# I need help



## whiteleo (Sep 7, 2008)

O.K. I'm sending up a rescue who needs to be fostered to some B.T. club members in Canada, I asked them what they feed their own dog and to my horror:tape: they said Purina Pro Plan Chicken/Brown rice..Here is the ingredients and I need ammunition or good help in telling them exactly what is wrong with this food, I will be sending the rescue up with Acana, and hopefully they will look at the ingredients and see for themselves



.Chicken, barley, dried egg product, chicken meal (natural source of glucosamine), brewers dried yeast, brewers rice, animal fat preserved with mixed-tocopherols (form of Vitamin E), brown rice, oat meal, pea protein, dried beet pulp, natural flavor, fish oil, salt, L-Lysine monohydrochloride, calcium carbonate, calcium phosphate, potassium chloride, dried tomatoes, dried carrots, dried sweet potatoes, zinc proteinate, Vitamin E supplement, DL-Methionine, L-ascorbyl-2-polyphosphate (source of Vitamin C), manganese proteinate, ferrous sulfate, niacin, copper proteinate, Vitamin A supplement, calcium pantothenate, thiamine mononitrate, riboflavin supplement, Vitamin B-12 supplement, pyridoxine hydrochloride, folic acid, Vitamin D-3 supplement, calcium iodate, biotin, menadione sodium bisulfite complex (source of Vitamin K activity), sodium selenite. 
C-4407


----------



## Sprocket (Oct 4, 2011)

a friend of mine is considering switching from ProPlan so I'm subbing  I'd like to know more!


----------



## Tobi (Mar 18, 2011)

Chicken, barley, dried egg product, chicken meal (natural source of glucosamine), brewers dried yeast, brewers rice, animal fat preserved with mixed-tocopherols (form of Vitamin E), brown rice, oat meal, pea protein, dried beet pulp, natural flavor, fish oil, salt, L-Lysine monohydrochloride, calcium carbonate, calcium phosphate, potassium chloride, dried tomatoes, dried carrots, dried sweet potatoes, zinc proteinate, Vitamin E supplement, DL-Methionine, L-ascorbyl-2-polyphosphate (source of Vitamin C), manganese proteinate, ferrous sulfate, niacin, copper proteinate, Vitamin A supplement, calcium pantothenate, thiamine mononitrate, riboflavin supplement, Vitamin B-12 supplement, pyridoxine hydrochloride, folic acid, Vitamin D-3 supplement, calcium iodate, biotin, menadione sodium bisulfite complex (source of Vitamin K activity), sodium selenite. 
C-4407

Barley: Since when have dogs been farmers?
Dried egg product: what is this? whites, yokes, shells? 
Chicken meal (natural source of glucosamine): that tells me that they are using feet, heads, lots of bone etc. sure it might be okay in a raw form, but what good does it do when every nutrient is cooked out and they have to replace it with artificial sources of glucosamine.
Brown Rice, Oat meal: again, when did they start farming, dog lack amylase in their saliva to begin the breakdown of carbohydrates, as such it falls to the pancreas to create it putting extra strain on them. an unnecessary ingredient.


----------



## 1605 (May 27, 2009)

whiteleo said:


> O.K. I'm sending up a rescue who needs to be fostered to some B.T. club members in Canada, I asked them what they feed their own dog and to my horror:tape: they said Purina Pro Plan Chicken/Brown rice..Here is the ingredients and I need ammunition or good help in telling them exactly what is wrong with this food, I will be sending the rescue up with Acana, and hopefully they will look at the ingredients and see for themselves
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Firstly, tread VERY lightly on this topic. Because calling them out on the food they are currently feeding their own dogs is tantamount to an insult. Simply include all the GOOD things about YOUR chosen food and refrain from pointing out how BAD the food is they're giving their dogs.

In addition to all the "good things" in the food you are sending to them, remind them that Acana is Canadian. Also, that when feeding a food of this quality, that you can feed LESS of it to the dog. Thus while the checkout price may be more than "other brands", the fact that you feed the dog LESS of it means a saving.

Bonne chance,


----------



## whiteleo (Sep 7, 2008)

I believe they will be receptive, they are having a fatty tumor removed on Tuesday from Chewy, BTW who is very overweight, they say she is just lazy but to be honest, I believe the food is the culprit. what is mixed tocoherols? does it have something to do with soy?


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

Mixed tocopherols almost certainly contain soy. The grains can cause allergies. 

Also, the first ingredient is "chicken." That sounds good, but it's chicken BEFORE it's cooked down. That is the wet weight. It will, in actually, lose about 80% of its weight and fall way down the ingredient list, making barley the #1 ingredient. 

*ANIMAL FAT - VERY VERY BAD. Almost certainly contains euthanized animals.*

Brewers rice - "A processed rice product that is missing many of the nutrients contained in whole ground rice and brown rice. Contrary to what many pet food companies want to make you believe, this is not a high quality ingredient, just much cheaper than whole grain rice. " The Dog Food Project - Ingredients to avoid

I could go on but I think you get the drift. Not a good dog food.


----------



## DaViking (Sep 27, 2011)

Just to play the contrarian here. It could be so much worse than Pro Plan, it's nothing like Purina One, Dog Chow and similar.
That being said, It's guaranteed to be 4d meats in this food, and other ingredients which are controversial in the first place are not even of best possible quality.
The Pro Plan series is an old old product line. Believe it or not but most of what we'd call active and responsible pet parents still feed this kind of food. The faith in these old school formulas from ProPlan, Hills, Royal Canine and Eukanuba is still very strong. They where once the bees knees of food, not so much anymore. If the budget is not an issue try telling them that the world have moved on and this is not the 80's or 90's 

Best of luck with the rescue, you are doing awesome work.


----------



## 1605 (May 27, 2009)

xellil said:


> Mixed tocopherols almost certainly contain soy. The grains can cause allergies.


Where are you getting the information that mixed tocopheroals contain soy? Also, soy is not a grain, it's a legume. 



> Also, the first ingredient is "chicken." That sounds good, but it's chicken BEFORE it's cooked down. That is the wet weight. It will, in actually, lose about 80% of its weight and fall way down the ingredient list, making barley the #1 ingredient.


*



ANIMAL FAT - VERY VERY BAD. Almost certainly contains euthanized animals.

Click to expand...

*This is entirely speculation! What are you basing this on?

Please, people... stop the reactionary assumptions.


----------



## RCTRIPLEFRESH5 (Feb 11, 2010)

purina one isnt too bad? i thought it was one of the better purina foods?
the proplan leo posted actually doesnt look THAT bad..much better than science diet....but anyway...
what is bad?
purina is trying to be deceptive by listing chicken as the first ingridient. kibble is made by taking ingridients and then baking them(drying them up)..the ingridients are listed in the order they occur prior to cooking...so once the chicken is cooked there will be much less of it than barley..which is the true first ingridient
that being said dogs are carnivores and barley is a filler/allergan.
animal fat is bad, because it doesnt say what animal....there are three dif types of fats...animal being most generic..than pultry being generic but less so than animal fat(still bad)...than chicken, duck, or turkey fat...being good...the most specific the better.
other than that..i can;t nit pick..i wouldn't feel right bashing purina for using brown rice....when it is no worse than the potatoes or peas found in orijen
and toby...dried egg product just means whole eggs to my knowledge..i think there is a legal issue that since all ingredients in pet foods are considered pet grade once they reach the factory, they can;t be called eggs.


DaViking said:


> Just to play the contrarian here. It could be so much worse than Pro Plan, it's nothing like Purina One, Dog Chow and similar.
> That being said, It's guaranteed to be 4d meats in this food, and other ingredients which are controversial in the first place are not even of best possible quality.
> The Pro Plan series is an old old product line. Believe it or not but most of what we'd call active and responsible pet parents still feed this kind of food. The faith in these old school formulas from ProPlan, Hills, Royal Canine and Eukanuba is still very strong. They where once the bees knees of food, not so much anymore. If the budget is not an issue try telling them that the world have moved on and this is not the 80's or 90's
> 
> Best of luck with the rescue, you are doing awesome work.


----------



## Tobi (Mar 18, 2011)

they can call it whatever they like, it just about how they choose to label it on their packages. I'd prefer a company that labels whole eggs, or dried eggs vs. egg product.

Evo calls their product---> EGG
Orijen has this listed for theirs--> fresh whole eggs
Wilderness chicken ---> Dried Egg

The definition of "egg product" per AAFCO is "Product obtained from egg graders, egg breakers, and/or hatchery operations that is dehydrated, handled as liquid or frozen. These shall be labeled as per USDA regulations governing eggs and egg products (9CFR, Part 59). This product shall be free of shells or other non-egg materials except in such amounts which might occur unavoidably in good processing practices, and contain a maximum ash content of 6% on a dry matter basis."

There is no AAFCO definition for "eggs", and just like other items for which no specific definitions exist (e.g. various fruits and vegetables etc.), they may be added in dehydrated, dried and then re-hydrated, or fresh form even without any additional descriptive terms. So just because a food lists "eggs" instead of "egg product" in the ingredient list doesn't mean they have to be fresh or whole, or if they are whole, they are not necessarily of better quality.

Last but not least, just like meat meal that is already concentrated before being added to the kibble "dough", a dehydrated egg product of good quality adds more protein to a food formulation than eggs that still contain a lot of moisture. *As always, the quality of the ingredient depends on the manufacturer's choice*.


----------



## DaViking (Sep 27, 2011)

RCTRIPLEFRESH5 said:


> purina is trying to be deceptive by listing chicken as the first ingridient.


They are not trying to be deceptive, they are like the honey badger, they just don't care. There's a difference.




RCTRIPLEFRESH5 said:


> purina one isnt too bad? i thought it was one of the better purina foods?


ProPlan, ProPlan Selects and One Beyond are the only half decent Purina branded products imho.



RCTRIPLEFRESH5 said:


> that being said dogs are carnivores and barley is a filler/allergan


Barley is a perfectly fine source of energy and is to a much lesser extent than meat proteins an allergen. Not all foods can be in the super-premium category. Reducing or eliminating grains from a formula will automatically increase it's price (Some exceptions like Horizon Pulsar) Let's face it, many are not willing to pay 60 to 90 bucks per bag of food. Most of these dogs do just fine on moderate grain levels. Heck, my mother in law who is not flush with money had to put down her Am. Cocker yesterday. He was 18 years old, eating mostly Dog Chow his entire life.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

SubMariner said:


> Where are you getting the information that mixed tocopheroals contain soy? Also, soy is not a grain, it's a legume.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's not reactionary - read anything about mixed tocopherols. Here in the US they are almost certainly derived from soy. Even look at the websites of people that MAKE it - they say it comes from soy.

My comment about grains was a separate sentence and meant the grains in the product, not the tocopherols.

Animal Fat - from the Dog Food Project. There is also information on that from susan Thaxton and A Pet's Breakfast, as well as other sources. 

There's absolutely nothing reactionary about anything I said.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

DaViking said:


> They are not trying to be deceptive, they are like the honey badger, they just don't care. There's a difference.


I disagree. Those ingredient lists were developed to be deceptive. Make them make everything dry weight, and see where it falls on the ingredients list. If they didn't care, they'd put it where it belongs.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

From susan Thaxton:
EPA Document Proves Euthanized Dogs and Cats are Rendered



> The FDA found the common pet food ingredients Animal Fat, Meat and Bone meal, Beef and Bone meal, and Animal Digest "could include euthanized animals." http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/CVM/CVMFOIAElectronicReadingRoom/ucm129134.htm


She's got references to original government documents. Speculative and reactionary? Nope.

and from the dog food project:


> Animal Fat
> 
> 
> AAFCO: Obtained from the tissues of mammals and/or poultry in the commercial processes of rendering or extracting. It consists predominantly of glyceride esters of fatty acids and contains no additions of free fatty acids. If an antioxidant is used, the common name or names must be indicated, followed by the words "used as a preservative".
> ...


----------



## 1605 (May 27, 2009)

xellil said:


> From susan Thaxton: EPA Document Proves Euthanized Dogs and Cats are Rendered She's got references to original government documents. Speculative and reactionary? Nope. and from the dog food project:


 Did you actually read the document, or just rely on that single quote? I read the document. NO WHERE does it reference dogs, cats, or other pets being used in the rendering process for fats, either edible or inedible. In fact this part of the document: Table 9.5.3-1. COMPOSITION OF RAW MATERIALS FOR INEDIBLE RENDERING, outlines all the animals used for inedible fats. NO PETS ARE LISTED. So the person who wrote the article that you are quoting put in that single line with that single phrase even though nothing else in the document supported it. Nope... no reactionary knee-jerk stuff in there... :drama: 




> ]It's not reactionary - read anything about mixed tocopherols. Here in the US they are almost certainly derived from soy. Even look at the websites of people that MAKE it - they say it comes from soy.



I did a little "googling" on my own & found that MOST mixed tocopherols are derived from Vitamin E; soy is used in a small portion of the production of these chemicals. Meanwhile, I have to admit that I'm a little confused as to WHY soy is supposed to be so bad? What about soy is detrimental to the health of dogs?

Regardless, I think we should get back to the OP's topic of how to convince someone of the features and benefits of "better" dog food.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

So what does "Animal Shelters" mean? they are getting beef cattle? come on.


----------



## PDXdogmom (Jun 30, 2010)

While I've never chosen to feed any Purina product, there are millions who do feed the Purina Pro Plan line and are very happy with it - and some of them are breeders.

While any of us could nitpick every ingredient in the ingredient list, I'd focus on 3 primary reasons for looking at a different food.

1. It is low on meat-based protein because barley is the #1 ingredient after processing due to the moisture in chicken. Look for a kibble that has a specific animal meal listed before a carbohydrate.
2. It uses unnamed animal fat and animal digest - meaning it could be any animal. You don't know from bag to bag what you might be getting.
3. It is over-priced for what it is.

Then I would highlight the positives for the brand you are sending to the family. If you are sending a grain-free Acana and price is a concern for this family, they could try one of the grain-inclusive Acanas which would cost less. There is absolutely nothing inherently more nutritional or more natural about putting potato, peas or tapioca in a grain-free kibble than there is about barley or brown rice. In fact, I would argue that given a kibble must have some kind of binder to hold it together, brown rice is healthier than potato.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

Here is the study the FDA did which found penobartitol in pet foods. They haven't done a subsequent study, but things sure haven't gotten better. the regulations are the same today. 

These rendered ingredients were tested:
AD = animal digest
AF = animal fat
BBM = beef and bone meal
BT = beef tallow
MBM = meat and bone meal

Now, you may continue to call alarmism all you want and poo-poo the evidence, but it's all there. I am not picking one sentence out of anything.

Dog Food Survey Results - Survey #1, Qualitative Analyses for Pentobarbital Residue


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

SubMariner said:


> I did a little "googling" on my own & found that MOST mixed tocopherols are derived from Vitamin E; soy is used in a small portion of the production of these chemicals. Meanwhile, I have to admit that I'm a little confused as to WHY soy is supposed to be so bad? What about soy is detrimental to the health of dogs?
> 
> Regardless, I think we should get back to the OP's topic of how to convince someone of the features and benefits of "better" dog food.


Actually, the Vitamin E is in the soy and they extract it, I believe.

Soy is a common allergen, for one.


----------



## DaViking (Sep 27, 2011)

herp derp

Animal protein are by far the biggest cause of food allergies in dogs, by far as like not even in the same ballpark. Bringing up plants as allergens all the time is getting old really fast. If allergies are such a huge topic for some of you start addressing the major causes of allergies like the environment and meat proteins. Plants fed to carnivores and omnivores are not a major reason for allergic reactions.


----------



## 1605 (May 27, 2009)

xellil said:


> Here is the study the FDA did which found penobartitol in pet foods. They haven't done a subsequent study, but things sure haven't gotten better. the regulations are the same today.
> 
> These rendered ingredients were tested:
> AD = animal digest
> ...


I read the above study. It was done 10 years ago regarding the presence of pentobarbitol residue in pet foods that were purchased in 1998, which makes the results even more dated. What's interesting is that the "highest" value was 25.1 parts per billion. Is that significant? If so, how? And how is that relevant TODAY?

That being said, the document is simply a survey/analysis: there are no hypotheses or conclusions (such as what was the source of the chemical, whether or not that amount of that chemical is harmful to the pets ingesting it, etc.)

IOW, the survey is nothing but a survey. It doesn't really TELL us anything.


----------



## 1605 (May 27, 2009)

xellil said:


> So what does "Animal Shelters" mean? they are getting beef cattle? come on.


So by your logic we are supposed to INFER what animals are included as opposed to those they actually LIST?


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

SubMariner said:


> I read the above study. It was done 10 years ago regarding the presence of pentobarbitol residue in pet foods that were purchased in 1998, which makes the results even more dated. What's interesting is that the "highest" value was 25.1 parts per billion. Is that significant? If so, how? And how is that relevant TODAY?
> 
> That being said, the document is simply a survey/analysis: there are no hypotheses or conclusions (such as what was the source of the chemical, whether or not that amount of that chemical is harmful to the pets ingesting it, etc.)
> 
> IOW, the survey is nothing but a survey. It doesn't really TELL us anything.


it most certainly tells us something. It tells us penobarbitol is in dog food. The only way penobarbitol gets in there is through euthanized animals. Unless dog food companies are adding it all by itself. Or, they are using it to kill pigs, chickens, and cows. Which would you rather believe? Take your pick. And no one said it was harmful. All it does is show that the euthanized animals taken to rendering plants end up in dog food. Period.

And like I said, the laws have not changed in the past few years. Rendering plants still accept euthanized animals. If you want to feed your dogs animal fat, be my guest. 

And I'm very sorry if you don't understand what animal shelter means. Most people do.


----------



## magicre (Apr 7, 2010)

menadione sodium bisulfite complex (source of Vitamin K activity) - this is what killed my shih tzus. cut their lives short.


----------



## 1605 (May 27, 2009)

xellil said:


> it most certainly tells us something. It tells us penobarbitol is in dog food. The only way penobarbitol gets in there is through euthanized animals. Unless dog food companies are adding it all by itself. Or, they are using it to kill pigs, chickens, and cows. Which would you rather believe? Take your pick. And no one said it was harmful. All it does is show that the euthanized animals taken to rendering plants end up in dog food. Period.


 I reiterate: the survey was done 10 years ago on dog food that 4 years old at that time. It is not current. So we have no way of knowing what the levels are of this particular chemical in TODAY'S dog food. Furthermore, there is no SOURCE indicated for this chemical. Your ASSUMPTION is that is is from "euthanized animals taken to rendering plants [that] end up in dog food". But they don't draw that conclusion in the survey. They simply state that a particular chemical was found 10 years ago in dog food that was manufactured in 1998.


> And like I said, the laws have not changed in the past few years. Rendering plants still accept euthanized animals. If you want to feed your dogs animal fat, be my guest.


 I'm sure you realize that lard is animal fat... used in HUMAN FOOD. Tallow is used in everything from cosmetics to fuel to soap. Even biofuel. So pet food is not the only place that animal fat is used. While I personally prefer not to eat foods containing lard, I don't dictate what other people eat or feed to their dogs.


> And I'm very sorry if you don't understand what animal shelter means. Most people do.


 If you look here Rescue Centers & Shelters for Cats, Dogs, Horses, Pets & Farm Animals you will notice that "animal shelters" is not a term that applies exclusively to places for pets like dogs and cats. AAMOF, when I lived in Toronto there was an animal shelter outside of the city that housed horses and other livestock. 

I understand that you are very passionate on this subject, but there also needs to be logic in this discussion as well. 

Meanwhile, I think we have highjacked this thread long enough. If you wish to continue this line of conversation, go to PMs. 

Pax,


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

SubMariner said:


> I reiterate: the survey was done 10 years ago on dog food that 4 years old at that time. It is not current. So we have no way of knowing what the levels are of this particular chemical in TODAY'S dog food. Furthermore, there is no SOURCE indicated for this chemical. Your ASSUMPTION is that is is from "euthanized animals taken to rendering plants [that] end up in dog food". But they don't draw that conclusion in the survey. They simply state that a particular chemical was found 10 years ago in dog food that was manufactured in 1998. I'm sure you realize that lard is animal fat... used in HUMAN FOOD. Tallow is used in everything from cosmetics to fuel to soap. Even biofuel. So pet food is not the only place that animal fat is used. While I personally prefer not to eat foods containing lard, I don't dictate what other people eat or feed to their dogs. If you look here Rescue Centers & Shelters for Cats, Dogs, Horses, Pets & Farm Animals you will notice that "animal shelters" is not a term that applies exclusively to places for pets like dogs and cats. AAMOF, when I lived in Toronto there was an animal shelter outside of the city that housed horses and other livestock. I understand that you are very passionate on this subject, but there also needs to be logic in this discussion as well. Meanwhile, I think we have highjacked this thread long enough. If you wish to continue this line of conversation, go to PMs. Pax,


Well, why didn't YOU go to PMs? I think I know why 

And i say AGAIN - it is perfectly legal to put euthanized dogs and cats in dog food TODAY. Nothing has changed from that study. There is no reason to believe they are NOT going into the pet food. And if it's horses and cattle, does that really make a difference? Although I doubt it is horses or cattle - using pentobarbitol for livestock is cost prohibitive. It's why it doesn't happen very often.

Human food is more regulated and dead pets are not allowed in our food. they ARE allowed in pet food. If they are in Ivory soap, I don't really care. I'm not eating it.


----------

