# 3 month old weimaraner



## gabulldogsfan10 (Jan 4, 2010)

What would you suggest as far as a good dog food for them kibble wise? We have him right now on halo, I'm not that big of a fan of all of the vegetables.


----------



## ruckusluvr (Oct 28, 2009)

A whole lot of kibble feeders here use Orjien.
I personally use Taste of the Wild


----------



## SuZQuzie (Nov 26, 2009)

While Taste of the Wild is great, it does not have appropriate Ca for a growing puppy.

I recently put my now 15 week old Boxer pup Orijen Large Breed Puppy and have had great success with it. :smile:


----------



## rannmiller (Jun 27, 2008)

Orijen is a great one, but it still has fruits and carbs and such in it. Ziwi Peak is a great one, but ridiculously expensive. Honestly, the only way to eliminate veggies from your pup's diet is to make your own food, which really isn't that hard. But this is the kibble section so I will leave it at that :biggrin:


----------



## gabulldogsfan10 (Jan 4, 2010)

It's not the vegetables just that halo is completely vegatbles beside the one meat source. So would ya'll suggest orijen or what? I can't find orijen anywhere.


----------



## SuZQuzie (Nov 26, 2009)

gabulldogsfan10 said:


> It's not the vegetables just that halo is completely vegatbles beside the one meat source. So would ya'll suggest orijen or what? I can't find orijen anywhere.


Where have you looked? Generally, where are you located?

It is a rare food, but I feel it is worth it. The closest store to me that carries it is 3 hours away. It stays fresh in the bag up to fourteen months, though, so I stock up. Right now I have enough puppy food to last him until he is ready for adult food. :biggrin:

As for the vegetative ingredients in Orijen, compared to most other premium dog foods, are minimal. As they say on their website, which is the only source available to us on this subject, it is 70% meat.


----------



## gabulldogsfan10 (Jan 4, 2010)

I live near columbus, Georgia can't seem to find it anywhere. So can anyone suggest any close alternatives.


----------



## Unosmom (May 3, 2009)

Grain free foods are generally regarded as being better, but not all of them are formulated for all life stages, so its important to find one that does. 
Orijen makes a puppy formula and they also make a food called Acana provincial which is suitable for puppies. 

You should also check out Horizon legacy, which is very similar to Orijen. 
Make sure to check the manufacturers site for store locations.

If you cant find grain free puppy food, he'll be fine on grain inclusive until 1 year of age, then you can switch to grainless diet. Couple of the good brands are Innova and Wellness.


----------



## Unosmom (May 3, 2009)

Forgot to add, you should also look into ordering online, some of those are

Online Pet Supplies, Pet Food, and Pet Products | Over 16,000 Pet Products Available at PetFoodDirect.com

Dog Food | Cat Food | Bird Food | HeartyPet.com

Premium & Organic Dog Food and Dog Treats - Free Shipping

When you go on petfoodirect website and sign up for a newsletter at the top, they'll send you weekly coupons, though I only use the 20% off ones which are the best value. 

Heartypet will also send you coupons in the mail and often have the 50% off shipping deals. Right now they are having a 50% off shipping, coupon code: WINTERSHIP (ends jan 5th)


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

Most people recommend gran free kibbles as they have a reputation of being more species-appropriate. The reality of it is they are too rich for most dogs, and they take the grain out only to pump in the potato... which is just as bad as grains, so IMO they are NOT worth the higher price tag. 
Unfortunately there is no such thing as a species appropriate kibble, and every kibble on the market is dangerously high in carbohydrates. However, for some people they feel kibble is the only option, there are options better than others, of course. 

Innova
Wellness
California Natural
Solid Gold
Merrick
Blue Buffalo
Taste of the Wild (grain-free)
Orijen (grain-free)
Evo (grain-free)
*"Large Breed" Formulas are a marketing gimmick, and waste of money.*

Just remember, if you really want what's best, there are other ways of feeding, but in this section, I'll just leave it at that. :wink:


----------



## SuZQuzie (Nov 26, 2009)

Large breed adult feeds are a gimmick, but large breed puppy feeds are not. It is critical to make sure that the calcium is lower and that the Ca is closer to 1:1 than for "normal" puppies.

That is unfortunate that there are no stores nearby. It may be worth it to stock up whenever you head into Atlanta since there are dozens of stores that carry it in that region.

Fortunately, Orijen offers, not samples, but trial sizes that are a full pound.

Orijen Puppy Large Trial Size 1 lb. - $4.00 : Zen Cart!, The Art of E-commerce

That way you can see if it right for your dog before you buy a truckload of it. :smile:

There are plenty of other appropriate puppy foods out there, such as Innova or Blue Buffalo.

Things I look for when evaluating a puppy food:
1. Ca. Look at the analysis and find the calcium and phosphorus levels. Usually, there is a range for each mineral, so take the average for each. Divide the average Ca level by the average P level. This number should not exceed 1.5. Generally, the closer to 1, the better.
2. Ca levels. Never feed a Ca % higher than 2% to a puppy. Ideally, this number is between 1.0% and 1.5%. 
3. No "bad" grains. Avoid corn and wheat. Rice and barley are much easier for a dog to process and utilize.
4. High meat. Try to go for at least 3 out of the 5 first ingredients to be named meat products. By-products are fine, but not optimal. There are more easily digested protein in muscle meat than meat scraps and bone.
5. Chelated minerals. The most available minerals to an animal are ones found attached to easily absorbed molecules. Look for "proteinate," "chelate," or "amino acid complex" after the mineral's name to get the best for your dog.


There are probably other things I look for, but those are the top ones.


----------



## gabulldogsfan10 (Jan 4, 2010)

I'm thinkign either california natural or blue buffalo. Does this sound alright? I want to do orijen but just think the price and having to buy only on the internet is a negative.


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

Nothing wrong with those choices. Between the two, I'd go Blue. Cali Nat is great for allergies and figuring out which ingredients are causing problems, but there is no need for it with a dog tht isn't having issues. 
Innova is also a wonderful choice, and is probably avaliable just about anywhere that carries California Natural as they are both made by Natura.:wink:


----------



## gabulldogsfan10 (Jan 4, 2010)

would regular puppy food work or should I do large breed?


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

regular is just fine. Large Breed is a rip off geared to the overly paranoid or uneducated. 
I have NEVER been fooled into a large breed formula, and my 90lb Shepherd mix is juuust fine.


----------



## SuZQuzie (Nov 26, 2009)

CorgiPaws said:


> regular is just fine. Large Breed is a rip off geared to the overly paranoid or uneducated.
> I have NEVER been fooled into a large breed formula, and my 90lb Shepherd mix is juuust fine.


I must be foolhardy, uneducated, and paranoid then, right?


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

I agree with Lindsey. Puppy, Senior, Large breed, Small breed, maintence are all marketing gimicks to make you think this particular mix of food was designed sepcifically for your dog. There is very minute differences between them. Only barely enough to say they are different. Usually just a couple of ingredients change places on the ingredients list.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

SuZQuzie said:


> I must be foolhardy, uneducated, and paranoid then, right?


I don't think that is what she was saying...but kinda?

The problem with the Ca/P levels in kibbles is that their %'s are either at a minimum or maximum. So that way, they can fluctuate which means they overlap eachother...

When comparing Ca %'s in Orijen large breed puppy and puppy original formulas:

LB: 1.5-1.7%
Original: 1.6-1.8%

Same thing for Phosphorus:

LB: 1.10-1.3%
Original: 1.2-1.4% 

How are you to know exactly how much Ca there is in the particular batch you get, when they are fluctuating in their present levels? And if it really does vary that much, wouldn't it all even out in the end...I mean between different bags or different batches?

What if you bought 4 or 5 bags of LB kibble and their actual Ca % was equal to 1.6% and P % was equal to 1.2% and that food last you through the majority of the growing period? Basically it would mean that you were feeding the equivalent to the original formula??? But paid the price for the LB formula?


----------



## SuZQuzie (Nov 26, 2009)

danemama08 said:


> I don't think that is what she was saying...but kinda?
> 
> The problem with the Ca/P levels in kibbles is that their %'s are either at a minimum or maximum. So that way, they can fluctuate which means they overlap eachother...
> 
> ...


Yes, there is a range and that is because of the way they sample. In order to get a sample, the usual protocol is to collect 20 ten gram samples from 20 different bags from the same batch. Within those small samples, there is variation that they must allow for. The optimal is the average in each range which is the intended amount by the company. 

When dealing with such small percentages, they make a substantial difference.

Let us take what my puppy is eating at 3 cups per day, which would be appropriate for either kibble.

The LB is 115g per cup, so he is eating 345g total, so he would be eating 5.52g of Ca per day.

Of the regular puppy, he would be eating 3 120g cups a day. At a total of 360g per day, 6.12g of Ca per day. 

While that is "only" a 10.9% increase per day, that is very substantial when discussing small nutrients such as minerals. "Only" a 10.9% increase of selenium or Vitamin A would kill most animals. While that is not that dramatic with calcium, one can bet my bottom dollar that it makes a difference later on.

10.9% is actually quite a bit. What if you were making 10.9% more or had to pay a sales tax of 10.9%? It makes a difference then, too.

Where I buy my kibble, the two kibbles are the same price. 

When I first started feeding Tobi Orijen, he was on puppy and did not do as well as he is on large breed puppy.

I have faith that the company is doing their best to go for the average value and that is what good companies do: I should know as I work with a few doing testing on the feeds to find out those number and fecals to determine actual digestibilities of the feeds. When the numbers don't match, they fix 'em so they do.


----------



## nufan (Dec 21, 2009)

where I buy Orijen the large breed and regular puppy are the same price anyway so I just default to large breed for my lab.


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

SuZQuzie said:


> I must be foolhardy, uneducated, and paranoid then, right?


I was making no personal attack, i am sorry you felt that way. 
But yes, anyone fooled into the many different "formulas" is one if not all of the above, and Natalie hit the nail right on the head. 

Not to mention Boxers aren't even considered "large breed" they're actually classified as medium.... just sayin'


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

I personally think that to pinpoint nutrition like that is not necessary. 

All puppies are going to digest and utilize minerals and vitamins differently, so its all rather subjective anyway. Just like you said, your puppy didn't do so well on one formula but did better on another. The majority of dogs are like this on kibble feeds.

I don't understand why dog and cat nutrition has to be so precise? We as humans don't even do that for ourselves, or at least most don't. The healthier and more appropriate your diet it, the more healthy you will be...and I think that is common sense.

Do you calculate how much Ca you get in your diet...within a %age point or two? My guess is no. And that probably goes for almost all of the minerals and vitamins we need to thrive.

I would think that it would be more important for humans to pin point nutrition considering we live longer, but we don't. Why is this?

There is the recommended food pyramid, but even that is ever changing. Look how much it has changed within the last ten years?! Of course there are the main food groups that are there to stay, but there is more emphasis on less carbohydrate sources and more on lean meats and vegatebles, which actually reverts back to thinking of what man ate earlier on in evolution...and we are without a doubt omnivorous.

Why is this concept so hard to grasp in regards to dog and cat nutrition? Feed them a well rounded, species appropriate diet and put the calculators away.


----------



## jdatwood (Apr 13, 2009)

CorgiPaws said:


> I was making no personal attack, i am sorry you felt that way.


Don't stress it... she went back and added more descriptive terms for dramatic effect 



danemama08 said:


> Why is this concept so hard to grasp in regards to dog and cat nutrition? Feed them a well rounded, species appropriate diet and put the calculators away.


Well said!!!


----------



## SuZQuzie (Nov 26, 2009)

danemama08 said:


> I personally think that to pinpoint nutrition like that is not necessary.
> 
> All puppies are going to digest and utilize minerals and vitamins differently, so its all rather subjective anyway. Just like you said, your puppy didn't do so well on one formula but did better on another. The majority of dogs are like this on kibble feeds.
> 
> I don't understand why dog and cat nutrition has to be so precise? We as humans don't even do that for ourselves, or at least most don't. The healthier and more appropriate your diet it, the more healthy you will be...and I think that is common sense.


You're right. I don't. A range is sufficient for all animals. When in a performance state, such as pregnancy, growth or elevated activity levels, the range becomes more critical.

Unfortunately, due to the nature of Ca, it is difficult to determine a quantity. It also depends on the source and form of the calcium along with its ratio to other nutrients, such as vitamin D and P.



> Do you calculate how much Ca you get in your diet...within a %age point or two? My guess is no. And that probably goes for almost all of the minerals and vitamins we need to thrive.
> 
> I would think that it would be more important for humans to pin point nutrition considering we live longer, but we don't. Why is this?


Because people don't care as much. Call it human nature. It is unfortunate because so many diseases can be easily prevented or regulated with adequate nutrition. People prefer to "pill" their way to health instead.



> There is the recommended food pyramid, but even that is ever changing. Look how much it has changed within the last ten years?! Of course there are the main food groups that are there to stay, but there is more emphasis on less carbohydrate sources and more on lean meats and vegatebles, which actually reverts back to thinking of what man ate earlier on in evolution...and we are without a doubt omnivorous.


The "food pyramid" is based on who can pay the most. It holds absolutely no scientific water. 










This here is the "new and improved" food pyramid. Despite humans requiring a huge amount of CHOs to get through the day (its the ONLY thing that the human brain can run on), which primarily comes from grains, dairy products hold a share of just as much space as grains. Why the change? The milking industry paid for the "advertising space," quite literally and nearly single-handed funded the "new" food pyramid. Being lactose intolerant, dairy products don't make up a huge part of my diet and I'm just fine. :smile:

I remember when I was little, we learned about "good eating" in class and the food pyramid. The next day I tried to eat just like the food pyramid told me to and I was stuffed to the brim! No wonder American obesity rates have continued to go up despite the "education."



> Why is this concept so hard to grasp in regards to dog and cat nutrition? Feed them a well rounded, species appropriate diet and put the calculators away.


What concept?

Being that this is what I do, I'm gonna keep it out. Formulating diets for dogs, cats, horses, cattle, sheep, pigs, and probably a few more would be ALOT harder without it!


----------



## SuZQuzie (Nov 26, 2009)

CorgiPaws said:


> I was making no personal attack, i am sorry you felt that way.
> But yes, anyone fooled into the many different "formulas" is one if not all of the above, and Natalie hit the nail right on the head.


Thank you.



> Not to mention Boxers aren't even considered "large breed" they're actually classified as medium.... just sayin'


"Large" is a bit of a misconception. The lower Ca levels in "large breed" formulas is to help prevent overly rapid growth which can cause a dog to have significant skeletal abnormalities, such as the dysplastic diseases and osteochondrosis (OCD). OCD is a more recent finding and it is believed to be heavily linked to high Ca levels and is the precursor early arthritic changes.

"Large breeds" should be thought of more as the breeds that are susceptible to these diseases than by size. 

This being the case, I would recommend pug and bulldog owners to feed "large breed" because of the breeds high susceptibility to dysplastic diseases, not their size.

ETA: I'm not saying it will prevent hip dysplasia in a poorly conformed dog, but it will not cause hip dysplasia in a moderately conformed dog which can happen when the femur grows faster than the socket can keep up. This growth is stimulated by excessive Ca levels.


----------



## SuZQuzie (Nov 26, 2009)

Completely unrelated, but I was looking at the OFA hip dysplasia statistics and hybrids ranked 30 out of 153 breeds and 20% of those submitted were dysplastic. Very surprising!


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

SuZQuzie said:


> You're right. I don't. A range is sufficient for all animals. When in a performance state, such as pregnancy, growth or elevated activity levels, the range becomes more critical.


You're still wrong. NO animal, be it humans or otherwise, needs a diet where every mineral is measured down to the tenth of a percent. It's not even logical, no matter how you want to look at it... and then the "range" for the special formulas overlap the range for the origional, I find it absolutely silly to dish out the cash when you have NO idea what you're really giving your dogs.



SuZQuzie said:


> Because people don't care as much. Call it human nature.


You're right. Grissom cares about the correct ratios in his body than I do mine. (I wonder what was on his mind when he was eating all that poop.)



SuZQuzie said:


> People prefer to "pill" their way to health instead.


How is this concept ANY different than a kibble diet, infused will all those supplements? They are not getting their nutrients from a natural, balanced diet They are fed processed crap (much like the frozen pizzas and tv dinners millions will have for dinner tonight) and then dosed with supplemental vitamins pumped into the kibble. (much like the one-a-days and calcium pills said individuals will pop after their tv dinner tonight.) Valid point, no?



SuZQuzie said:


> The "food pyramid" is based on who can pay the most. It holds absolutely no scientific water.


What leads you to believe the "guidelines" laid out by dog food companies are any more true and reliable than those set for people? Silly logic. 



SuZQuzie said:


> What concept?


The concept that common sense (that danemama displayed perfectly) is a far superior tool in feeding these dogs than bringing every aspect of their diet under the microscope and calculating every vitamin and mineral down to the exact percent (like you displayed) 
It's common freaking sense. NO SPECIES calculates their diet like that. Not dogs. Not people. Not rabbits. Not Unicorns. nothing. It's NOT natural. It's NOT the way it was ment to be. It's artificial crap. That's the problem with the human race. We like to interfere with things that mother nature has laid out, and end up screwing them all up. Mother nature made dogs carnivores, and all-knowing humans come in and decide little processed nuggets are superior, and we're really doing nothing more than screwing it all up. Let them be DOGS. 



SuZQuzie said:


> Being that this is what I do, I'm gonna keep it out. Formulating diets for dogs, cats, horses, cattle, sheep, pigs, and probably a few more would be ALOT harder without it!


That's fine. Keep on with your calculators and percentages. Keep dishing out processed crap. As for my dogs... well... they will be dogs.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

SuZQuzie said:


> You're right. I don't. A range is sufficient for all animals. When in a performance state, such as pregnancy, growth or elevated activity levels, the range becomes more critical.


So, in the wild...what do animals do to take in performance levels of nutrients during pregnancy? Just eat more of what their natural diet is to meet the increased nutritional needs? What about growing young offspring in the wild? After weaning, do they eat a completely different diet than their parents? I don't think so...

Personally, from what I have learned, animals eat the diet that they are evolved to eat. Whether that be a true carnivorous big cat like the lion or a omnivore like the gorilla. Parent animals teach their offspring what to eat and how to get what they need to eat and how to survive, hunting or gathering. 



> Unfortunately, due to the nature of Ca, it is difficult to determine a quantity. It also depends on the source and form of the calcium along with its ratio to other nutrients, such as vitamin D and P.


What about Ca from its natural source? Bones.

And isn't Ca absorption limited by the body?



> Because people don't care as much. Call it human nature. It is unfortunate because so many diseases can be easily prevented or regulated with adequate nutrition. People prefer to "pill" their way to health instead.


I don't think its human nature to not care as much. And you're 100% right...with adequate nutrition many diseases can be prevented. Same thing with dogs, but kibble isn't the best nutrition out there. And like Linsey said, kibble is kinda like food in pill form...but it comes in little chewable bite sized pieces of processed meat and starch.




> The "food pyramid" is based on who can pay the most. It holds absolutely no scientific water. This here is the "new and improved" food pyramid. Despite humans requiring a huge amount of CHOs to get through the day (its the ONLY thing that the human brain can run on), which primarily comes from grains, dairy products hold a share of just as much space as grains. Why the change? The milking industry paid for the "advertising space," quite literally and nearly single-handed funded the "new" food pyramid. Being lactose intolerant, dairy products don't make up a huge part of my diet and I'm just fine. :smile:


I would love to see a source on this, because I am curious now. And that food pyramid is not the one that I have seen or followed....



> I remember when I was little, we learned about "good eating" in class and the food pyramid. The next day I tried to eat just like the food pyramid told me to and I was stuffed to the brim! No wonder American obesity rates have continued to go up despite the "education."


Yeah, because obesity rates have nothing to do with fast food or cheap food sources...




> What concept?
> 
> Being that this is what I do, I'm gonna keep it out. Formulating diets for dogs, cats, horses, cattle, sheep, pigs, and probably a few more would be ALOT harder without it!


Why don't you just let them eat a natural diet?

You don't see (the whole "dogs are carnivores" discussion can go on in another thread so I am adding in all the members of the family _Canidae_...ie foxes, wolves, coyotes, jackals, etc.) any of these guys eating processed kibble in the wild. Not enough evolution has happened in the last 50-100 years for them to need a kibble diet. 

I think a calculator is needed in trying to mimic these natural diets, and failing to do so. That is why exact ratios of minerals are needed...because if one is 1/10 of a percentage point off disaster occurs.


----------



## SuZQuzie (Nov 26, 2009)

I'm seeing that this is turning into a why raw is better than ANY kibble argument. You all know why I don't feed raw and don't advocate it, not to mention that is not appropriate for this forum. Also, fights are being picked where there were none; that's not my thing. 

But, I will address two thing: the food pyramid vs. NRC. The food pyramid was made by the government so that any idiot could look at the pretty pictures and eat their real counter parts. The NRC publishes numbers based on multiple studies for use by educated animal nutritionists to formulate the best diet for the animals they need to feed. 

And, yes, pregnant animals will vary their diet to meet the altered requirements. It's called cravings. Want some ice cream? Calcium. Pickles? Contains several B vitamins. Both are have elevated requirements essential for the development of a prenate.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

I am starting a new thread to continue this *debate* in the raw forum, this thread has taken on the "raw" quality....LOL :biggrin:


----------



## jdatwood (Apr 13, 2009)

danemama08 said:


> I am starting a new thread to continue this *debate* in the raw forum, this thread has taken on the "raw" quality....LOL :biggrin:


If a kind moderator like... oh I don't know... RFD... wanted to help out he could split off the posts and move them to the new thread :wink:


----------



## jeserf (Oct 20, 2009)

I don't get why if someone's asking for input on a kibble/wet brand, the raw people come and lecture about raw. 

Some people don't want to feed their dog raw. My dog eats processed raw (and sometimes kibble she her tummy grumbles late at night, at probably at the kennel but she hasn't been since changing). Processed raw works for us. Kibble works for some dogs. My ex had a rescued Great Dane that lived for 16 (yes, 16) years and ate commercial dog food - not even the expensive kibble. I got bitched at in the raw forum b/c Lucy didn't eat for 4 days when raw meet was her only option until I offered her Primal. 

Primal has been great for my dog - she hated the raw bones and meat. But she jumps for her primal. And my main reason for switching was her creatnine level in her blood. All the raw people said "it probably won't lower her creatnine level, but it is better for her". Got my results of her latest test, and her creatnine is now well within healthy range (below 1.8) from 2.1 (unhealthy, esp for a 2 year old). And that's 'commercial' raw food. I'm very, very pleased.

Different food works for different dogs. Would you tell the guy with the 16 year old Dane that she'd have lived to 17 with raw? no - because you don't know for sure. 

If someone asks for a kibble rec, the way the raw people here lecture, it just turns people off even instead of encouraging them to explore it themselves. 

For kibble, I was very impressed with Cali Naturals. I'd still be feeding it to my dog if I could, and give her a small scoop every now and then if her stomach grumbles before it's real feeding time. 

I'll also add that the meat people are feeding their dogs is often meat they wouldn't eat themselves. I wouldn't feed my dog Tysons, Purdue, or other huge commercially produced meat. It's bad for humans, it's bad for dogs. So I hope all the raw advocates are encouraging organic/free range (including grass fed beef) meat for their dogs. That's what they'd eat in the wild, after all.


----------



## rannmiller (Jun 27, 2008)

I just want to say, completely off topic, that I also believe the food pyramid is garbage and encourages people to eat way too many servings and way too many carbohydrates than is healthy for them. 

That being said, I think the conversation tried more to turn into why certain formulas aren't necessary because they're more of a marketing gimmick than anything else. When she compared it to a pill, that's when it turned to kibble vs. raw. So they didn't get completely off topic for no reason whatsoever, there was a flow to it. We did try to keep it kibble. Just look what you crazy kids do while I'm at work and can't respond to keep you on track!


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

jeserf said:


> ***


My response to your post is in the thread I started in the raw section, since it is inappropriate for this thread.


----------

