continue becasue it works so well, judging from the prices people are willing to pay. In my experience, most typical dog owners find a kibble that works and don't switch. But again, now with all the focus and marketing on food, I think more and more folks that love their dogs as family switch around. as far as protein sources, meat is pretty much meat, amino acids are amino acids. I for one see no benefit of various meat sources. Adding edge or certain vegetables sources make more sense to me. there is no benefit over mixing canned except spending lots more money. Adding people food, no matter how healthy, really won't be enhancing a kibble that provides everything the dog needs. I am somewhat encouraged to see folks on here starting to feed foods that others would consider awful and cheap etc, finding their dogs do just as well if not better than the high priced fancy foods.


----------



## channeledbymodem

Dr Dolittle said:


> <snip>In my experience, most typical dog owners find a kibble that works and don't switch. But again, now with all the focus and marketing on food, I think more and more folks that love their dogs as family switch around. As far as protein sources, meat is pretty much meat, amino acids are amino acids. I for one see no benefit of various meat sources.


Two major points being made here that I think are completely ignored by most pet food obsessives: 1) rotation doesn't accomplish what the net experts and dog food companies suggest it does and 2) the body cannot distinguish between protein sources because it processes them all as amino acids. Now "meat" may well be more "digestible" than grain glutens as a source of protein but that is only part of the story. Meat by-products of a higher quality may well be a better source of nutrition than a meal, theoretically composed of muscle meat, that is high in phosphorus and ash. You really have no way of knowing the quality of that meat source and like most things, price is does not necessarily correlate with quality.

What has been "scientifically" proven is that a "complete and balanced" ration is more easily formulated by using a combination of meat proteins with grain glutens, which are not allergenic to most dogs, balance the nutrient profile of the meat source, and keep the cost down. This has been Purina's philosophy for years until people started reading labels and decided they told the whole story. Of course they formulate foods to a price point and market them as disingenuously (Beneful) as any major consumer goods corporation but there is also a lot of legitimate research that goes into "justifying" those supposedly cheap "filler" ingredients.

As for rotation I used to believe it was absolutely necessary to avoid eventual intolerances and nutritional "balance." While I have happily settled on the chicken based Purina Pro Plan Sport line as Emma's everyday food I still add canned, fresh foods and pre-made raw to her kibble because old habits die hard. I really don't think it is necessary. 

Try this on for size from Rebbecca Remillard, a board certified independent DVM nutritionist, who specializes in creating therapeutic home recipes for clients who can't/won't feed OTC prescription foods:

_Question_:

I'm wondering what your position is on switching dog food routinely? do you believe that "if it's not broken, don't fix it" or do you believe that dogs should have different foods on a rotational basis?

_Answer_:

Those who rotate the protein source to "avoid" food allergy do not understand how the immune system works. If one is rotating the diet because one may have something the other one does not .... maybe but if both diets are complete and balanced by definition than it is more like mixing two different shades of red paint - the paint is still red and the diet is still complete and balanced. If you are mixing two products of which neither are complete and balance the chances that the two will gete a complete and balance intake are quite remote. So if it's not broken, don't change it.

_Question_:

I've seen conflicting opinions about the benefits (or drawbacks) or rotation feeding--by which I mean feeding a variety of high-quality pre-formulated pet food brands, with or without the addition of whole foods and/or pre-formulated raw diets, as opposed to feeding just one brand of food for a pet's entire life. My personal experience doing so has been overwhelmingly positive, having animals who have consistently been healthy, disease free, and long-lived. However, I would be interested in getting some more concrete information about veterinary nutritionists' stance on the issue. Thanks in advance for your time!

_Answer_:

Rotational feeding of various protein source will not circumvent an allergic food reaction if the pet is going to have one. In fact it only reduces your options later when trying to feed a novel protein source.


----------



## Dr Dolittle

channeled by modem, I sure enjoy your posts! you are right. those so called fillers (NOT) have a lot of research behind them, and yes, you can stop all the other things you're adding! LOL! but old habits do die hard! it's funny you mention Purina. their foods have improved immensely over the last 30 years and I would have no problem feeding most of them (not Beneful) but it is funny that Purina was the very first company to play with the ingredient panel with real chicken first. Since people started switching to foods like Science Diet and Eukanuba they manipulated the ingredient panel to get meat first. it was so successful just about every food out there has done the same trick, even some therapeutic diets! you have to now since consumers believe meat has to be first. that was in 88. I remember the day. it was Nutro who first launched the No By Products marketing in about 03. that worked so well everyone plays that game now! has nothing to do with nutrition but it sure helps sell dog food at higher prices!! ironically, if one looked at nutrient profiles, Omeag 3sand 6s and total antioxidant package, some grocery foods like Purina are far superior to the high priced foods talked about on this forum, such as Taste of the Eild, Blue Buffalo, Eellness Core, etc.


----------



## channeledbymodem

Dr Dolittle said:


> channeled by modem, I sure enjoy your posts! you are right.


Thank you  The most beautiful words in the English language are "you are rght."

I take your point about Nutro starting the war of words but Blue Buffalo puts them all to shame. Since we last visited this thread they have settled a class action lawsuit for $32M against claims they promoted their foods as free of by-products when Purina's independent testing proved they did. BB is in turn suing the supplier they said mislead them, but this is not the first time they have blamed a supplier when they failed to test their foods themselves. They have also had several recalls in just the past few months, where Purina has had only three that I can remember in many years (Beyond dry cat food, canned Alpo with tainted wheat gluten, and Waggin Trains jerky made in China). 

The FDA pressured BB to recall cat treats that contained propylene glycol, which is safe for dogs but banned for cats. Whoever formulated that product obviously hasn't the first notion of nutritional science. Yet the "True Blue Promise" singled out propylene glycol as one of the synthetic, potentially dangerous, preservatives the "big guys" use but BB never would. It's sad that a company that claims its competition is so untrustworthy is so dishonest themselves.


----------



## Dr Dolittle

LOL! yes, but 'You are wrong' might be the most useful words, though no one ever wants to hear them and fewer people have the nerve to say them!&#55357;&#56841;


----------



## Kakeh Patel

I always look forward to expand my views, thoughts and knowledge about every topic of my personal interest that includes love for animals. thanks for this valuable information and your thoughts. God Bless us all.


----------



## cuddles

> Corn is a great digestible carbohydrate as a secondary energy source after fat. it also contain excellent source of dietary fiber. The heart of the kernel, the gluten part is extremely digestible protein and compliments the amino acids in meat very well. it has high levels of antioxidants and it is a rich source of O mega 3 fatty acids, 5 times that of rice. it is an extremely low allergen contrary to what food marketers say and is highly digestible if ground and cooked correctly.


@Dr Dolittle


You said you've been in the pet food industry for 30 years. May I ask at what capacity?

You said "Corn is a great digestible carbohydrate" 

This statement is actually false. Corn is not digestible unless it is processed. So, this raises the question, why are we feeding our dogs an ingredient which must be ground into flour to be digestible. In my option, the answer is huge margins. So, we have an ingredient which is poorly digested unless ground and yet you start the sentence by saying corn is a great digestible carbohydrate.

Next you say, "heart of the kernel, the gluten part is extremely digestible protein and compliments the amino acids in meat very well". Can you explain what you mean by "compliments the amino acids in meat"? Its a well know fact that corn and other plant based proteins lack the necessary amino acids found in meat and it is also fact that corn has a lower biological value in comparison to meat. So, we have an ingredient which lacks the necessary amino acids required by carnivores animals and having such an ingredient make up most of a pet food is acceptable?

You also claimed that corn has high levels of antioxidants. So do many other ingredients which provide far superior nutrition like quinoa or sweet potatoes.

Is corn pure evil? No, but it certainly is not something to boast about. With all due respect, it seems like your just peddling the talking point of Nestle, Mars, and Hills.


----------



## cuddles

> Corn is a great digestible carbohydrate as a secondary energy source after fat. it also contain excellent source of dietary fiber. The heart of the kernel, the gluten part is extremely digestible protein and compliments the amino acids in meat very well. it has high levels of antioxidants and it is a rich source of O mega 3 fatty acids, 5 times that of rice. it is an extremely low allergen contrary to what food marketers say and is highly digestible if ground and cooked correctly. All these are facts yet website will say corn has no nutritional value.


@Dr Dolittle

You said you've been in the pet food industry for 30 years. May I ask at what capacity?

You said "Corn is a great digestible carbohydrate" 

This statement is actually false. Corn is not digestible unless it is processed. So, this raises the question, why are we feeding our dogs an ingredient which must be ground into flour to be digestible. In my option, the answer is huge margins. So, we have an ingredient which is poorly digested unless ground and yet you start the sentence by saying corn is a great digestible carbohydrate.

Next you say, "heart of the kernel, the gluten part is extremely digestible protein and compliments the amino acids in meat very well". Can you explain what you mean by "compliments the amino acids in meat"? Its a well know fact that corn and other plant based proteins lack the necessary amino acids found in meat and it is also fact that corn has a lower biological value in comparison to meat. So, we have an ingredient which lacks the necessary amino acids required by carnivores animals and having such an ingredient make up most of a pet food is acceptable?

You also claimed that corn has high levels of antioxidants. So do many other ingredients which provide far superior nutrition like quinoa or sweet potatoes.

Is corn pure evil? No, but it certainly is not something to boast about. With all due respect, it seems like your just peddling the talking point of Nestle, Mars, and Hills.


----------



## Dr Dolittle

Cuddles, Sorry I haven't responded sooner. I haven't been online for quite awhile. you bring up lots of good points worth discussing I just can't right now, but I will definitely make time to answer you. have a great day!



cuddles said:


> @Dr Dolittle
> 
> You said you've been in the pet food industry for 30 years. May I ask at what capacity?
> 
> You said "Corn is a great digestible carbohydrate"
> 
> This statement is actually false. Corn is not digestible unless it is processed. So, this raises the question, why are we feeding our dogs an ingredient which must be ground into flour to be digestible. In my option, the answer is huge margins. So, we have an ingredient which is poorly digested unless ground and yet you start the sentence by saying corn is a great digestible carbohydrate.
> 
> Next you say, "heart of the kernel, the gluten part is extremely digestible protein and compliments the amino acids in meat very well". Can you explain what you mean by "compliments the amino acids in meat"? Its a well know fact that corn and other plant based proteins lack the necessary amino acids found in meat and it is also fact that corn has a lower biological value in comparison to meat. So, we have an ingredient which lacks the necessary amino acids required by carnivores animals and having such an ingredient make up most of a pet food is acceptable?
> 
> You also claimed that corn has high levels of antioxidants. So do many other ingredients which provide far superior nutrition like quinoa or sweet potatoes.
> 
> Is corn pure evil? No, but it certainly is not something to boast about. With all due respect, it seems like your just peddling the talking point of Nestle, Mars, and Hills.


----------



## Dr Dolittle

Hey Cuddles, As far as the use of corn in a dog food, you are absolutely correct that corn MUST be cooked in order for the dog to benefit from it. In fact, it must be cooked correctly at just the right temp and amount of time, or the nutrients are either not assimilated or all the nutrients are destroyed. So the professionalism of the company come into play there for sure. Now if we were feeding raw foods as some on this forum do, corn would be out. But if we are producing a dry kibble, balanced with all 55 nutrients the dog needs, using an ingredient that must be cooked is really not an issue. Yep, if you are looking for raw, you make a great point, but corn is not to be used raw. So when I started the sentence with Corn being a great carbohydrate in a dog food, it is on that premise (properly ground and cooked) You mentioned huge margins. I honestly do not know the costs and margins companies make but I am pretty confident these days they are ALL making lots of money! LOL! But lets just stick to the nutrition since none of us know what they make as profits. I used to walk up to other food companies back a long time ago, and say "We would never use soy or vegetable protein because meat has a higher biological value than vegetable protein, meaning it has more amino acids and is more easily digestible. That's when I was young and drank the kool aid. The fact is that soy has a much lower biological value than even corn and much lower than meat, but the fact is when you combine the few amino acids found in soy with a meat source, you end up with a superior amino acid profile, which of course, is your objective anyway. Due to popular myth, you don't see much soy anymore but that is due to popular demand and has nothing to do with nutrition. Now we are seeing the same thing with corn. Ground corn on the ingredient panel is the whole kernel ground and cooked and is primarily a carb source, but when you see corn gluten meal, that is actually the kernel hearts and is a very good protein source, which maybe you can google it, but based on the quality, can have a biological value as high as meat. The fact that corn is extremely high in antioxidants and fatty acids 95 times that of rice) and an excellent source of fiber for GI health, makes it a pretty good ingredient. And I hear corn causes allergies but you won't find any real dermatologist agree with that. You have a better chance of your dog being allergic to lamb than corn. I honestly don't know what makes sweet potatoes superior to corn so I can't comment on that except to say that folks trying to avoid carbs for their dogs were switching off diets with corn to go to sweet potato, making that ingredient very popular among food companies! The sad fact is sweet potato is about double the carbs of corn. I have no problem with carbs but just pointing out how ingredients get popular without any real science behind it. So vegetable protein lacks the essential amino acids, which is correct, but again, the idea is to provide the best amino acid profile, which is why most foods will use a combination, including egg with the highest biological profile BTW, pea protein, corn gluten meal, etc, etc. LOL! I can assure you, there are lots of poor quality diets out there but none are lacking protein!!! And as far as dogs being carnivores, that is not true. Cats are carnivores for a variety of reasons. Dogs are omnivores like people. Food companies which lack chemists and nutritionists will built elaborate arguments that dogs are carnivores to support their marketing campaigns but that is all it is, marketing. As far as corn making up MOST of the diet, again, pet food companies have manipulated the ingredient panels to be sheer genius, to make you believe you are paying for more meat and less grain and such. meat first is so predominant now that everyone plays the trick because it works so well, along with ingredient splitting and of course just simply throwing in nice sounding ingredients....and of course charge a high price to convince us its the best for the dogs we love.
A far as me peddling the talking points of Mars, purina and Hills, I would just say those 3 companies are very different, have quite a different history, and quite a different philosophy on nutrition. I would actually say, with all due respect, it is you that is peddling their talking points! Now I kind of mean that tongue in cheek! you obviously are sincere. What I mean is, food companies are now letting you the loyal consumer, drive the marketing. Where I am speaking about nutrition, those companies have learned that doesn't sell pet food. So they ALL now have grain free, non corn, chicken first, all natural, beautiful bags, high prices, etc, etc, everything you want, they are giving it to you! If there were enough of you wanting indoor dog or 3 legged black dog food, they'd make it! LOL! And charge you lots more for it! So since I'm a dinosaur I remember the talking points of those companies when they actually talked about their philosophies on nutrition and would back it up with clinical studies and such. Now I can't tell any difference between the brands. They just tell you what you want to hear and build ingredient panels to convince you to spend more money on their food. Now don't get me wrong! You can look at the nutrient profiles of the diets and easily determine which ones provide appropriate protein levels, balanced mineral content, Omega 6 and 3 levels, the antioxidant package, and of course evaluate the expertise and history of the company, but who does that anymore? Even vets aren't interested in doing that, even with therapeutic diets!
So Cuddles, that's my perspective after 30 years watching pet nutrition become nothing more than smoke a mirrors, but at the same time, there have been amazing strides in nutrition with nutrigenomics and metabolism, feline diabetes, allergies, etc. And some of those huge margins you mentioned help pay for all that great research, while the vast majority of pet food makers have no chemists or nutritionists and offer nothing to the advance of canine and feline nutrition science. So we all can decide who we trust and who we give our money to. I'm sure you'll agree it is sometimes hard to make an informed decision. God Bless!


----------



## Lioness

The minimum requirement of protein for adult dogs is 18% and the minimum fat requirement is 5% according to the Merck Veterinary Manual. I don't make my own food, rather I feed my dogs Eukanuba, because it fits those requirements well, and is a really high quality dry food.


----------



## naturalfeddogs

Vets have little to no knowledge about dog nutrition. Eukanuba is one of the worst kibbles on the market. I don't feed kibble, but if I did it wouldn't be that. If you are going to feed kibble, look into something more along the lines of Fromm, or Orijen. Even Taste of the Wild is a good one and affordable.


----------



## EmmaRoo

Hi Doc, et al!
I read the first page of this thread and skimmed this last page so I know I missed some things in the middle but...
What do you think of EU Certification for for quality control as it was developed by APHIS? VeRus Pet Foods adheres to the EU Certification requirements and is EU Certified. As stated on their website: "It was developed in response to the BSE (Bovine spongiform encephalitis) crisis and is part of the EU's strategy to eradicate food-borne crises. It requires that all animal products used in pet food be derived from animals declared fit for human consumption. This provides VeRUS users a level of guarantee that no fallen animals or 4D ( Dead, dying, diseased, and disabled) meats are used in the production of our product."
Their formulas exceed AAFCO requirements. 
Any thoughts?


----------



## channeledbymodem

EmmaRoo said:


> Hi Doc, et al!
> "It was developed in response to the BSE (Bovine spongiform encephalitis) crisis and is part of the EU's strategy to eradicate food-borne crises. It requires that all animal products used in pet food be derived from animals declared fit for human consumption. This provides VeRUS users a level of guarantee that no fallen animals or 4D ( Dead, dying, diseased, and disabled) meats are used in the production of our product."
> Their formulas exceed AAFCO requirements.
> Any thoughts?


On the face of it this would seem to be a "very good thing." However bear in mind two points: 1) in the US as soon as an ingredient is processed in a plant that makes pet food it can no longer be described as "human grade" even if technically it is, and 2) lots of ingredients that go into pet food, particularly that manufactured by Purina, Iams, Royal Canin and Mars, are "human grade" ingredients that were not handled according to "human" standards at all times. In other words if a prime cut of beef accidentally falls on the plant floor it can no longer be called "human grade" and will be marked in some way and sent off to become pet food. The only thing wrong with that cut of meat is that it fell on the floor. Of course using such ingredients helps to keep the price of the Big Four products (relatively) low and conversely the price of pet foods using nominally "human grade" foods will be higher.

Now US pet food standards do not absolutely prohibit 4D ingredients from being included although perfectly nourishing non-"human grade" ingredients are cheap enough that it seems unlikely that any multi-billion dollar multi-national company would use them. Quite simply foods like Alpo and Pedigree are cheaper because they contain a high proportion of by-products, which are nourishing ingredients that have no market in the human food chain. And as unappealing as those foods may be from a marketing standpoint, they fulfill the AAFCO requirements just as readily as Orijen and may have the additional "advantage" of having been tested in actual feeding trials.

Now if you subscribe to the notion that the Big Four are deliberately including toxic ingredients in their foods to maximize profits nothing will convince you that Pedigree will keep your pet healthy (I myself don't feed Pedigree btw) and you will pay more for foods that promise they contain only "human grade" ingredients. But understand, you have no more assurance of the actual quality of those ingredients than you do those of cheaper foods that contain by-products. We are all taking what we feed our pets on trust if we feed over the counter diets. After many years of feeding animals just about every kind of diet there is, I've decided I'd rather go with a product that has been tested over many years both in the lab and in the "field" and not assume I can judge the quality of a food simply by reading the label.


----------



## Dr Dolittle

EmmaRoo, I really can't add much to what Channeledby modem has shared? I have to laugh becasue I have to believe he/she is in the food business with such knowledge. Again, human grade is great but I guess I would only add the ingredients still just deliver nutrients. IF I have all human grade, fresh ingredients but deliver a final diet that is excessive in phosphorus and calcium and unbalanced in protein and fat, I am still feeding an unhealthy diet. remember, nutrition can only do so many things. it provides all the 50plus nutrients a dog needs. that's easy. trying to control those levels at optimum levels based on science and not hype, and delivering that in the food takes a lot more. I want to provide energy, maintain muscle and other organ systems, reduce risk of age related diseases such as kidney and heart disease, and offer a high level of proven antioxidants to reduce oxidative stress. in other words, use nutrition to help reduce the risk of disease. most diets, sadly especially the newer more expensive ones, have terrible nutrient profiles, relying on fancy expensive sounding ingredients to market their product. it is sad but tru, but Veterinary GI diets and kidney diets are selling like crazy! ANd that is not becasue vets have decided to push them. that is what they are treating. match that with the incredible increase of use of foods like Blue Buffalo, Taste of the Wild, Origen, etc and you can see the connection. STrictly anecdotal but ask a vet what they are seeing. WHich diets are producing all these GI issues and early renal values??? ITs not Purina Dog Chow! ITs really a shame how the industry has changed...not that there's so much money in it.


----------



## channeledbymodem

Dr Dolittle said:


> . . . most diets, sadly especially the newer more expensive ones, have terrible nutrient profiles, relying on fancy expensive sounding ingredients to market their product. it is sad but true, but Veterinary GI diets and kidney diets are selling like crazy! and that is not because vets have decided to push them. that is what they are treating. match that with the incredible increase of use of foods like Blue Buffalo, Taste of the Wild, Origen, etc and you can see the connection. Strictly anecdotal but ask a vet what they are seeing. Which diets are producing all these GI issues and early renal values??? It's not Purina Dog Chow! It's really a shame how the industry has changed...now that there's so much money in it.


These two links pretty much sum up the sorry state of the pet food industry:

A Vet's Guide To Life: Blue Buffalo....Lies, Misdirection, And Veterinary Distrust - is.gd - Shortened URL

"Many vets don't like Blue Buffalo in large part because of extremely deceptive marketing practices, using a lot of guilt to imply that if you don't feed their food you hate your pet and are contributing to his/her early death. . . This has been a big discussion on the Veterinary Information Network (VIN). Almost every vet who posts has stories about problems with dogs and cats on Blue Buffalo. Most vets simply don't like and don't trust that brand. Here are some choice quotes from veterinarians around the country and the world.

_I cannot and do not recommend Blue Buffalo. In the ER world, many of the gastroenteritis cases we see are on this diet. 

I have seen so many cats with cystitis, stones, and/or crystals that are eating BB dry. Clearly there is something going on with their dry diets because as soon as we switch to a different diet, the urinary issues resolve. My clients also think I am psychic when they bring their cat in with a bladder stone and I ask them (without knowing their diet), how long have they been feeding BB. I think it is ridiculous and irresponsible of them as a major pet food company to not research their foods.

I don't recommend it, wouldn't carry it in my hospital. We seem to see a lot of GI problems with it but my main problem with them is their false advertising and the fact that they lied to me when I called them to ask where their food was made. Didn't say "We don't disclose that info" just plain lied.

Diarrhea, and horrible gas are the two biggest complaints I have with this food. Oh and the awful guilt driven marketing (if you aren't feeding blue buffalo you must hate dogs and want to kill yours)._

And from the very useful and well respected petdiets.com, run by the board certified veterinary nutritionist Rebecca Remmilard who devises homemade recipes for various ailments for a fee but still recommends the Rx products by Purina and Science Diet:

_There is something very wrong at Blue Buffalo ... the Chairman publically stated “Slap on a good label, come up with a slogan, and off you go.” which sounds more like high priced marketing and far too little product quality control, product development and nutritional research for dogs and cats. In this time where we have thousands of pet food products to choose from, evaluating the manufacturer, and not so much each product, is not only more efficient but perhaps more telling. 

I have no issues with a pet owner feeding a Purina product as long as the animal is doing well on it. I would pay more attention to what your dog is telling you about Purina foods than what Blue Buffalo is saying about Purina or what the sales clerk trying to sell you the higher commissioned dog food is saying about Purina._

And yet there's this:

BLUE Natural Veterinary Diet™—The Natural Choice in Prescription Pet Food - BLUE Natural Veterinary Dietâ„¢â€”The Natural Choice in Prescription Pet Food

_a natural alternative in nutritional therapy. Now you can offer your best friend a theraputic diet that features the ingredients you’ll feel good about feeding_

You have to wonder about any vet that would carry this line. I doubt very much BB is seeing much success with it.

Dr. Remillard again: _Contrary to what Blue Buffalo and the DogFoodAdvisor would have you believe, a food CANNOT be properly evaluated by reading the ingredient list. _

BTW, apropos of Dr. Doolittle's comment, I am not, nor have I ever been employed by the pet food industry but I have studied it from all sides for years as a concerned layperson. I find the columns on petfoodindustry.com to be very enlightening at times, although PFI is a trade "paper" and thus a lobbyist for the commercial food industry. They are primarily concerned with what foods are selling and there's no doubt that the "natural" grain free segment is the fastest growing. But the columns are written by professionals with years of experience who have first hand experience with the biggest companies and are slow to condemn them for being "behind the times" (and of course Purina bought Zuke's and Merrick to cover all their bases).

A particularly interesting column:

Online pet food reviews: where’s the science? | 2015-06-30 | PetfoodIndustry.com - Online pet food reviews: whereâ€™s the science? | 2015-06-30 | PetfoodIndustry.com

_. . . as many companion animal nutritionists would say, they lack understanding of nutrients vs. ingredients. . . I would go one step farther: most pet owners don’t truly understand pets’ nutrient needs, nor do most reviewers on these pet food rating sites. For that matter, neither do most marketers promoting pet food brands, and when it comes to marketing vs. science on a pet food label, guess which side usually wins?

“Many pet foods today are promoted for the ingredients they do or do not contain rather than their nutritional performance, disingenuously playing off of the consumers’ perception about the ingredients rather than their real nutritional value,” wrote Greg Aldrich, PhD, research associate professor and pet food program coordinator at Kansas State University, and president of Pet Food Technology & Ingredients._


----------



## Dr Dolittle

Dear Channeledbymodem, What a great post! by all means I was not meaning anything bad saying you must be in the industry! Most people feel they have "done their research" and are pretty clueless. You seem to have the ability to do it well. I am so happy for everyone's sake that you are on here! I'm too far away from NYC or I buy you lunch!


----------



## PupperMom

channeledbymodem said:


> I find the columns on petfoodindustry.com to be very enlightening at times, although PFI is a trade "paper" and thus a lobbyist for the commercial food industry. They are primarily concerned with what foods are selling and there's no doubt that the "natural" grain free segment is the fastest growing. But the columns are written by professionals with years of experience who have first hand experience with the biggest companies and are slow to condemn them for being "behind the times" (and of course Purina bought Zuke's and Merrick to cover all their bases
> 
> 
> _. . . as many companion animal nutritionists would say, they lack understanding of nutrients vs. ingredients. . . I would go one step farther: most pet owners don’t truly understand pets’ nutrient needs, nor do most reviewers on these pet food rating sites. For that matter, neither do most marketers promoting pet food brands, and when it comes to marketing vs. science on a pet food label, guess which side usually wins?
> 
> _


Exactly. Thank you.


----------



## EmmaRoo

Great info all the way around! I think the summary here is that we need to keep doing our research and not take things at face value or the word of ad execs.


----------



## Celt

Dr Dolittle said:


> Again, human grade is great but I guess I would only add the ingredients still just deliver nutrients. IF I have all human grade, fresh ingredients but deliver a final diet that is excessive in phosphorus and calcium and unbalanced in protein and fat, I am still feeding an unhealthy diet. remember, nutrition can only do so many things. it provides all the 50plus nutrients a dog needs. that's easy. trying to control those levels at optimum levels based on science and not hype, and delivering that in the food takes a lot more. I want to provide energy, maintain muscle and other organ systems, reduce risk of age related diseases such as kidney and heart disease, and offer a high level of proven antioxidants to reduce oxidative stress. in other words, use nutrition to help reduce the risk of disease. most diets, sadly especially the newer more expensive ones, have terrible nutrient profiles, relying on fancy expensive sounding ingredients to market their product. it is sad but tru, but Veterinary GI diets and kidney diets are selling like crazy! ANd that is not becasue vets have decided to push them. that is what they are treating. match that with the incredible increase of use of foods like Blue Buffalo, Taste of the Wild, Origen, etc and you can see the connection. STrictly anecdotal but ask a vet what they are seeing. WHich diets are producing all these GI issues and early renal values??? ITs not Purina Dog Chow! ITs really a shame how the industry has changed...not that there's so much money in it.


The main reason I feed a variety of foods (of all sorts) in, as close as possible, constant rotation is to try and prevent "overdosing" or "insufficies" of nutrients. I feed everything from raw to "poor" quality foods to "absolutely horrifying" foods(moist and meaty, anyone?). True, I do try and feed more of the meat "based" protein types (sorry, I see dogs as opportunistic carnivores, not omnivores) but have no problem feeding other foods. I've noticed with my lot that a few of the more expensive kibble brands cause tummy "problems" while it seldomly happens with "cheap" kibble. I will say that the majority of expensive kibble cause smaller, less frequent, firmer poops. On a side note, oral care poop is almost too firm, almost as crumbly as too much bone poop. Back to the point, I figure by feeding lots of different things and not feeding anyone thing in "long term" exclusiveness that there is less likelihood of diet caused health problems. Just my 2 cents worth on "brand/food type" loyalty


----------



## PupperMom

Sometimes I think we way overthink this nutrient thing. As DrDolttle pointed out, there are lots of ways to make a product sound better than it is through water weights, etc. It's the same with human grade food. Why are calories shown as a percentage of total weight? Imagine a 10 ounce glass of water. 0 calories and 0 carbohydrates. Now I remove an ounce of water and add an ounce of sugar, which by itself is about 110 calories and 100% carbohydrates, and stir it in. The calorie content of that glass of water with sugar is now 110 calories. But it is only 10% carbohydrates.

Dogs somehow survived thousands of years without reading labels. They ate whatever they were lucky enough to catch and probably ate a lot of plant matter as well. But when was the last time you saw a dog out in a corn field looking lovingly at that corn on the cob?


----------



## EmmaRoo

PupperMom, I love the example you gave of the sugar & water. So very true. I also love the mental picture of a dog in a cornfield! One of the reasons I'm so big on VeRus dog food is that whole smell thing. Every bag of dog food I've ever opened was stinky. Even the higher-priced or vet-recommended. Then I opened the VeRus Life Advantage dog food and it didn't stink at all! The Menhaden fish formula smelled like fish but it wasn't the disgusting, dead fish smell you get with cat food. It smelled like a fresh, live fish. Another thing about the corn - my little rescue mutt IS allergic to corn or how it's processed. I simply can't feed her corn without making her so itchy that she can't take 2 steps without stopping to scratch. Thankfully, VeRus doesn't use corn in their formulas anymore.


----------



## Dr Dolittle

LOL! WE overthink everything we care about! It's the American way I think! EXcept maybe politics!


----------



## OtherGuy

The standards for the AAFCO feeding trials are a joke.

They only require 8 dogs, and 2 are allowed to drop out due to ill health. 

Otherwise they need to survive for 26 weeks (half a year) and pass physicals.

No one should feel sanguine about dog foods clearing a very low bar.

Bill


----------



## Osaka71

I always look forward to expand my views, thoughts and knowledge about every topic of my personal interest that includes love for animals. thanks for this valuable information and your thoughts.


----------

