# Protein %



## jtb12886 (Sep 19, 2010)

Hey, i have been a lurker around here for a while and finally decided to make a post. Im curious as to why some people believe foods like orijen, NV instinct and evo have unnatural amounts of protein and was curious if someone could double check my math and clarify if i'm correct. I feed 3 cups of orijen a day.

Using orijen as an example:
-1 cup orijen=120 grams
-3 cups orijen=360 grams
-Orijen claims 38% protein

-360*0.38=136.8 Grams of protein in 3 cups of orijen

Using raw chicken as example:
-1 pound of chicken breast=112 grams of protein
-at a hundred pounds my dog would have to eat 2-3 pounds of raw

-112*2=224 grams of protein

thanks and i hope it makes sense


----------



## Tobi (Mar 18, 2011)

Short answer...

It contains about 70% moisture, whereas most dry foods contain a maximum of 10% or so. Kibbles should be fed wet as the proteins that are in say Orijen are already cooked and harder to digest than the raw protein. 

In reality a chicken breast is only about 20% protein by wet weight.


and! :welcome: to the forum :Biggrin:

EDIT: something to add.

Crude protein as stated on the label makes no reference to where the protein is derived, or if it is highly digestible.


----------



## SpooOwner (Oct 1, 2010)

jtb12886 said:


> Hey, i have been a lurker around here for a while and finally decided to make a post. Im curious as to why some people believe foods like orijen, NV instinct and evo have unnatural amounts of protein and was curious if someone could double check my math and clarify if i'm correct.


You're absolutely right in your conclusion that raw is a high-protein, high-fat diet, and only the kibbles with the highest protein content come close to raw. One study calculated the "ancestral diet" derived 47% of calories from protein and 46% from fat. The remaining 7% was from carbohydrates. An optimal diet may even be higher in protein and fat, as the ancestral diet included vegetation consumed during famines.

Note that this is different from what Tobi is saying; he's going off of weight, not calories. Calories are a more intuitive measure for many people.

Bottom-line: you're right, and people are mistaken. Now if you're question is how did so many people get so mislead, that's another issue.


----------



## jtb12886 (Sep 19, 2010)

Tobi said:


> Short answer...
> 
> It contains about 70% moisture, whereas most dry foods contain a maximum of 10% or so. Kibbles should be fed wet as the proteins that are in say Orijen are already cooked and harder to digest than the raw protein.
> 
> In reality a chicken breast is only about 20% protein by wet weight.


Thanks for the replies but i still dont understand why you care about the percentage by weight, when whats important is the actual grams ingested in a any given day. I understand raw is much easier to digest than any kibble on the planet due to its water content so therefor more than likely even more protein is metabolized when raw fed.


----------



## SpooOwner (Oct 1, 2010)

jtb12886 said:


> Thanks for the replies but i still dont understand why you care about the percentage by weight, when whats important is the actual grams ingested in a any given day. I understand raw is much easier to digest than any kibble on the planet due to its water content so therefor more than likely even more protein is metabolized when raw fed.


*I* don't care about percentage by weight; *other people* care about percentage by weight. Many arithmetic-phobic raw feeders use weight because it's an easier calculation - just stick the meat on a scale and serve. Then they wonder why their dogs gain weight when eating 1 pound of beef but don't gain weight when eating 1 pound of chicken. These same people claim that raw is a low-protein diet (wtf?). It doesn't make a ton of sense to me either.


----------



## eternalstudent (Jul 22, 2010)

You have to have a way to know what you are feeding. And that way has to make sense to you. It does not matter what that way is. Take kcal's and humans. It is a load of codswollop, meaningless, and wrong. However, it works for a vast majority of people as the way they control what they eat.

The only reason I have ever looked at % by weight, was way back, I was trying to cost the whole PMR diet for a 10 w/o pup, I wanted to see how much wet or dry food I would need to match the raw. Since then never looked at it. 

I feed meat, if my pup looks big (or has gained to much) I feed less, If she is getting skinny I feed more, the rest of the time I feed approximately the right amount ;-)


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

SpooOwner said:


> These same people claim that raw is a low-protein diet (wtf?). It doesn't make a ton of sense to me either.


Raw IS a low protein diet when measured as fed. Its the same when measured by weight or by percent of protein. By both measures its a low protien diet, however ... this the perfect amount of protein. Its the percent/weight of protein canines have lived on for a zillion and a half years.


----------



## 1605 (May 27, 2009)

Tobi said:


> Kibbles should be fed wet as the proteins that are in say Orijen are already cooked and harder to digest than the raw protein.


I've never heard of this; from where are you getting this information? It's certainly not mentioned on the packaging for my dog's food.


----------



## Tobi (Mar 18, 2011)

SubMariner said:


> I've never heard of this; from where are you getting this information? It's certainly not mentioned on the packaging for my dog's food.


:lol:

Orijen was a bad example i suppose, I read a study on the digestibility of different proteins and qualities of proteins, i can't find it i thought i'd bookmarked it, but it's nowhere to be found, i'll keep looking. 

Essentially what it was saying is that "low quality proteins" were not as digestible as the higher quality ones, Orijen uses high quality proteins hence a bad example. But according to them the foods should still be fed wet as to make sure they are staying hydrated, and to also increase the digestibility of the proteins.

I'll try to hunt it down for you.


----------



## jtb12886 (Sep 19, 2010)

RawFedDogs said:


> Raw IS a low protein diet when measured as fed. Its the same when measured by weight or by percent of protein. By both measures its a low protien diet, however ... this the perfect amount of protein. Its the percent/weight of protein canines have lived on for a zillion and a half years.


What does "measure as fed" mean. I cant fathom how raw is low protein, especially if its a mostly meat based diet. For the most part meat=protein. If i ate only meat, that would be considered an incredibly high protein diet. A gram of protein is a gram of protein, doesn't matter if there is another substance like water to add weight to the total thus lowering the percentage of protein.


----------



## SpooOwner (Oct 1, 2010)

jtb12886 said:


> What does "measure as fed" mean. I cant fathom how raw is low protein, especially if its a mostly meat based diet. For the most part meat=protein. If i ate only meat, that would be considered an incredibly high protein diet. A gram of protein is a gram of protein, doesn't matter if there is another substance like water to add weight to the total thus lowering the percentage of protein.


Measure as fed = measured by weight. By weight, raw is low protein = under 30% (because 70% is water, and depending on the type of meat, about half will be protein).

RFD is wrong when he says that by either measure raw is low protein. Raw meat is a high protein, high fat diet. (Atkins anyone?) However, he's correct in saying that _for dogs_, raw meat (muscle, bone and organ) is the _appropriate_ amount of protein.

Bottom line, jtb, is if these little nuances are messing you up, then you are too focused on the trees and are missing the forest. Potatoes, potahtoes. Feed raw; it's better for your dogs.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

jtb12886 said:


> What does "measure as fed" mean. I cant fathom how raw is low protein, especially if its a mostly meat based diet. For the most part meat=protein.


Measure "as fed' means that when you feed a chicken quarter that is 60-70% water, there is 60-70% of the volume that can not possibly be protein. There is also bone and fat which contain very little protein. Sooo that is not all that much potein in a chicken quarter. Ground meat won't have bone but will have fat and water. 

When you feed kibble, there is less than 10% water that cannot be protein. What I am saying is you can't compare protein in one against protein in the other. Apples & oranges.


----------



## Caty M (Aug 13, 2010)

Raw is only 20% protein *by weight*. You can't compare raw and kibble as is because raw is hydrated. If you *dehydrate* raw, it's more than 50% protein. Raw is NOT a low protein diet. That's like saying Orijen is a high protein kibble, but if you add water, it's a low protein food. It's not. There is still the same number of grams of protein in the overall meal. If you compare the protein percentage of dehydrated raw to Orijen kibble, raw is going to be higher in protein and fat... so I never understood the reasoning behind feeding a low protein kibble.


----------



## jtb12886 (Sep 19, 2010)

Caty M said:


> Raw is only 20% protein *by weight*. You can't compare raw and kibble as is because raw is hydrated. If you *dehydrate* raw, it's more than 50% protein. Raw is NOT a low protein diet. That's like saying Orijen is a high protein kibble, but if you add water, it's a low protein food. It's not. There is still the same number of grams of protein in the overall meal. If you compare the protein percentage of dehydrated raw to Orijen kibble, raw is going to be higher in protein and fat... so I never understood the reasoning behind feeding a low protein kibble.


I tend to agree. I believe u have to compare the two on the same level and when done raw meat will come out higher in protein no matter how u slice it. Adding water doesnt decrease the amount of protein, only the percentage of protein. Thanks everyone


----------

