Questions for food gurus...

[armyboot]

I've been researching foods since well before I purchased my pup and have always fed a premium product. At the moment, I cannot switch to RAW because I just don't have enough time to do all the necessary research.

Right now my pup is being fed Chicken Soup's puppy formula and doing really well on it. He's put on a few pounds which he needed to do.

As far as adult food goes, I've heard great things about TimberWolf Organics Wild and Natural forumula, and Innova's EVO product.

Both foods are high in protein and fat, and very low in grain. From what I've read, at least for the Wild and Natural, the only downside seems to be that some dogs lose weight. This has been attributed to the fact that both foods do not contain as much grain as other foods out there.

Now I know most people think the protein and fat ratios are too high, especially for dogs who are only moderately active. But so far, I haven't come across any serious problems resulting from the use of these two foods.

Any thoughts?

 

[boxer]

34% protein does seem rather high. But as long as you have a very very active dog, it shouldn't be a problem. Not sure it would continue to be suitable as your dog ages and becomes less active.

I *do* like that it is low in grains, and that the only two significant grains are brown rice and barley - neither of which is a common allergen.

I'm not quite so happy to see that the first (largest quantity) ingredient is chicken meal rather than chicken. I note that chicken is the second ingredient - but still I would have been happier to see that in the reverse order.

With respect to the weight loss, that wouldn't bother me in the slightest. The same thing happens initially with some dogs when they're switched to a raw diet too - but invariably those are dogs carrying excess fat from the sugars in grains, which is gradually replaced with leaner tissue/muscle when they're fed a correct diet

All in all, it looks a reasonably good food. As with all things though - only way to find out for sure is to try it

 

[kit02]

I'm not quite so happy to see that the first (largest quantity) ingredient is chicken meal rather than chicken. I note that chicken is the second ingredient - but still I would have been happier to see that in the reverse order.

Chicken meal is just as good as chicken if not better. Meal just means that the water is taken out of it and actually can be more nutritionally dense that plain chicken b/c plain chicken you have to take into account that the weight of it includes water. To have both Chicken Meal and Chicken as the 1st 2 ingredients is just a double bonus. You will notice most premium kibbles use a protein meal as their 1st ingredient and a few are combined with the 2 like this is.

 

[harleyboxer]

If you feed raw wouldn't you be feeding meat by-products as well? this is a little off topic, but I've been wondering what people think. If you feed whole chicken carcasses you are feeding the by products also and you think its healthier for them to get them.

 

[FarleyBoxer]

If you feed raw wouldn't you be feeding meat by-products as well? this is a little off topic, but I've been wondering what people think. If you feed whole chicken carcasses you are feeding the by products also and you think its healthier for them to get them.

Others more knowledgable than me may be able to explain better, but I would think the 'by-product' would be mitigated by the rest of the carcass, which is high in nutrition. It seems to me the problem would arise when feeding a food/kibble that derives most of its protein from these 'by-products' which may have little or no nutritional value on their own. And this would only be an issue for those who follow the whole-prey model and actually do feed the entire carcass, with organs still there and everything. I *think* most of us here feed parts, not the whole carcass, so the 'by-products' aren't there.

 

[boxer]

Not exactly. Feeding raw does include selected meat, bones and offal that some people would consider 'by-products'. But it doesn't include things like chicken heads and feet that are of little or no nutritious value (never mind the eeeww factor LOL). By-products, by and large, are those parts that really don't find a use elsewhere - and unlike other 'meals' there isn't a limit imposed on how much can be undigestible

Here's a good site that explains what the differing ingredients on dog food labels actually mean: http://www.doberdogs.com/foodcht2.html

 

[armyboot]

34% protein does seem rather high. But as long as you have a very very active dog, it shouldn't be a problem. Not sure it would continue to be suitable as your dog ages and becomes less active.

I *do* like that it is low in grains, and that the only two significant grains are brown rice and barley - neither of which is a common allergen.

I'm not quite so happy to see that the first (largest quantity) ingredient is chicken meal rather than chicken. I note that chicken is the second ingredient - but still I would have been happier to see that in the reverse order.

With respect to the weight loss, that wouldn't bother me in the slightest. The same thing happens initially with some dogs when they're switched to a raw diet too - but invariably those are dogs carrying excess fat from the sugars in grains, which is gradually replaced with leaner tissue/muscle when they're fed a correct diet

All in all, it looks a reasonably good food. As with all things though - only way to find out for sure is to try it

Why would the dog have to be very active to go on a high protein food? It's almost like the Atkins diet for dogs I guess. Also, doesn't a RAW diet contain signifigantly more amounts of protein etc?

Right now on Chicken Soup puppy I'm feeding 4 cups a day. 348kcals per cup x 4 = 1392 calories. Wild and Natural has 609kcals per cup x 2 cups (for the pups weight) = 1218 kcals. Seems pretty similar to me. Plus the W&N has WAY less grain, which means (I think) that a lot more should be digested.

Is my way of thinking wrong?

 

[armyboot]

The akin diet is not a healthy long term choice for people. I do not know about dogs. You have a point about RAW except I do believe that is balanced with fruits and veggies. Too High protein can be very hard on thd body. Especially the kidneys.

I know Atkin's isn't especially good long term for people, but I was thinking that since dogs/wolves diets are mostly meat anyways they would be more tolerant of it.

Also, aren't the majority of nutrients from RAW also protein? If so, wouldn't it be similar then to the EVO or Wild and natural formulae?

Another thing is, if these protein/fat levels were too high, wouldn't there be a lot more incidences of severe problems stemming from diets based off these kibbles?

I've also read this (taken from the Timberwolf site, but it makes a lot of sense):

High protein foods do not cause hip and growth problems. Most likely the cause is a random gene expressing the trait or bad breeding practices. Where that misconception came from was an American study done in the sixties that claimed a relationship between high caloric intake and hip dysplasia. A subsequent Swedish study in the seventies found that that study was flawed. Since then, three more studies have found no link between caloric intake and dysplasia, one of which went so far as caesarian births (premature puppies) and a 50% restriction diet and still found no reduction in percent of mature dogs with hip dysplasia.

It can probably be safe to say that there are not any wolves that say "Okay Junior, you better watch your protein intake so that you don't develop hip dysplasia!" If there is a dietary cause to growth problems than it is most likely pet foods that do not supply enough of the building blocks and nutrients needed by a growing animal... Remember, you only have protein, fat or carbohydrates for a source of calories. If you limit protein and fat then more carbohydrates supply calories instead. However, carbohydrates only supply energy (calories - growth), but no nutrients. The reason most dog food companies push low protein foods is because they are MUCH MUCH cheaper to make. Senior or "lite" formulas are the cheapest to manufacture, but command a higher price and higher profit margin because of their position in the consumer's mind.

This makes a lot of sense to me.

 

[boxer]

Actually, no, a raw diet doesn't contain significantly high levels of protein (OK, that depends on precisely what you feed, but the 'models' follwed by most people aren't excessively protein-rich).

The "ideal" protein level for dogs is in the region of 22% - and that is pretty much what you get from a whole bunny (or similar small mammal) carcass sans water content. Yes, it has been analysed

Think about it - a wild bunny (not an overweight domestic one bred for excess meat) is a pretty lean animal, there's meat, bone, sinew, a little fat, skin, offal... the "meat" portion of the bunny isn't that large.

Most raw feeders don't follow a whole prey model (some do, but most prefer carcass parts). But they do still mimic a whole carcass diet - by feeding parts such as chicken necks, frames, beef brisket etc that don't have too much meat in relation to bone. Offal meals are fed, and some degree of vege matter is also given. The end result is a diet with protein content of around the 22% mark

 

[armyboot]

How is the protein rating determined?

You mentioned how lean a wild bunny is. Now, for the sake of convenience lets say I'm feeding RAW with wild bunny. Since it's pretty lean, the protein to fat ratio would still be pretty high wouldnt it? So you'd still be feeding more protein than grains and fat...

Or am I way off?