Dog Food Study

Neil · Post by **Neil** » Tue Jun 23, 2015 4:13 pm

http://iheartdogs.com/company-researche ... isfactory/

41magsnub · Post by **41magsnub** » Tue Jun 23, 2015 4:25 pm

Hmm, I've never even heard of any of the brands they like, much less individual formulas.

northshore · Post by **northshore** » Tue Jun 23, 2015 4:47 pm

They did choose Fromm as one of their approved brands so might be something to this study.

Post by **ezzy333** » Tue Jun 23, 2015 5:16 pm

Save you a lot of time if you just read what they were looking for: This is all the further I needed to read. I think Neil is bored and wants to get something going to keep himself entertained. Think they call that trolling.

•We removed products where the first ingredient is not a meat of any kind.
•We removed products containing corn, soy, wheat, grain, or flour.
•We removed products containing beet pulp or sugar.
•We removed products that contained by-products or sauces.
•We reviewed brands for recalls, ingredient sources, history, and customer satisfaction.
•We reviewed the remaining formulas based on the best ratio of protein, fat, and carbs, as well as the source of protein.

Read more at http://iheartdogs.com/company-researche ... jze0TtV.99

pato y codoniz · Post by **pato y codoniz** » Tue Jun 23, 2015 6:27 pm

ezzy333 wrote:Save you a lot of time if you just read what they were looking for: This is all the further I needed to read. I think Neil is bored and wants to get something going to keep himself entertained. Think they call that trolling.

•We removed products where the first ingredient is not a meat of any kind.
•We removed products containing corn, soy, wheat, grain, or flour.
•We removed products containing beet pulp or sugar.
•We removed products that contained by-products or sauces.
•We reviewed brands for recalls, ingredient sources, history, and customer satisfaction.
•We reviewed the remaining formulas based on the best ratio of protein, fat, and carbs, as well as the source of protein.

Read more at http://iheartdogs.com/company-researche ... jze0TtV.99

The only thing that might be controversial is the no corn, wheat or beet pulp.

Unspecified "grain", meat", or "meat meal" is a crap ingredient as are soy and flour.

Neil · Post by **Neil** » Tue Jun 23, 2015 8:03 pm

I am with Ezzy.

DonF · Post by **DonF** » Tue Jun 23, 2015 8:37 pm

Keep seeing these test's and can't help but wonder how Purina dog chow and pedigree lasted all these years without problems?

Post by **ezzy333** » Tue Jun 23, 2015 9:38 pm

pato y codoniz wrote:
ezzy333 wrote:Save you a lot of time if you just read what they were looking for: This is all the further I needed to read. I think Neil is bored and wants to get something going to keep himself entertained. Think they call that trolling.

•We removed products where the first ingredient is not a meat of any kind.
•We removed products containing corn, soy, wheat, grain, or flour.
•We removed products containing beet pulp or sugar.
•We removed products that contained by-products or sauces.
•We reviewed brands for recalls, ingredient sources, history, and customer satisfaction.
•We reviewed the remaining formulas based on the best ratio of protein, fat, and carbs, as well as the source of protein.

Read more at http://iheartdogs.com/company-researche ... jze0TtV.99
The only thing that might be controversial is the no corn, wheat or beet pulp.

Unspecified "grain", meat", or "meat meal" is a crap ingredient as are soy and flour.

Can you tell us what research you are basing your opinion on? Another thing I think you missed is the no by-products. Probably the No. 1 ingredient as far as nutritionally is concerned Poultry By-Product meal is as good as it gets. I wonder about the flour when wheat is the base of flour and also we fed dogs almost exclusively for years bread.

I am always curious where people get their knowledge and/or opinions, especially where they differ so greatly.

pato y codoniz · Post by **pato y codoniz** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 12:24 am

ezzy333 wrote:
pato y codoniz wrote:
ezzy333 wrote:Save you a lot of time if you just read what they were looking for: This is all the further I needed to read. I think Neil is bored and wants to get something going to keep himself entertained. Think they call that trolling.

•We removed products where the first ingredient is not a meat of any kind.
•We removed products containing corn, soy, wheat, grain, or flour.
•We removed products containing beet pulp or sugar.
•We removed products that contained by-products or sauces.
•We reviewed brands for recalls, ingredient sources, history, and customer satisfaction.
•We reviewed the remaining formulas based on the best ratio of protein, fat, and carbs, as well as the source of protein.

Read more at http://iheartdogs.com/company-researche ... jze0TtV.99
The only thing that might be controversial is the no corn, wheat or beet pulp.

Unspecified "grain", meat", or "meat meal" is a crap ingredient as are soy and flour.
Can you tell us what research you are basing your opinion on? Another thing I think you missed is the no by-products. Probably the No. 1 ingredient as far as nutritionally is concerned Poultry By-Product meal is as good as it gets. I wonder about the flour when wheat is the base of flour and also we fed dogs almost exclusively for years bread.

I am always curious where people get their knowledge and/or opinions, especially where they differ so greatly.

I don't research to know that unspecified sources of meat, like "meat' "meat meal' and "meat byproduct meal" leaves the door open to all sorts of crap.

While sourced byproduct meals can possibly be of similar nutritional content as sourced meals, it is dependent upon the amount of heads, feet, and intestines used in the blend.

One thing is for certain manufactures that chose byproduct meal are doing it for the cost savings.

Neil · Post by **Neil** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 1:40 am

Short of poison, I don't care what is in dog food, I only care how it performs, or more accurately, how dogs perform on it.

Post by **ezzy333** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 7:18 am

Pato, all you are doing is quoting marketing hype put out by some company to try and promote their product. By-products live by the same rules as other ingredients, it is just simply a name given to a product that not their primary one, such as soybean meal being a by-product of the Soybean Oil industry in times past but it became so important and in demand the Soybean industry had to start crushing beans for the meal and the oil became the by-product. The guarantees or standards never changed. The chicken by-product meal doesn't change by how much heads and feet are in it as the product is 100% heads and feet along with the other waste products such as organs and such.

I have never found different meats made much difference and like Neil, I never cared very much what was used. I have found our dogs are much like us, they will eat different meats and different veggies to even a greater extent than we do when they get to choose their own diet and the results are pretty comparable with what ever. I agree there are some that aren't either as good or aren't needed and soy products would fit that bill but I still haven't seen any tests or results that say that. The results are what counts and as of yet< I think you might have a lot of problems trying to pick out what a dog is eating by watching it's performance. Too many people have bought into the marketing hype they hear over and over and pay little or no attention to what is tested and proved by actual feed and nutritional test that are run to prove what works and what doesn't.

Ezzy

Kellym · Post by **Kellym** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 8:01 am

so just what are you feeding

I am feeding Victor and my dogs do great on it

aulrich · Post by **aulrich** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 8:25 am

Yes but what is better 270 or 30-06 and can I use the 17 hmr for coyotes.

dead horse alert

The what do you feed should be limited to 2 flame wars a year maybe 1 a quarter if things are slow.

pato y codoniz · Post by **pato y codoniz** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 12:46 pm

ezzy333 wrote:Pato, all you are doing is quoting marketing hype put out by some company to try and promote their product. By-products live by the same rules as other ingredients, it is just simply a name given to a product that not their primary one, such as soybean meal being a by-product of the Soybean Oil industry in times past but it became so important and in demand the Soybean industry had to start crushing beans for the meal and the oil became the by-product. The guarantees or standards never changed. The chicken by-product meal doesn't change by how much heads and feet are in it as the product is 100% heads and feet along with the other waste products such as organs and such.

I have never found different meats made much difference and like Neil, I never cared very much what was used. I have found our dogs are much like us, they will eat different meats and different veggies to even a greater extent than we do when they get to choose their own diet and the results are pretty comparable with what ever. I agree there are some that aren't either as good or aren't needed and soy products would fit that bill but I still haven't seen any tests or results that say that. The results are what counts and as of yet< I think you might have a lot of problems trying to pick out what a dog is eating by watching it's performance. Too many people have bought into the marketing hype they hear over and over and pay little or no attention to what is tested and proved by actual feed and nutritional test that are run to prove what works and what doesn't.

Ezzy

What are you talking about?

We're discussing the difference between named source meal and named source byproduct meal. I'm not citing any marketing hype.

The difference between the two is that byproduct meal contains heads, feet, and entrails. While pbm might have the same nutritional profile of meal or even muscle meats, the digestibility and availability of that nutrition is dependent on the percentage of heads and feet in the meal since they are the least bioavailbe parts of the animal.

And I can't believe that you're arguing that unnamed sources of meat, meat meal, and meat byproduct meals aren't at minimum less desirous than named sources (ie chicken meal or salmon meal or turkey meal).

I just think that we are going to disagree on a few things. It is fine, everyone is entitled to their preference. I'm sure that we'd probably also disagree on human food sources (ie if we dodn't catch it, kill, raise it, or grow it; we buy organic). It is all good.

Post by **ezzy333** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:29 pm

I never saw a name make anything more nutritious. And digestibility for a dog does not necessarily follow what you would think about food for humans. I do not believe you haven't seen the marketing hype about by-products when you are quoting what we all hear. However, the very reasons you gave for by-product meals being less desirable is the very reason they are a more complete source of nutrition. I have never felt compelled to eat most of that stuff but you can find it in grocery stores. Of course we have eaten intestines for years when we eat wieners and sausages, and tripe is eaten by many. We always boiled the chicken legs for soup but people like them pickled too. And the heart, liver, gizzards, kidneys, tongues and brains have been eaten by people for years. Guess if we do our dogs can also.

Have no problem with you feeding what you like but was curious when you posted as though grains and by-products are the scorge of the dog food world and I didn't want some one who doesn't know thinking it was right because it is your opinion without something to back it up with.. And you are right about what we eat. Organic in our household just means higher prices for poorer quality.

Neil · Post by **Neil** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:55 pm

As sporting dog owners, I honestly believe we owe Purina; they spend millions on dog health studies, donate to the major research schools, and to the breed clubs, in addition to being the primary sponsor of field trials.

But trust me, if I could gain a competitive advantage I would switch.

There is only one reason the top pros only feed quality known products - performance!

clink83 · Post by **clink83** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 9:43 pm

This is silly. You wouldn't feed a human animal byproducts, you feed them high quality protein. Why would you think feeding your dog animal byproducts is somehow better, or that brewers rice is something you want to feed to your dog?
Purina is in the business of making a profit selling mass produced food with cheap ingredients. They have all that money to donate for a reason. Proplan isn't a bad food, but you can do a lot better imo. Honestly, I think if you feed a decent 30/20 food you won't see a huge difference in energy levels in dogs between foods.

displaced_texan · Post by **displaced_texan** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 9:51 pm

ezzy333 wrote:Organic in our household just means higher prices for poorer quality.

Don't denigrate what people choose to eat, that's just your opinion.

clink83 · Post by **clink83** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:18 pm

Scientifically organic food is much worse for the environment with no real increase in nutrients and minimal health benefits. Most people would rather listen to marketing than read research though.

displaced_texan · Post by **displaced_texan** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:28 pm

clink83 wrote:Scientifically organic food is much worse for the environment with no real increase in nutrients and minimal health benefits. Most people would rather listen to marketing than read research though.

It was mocking his attitude towards those with a different opinion tha; his own in regards to dog food.

pato y codoniz · Post by **pato y codoniz** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 11:30 pm

displaced_texan wrote:
clink83 wrote:Scientifically organic food is much worse for the environment with no real increase in nutrients and minimal health benefits. Most people would rather listen to marketing than read research though.
It was mocking his attitude towards those with a different opinion tha; his own in regards to dog food.

I tossed that in there because, like a hungry dog pouncing on a bowl of food, I knew he wouldn't be able to resist.

I just want to know about the scientific study that show organic means lower quality?

pato y codoniz · Post by **pato y codoniz** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 12:03 am

Neil wrote:As sporting dog owners, I honestly believe we owe Purina; they spend millions on dog health studies, donate to the major research schools, and to the breed clubs, in addition to being the primary sponsor of field trials.

But trust me, if I could gain a competitive advantage I would switch.

There is only one reason the top pros only feed quality known products - performance!

Purina rigged the system in the 70s when the chairman of the board became the head of the department of ag and had Purina write the guidelines for the fds w/r to pet foods.

pato y codoniz · Post by **pato y codoniz** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 12:08 am

clink83 wrote:This is silly. You wouldn't feed a human animal byproducts, you feed them high quality protein. Why would you think feeding your dog animal byproducts is somehow better, or that brewers rice is something you want to feed to your dog?
Purina is in the business of making a profit selling mass produced food with cheap ingredients. They have all that money to donate for a reason. Proplan isn't a bad food, but you can do a lot better imo. Honestly, I think if you feed a decent 30/20 food you won't see a huge difference in energy levels in dogs between foods.

Publically traded companies have a responsibility to shareholders to maximize profits and that includes weighing the risk reward of potential profit vs. bad pr and legal repercussions.

Anyway don't you know that beaks and claws are high quality protein sources?

pato y codoniz · Post by **pato y codoniz** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 12:14 am

ezzy333 wrote:I never saw a name make anything more nutritious.

Again, I can't believe that you're arguing against an accurate and transparent ingredients list on the packaging.

Would you go to the market and buy a black wrapped tray that was labeled "meat" or a brown bag labeled "grain"

What is next?

Ezzy Hi Pro?

Ingredients: stuff and things

Neil · Post by **Neil** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 7:04 am

pato y codoniz wrote:
Neil wrote:As sporting dog owners, I honestly believe we owe Purina; they spend millions on dog health studies, donate to the major research schools, and to the breed clubs, in addition to being the primary sponsor of field trials.

But trust me, if I could gain a competitive advantage I would switch.

There is only one reason the top pros only feed quality known products - performance!
Purina rigged the system in the 70s when the chairman of the board became the head of the department of ag and had Purina write the guidelines for the fds w/r to pet foods.

If even half of what you say were true, Purina management are just plain dumb to waste millions on research and support of sporting dogs.

And you miss the main point, the only point to me - DOGS ON PURINA PERFORM!

If the products harmed dogs in any measurably way they would quickly run out of customers, dogs can't win National Championships if they are dead.

The rest of what you say is hype and opinion.

clink83 · Post by **clink83** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 7:41 am

I'm a biologist, so I know there is a huge difference between research and the application of research. Purinas business model requires high volumes of sales, which nessitates lower quality ingredients. Brewers rice is still waste rice, and corn and wheat are used because they are dirt cheap, no matter how much research you do.

Dave and Fay Walker fed the dogs in their kennels grainfree food and PERFORMED, and their dogs also had nicer coats and less still to clean up.

I've yet to meet someone who went to a higher quality food and went back to something else for any reason other than price. Not all people are willing to pay $50/30lb bag. If you're running a string of dogs or a kennel and are getting good results with a brand of food that has good deals and a lower price I can't fault someone for protecting their bottom line.

Gordon Guy · Post by **Gordon Guy** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:44 am

There's more to dog food then measuring your dogs performance for 30 minutes to an hour. Therefore, a dog having success in field trials isn't the bottom line indicator for me. A good hunting dog will give it's all, and more, to find birds. There's recovery time, stamina to go again the next day. There's coat condition, Shiny or dull, pleasant smelling or not. does your dog have dry flaky skin or not. Does your dog have gunk in the corner of their eyes after eating? Ear infections, feet chewing, hot spots can all be signs that the food you're feeding is not right for your dog.

Gas and runny stools are most likely a sign that you're feeding too much.

Each dog is different. I have one dog that would do well on almost anything she eats and the other two adults need a "higher quality = More expensive" feed. Much to my displeasure.

Right or wrong, I'm notorious for changing dog foods frequently. I have seen the differences between brands in my dogs. I have stayed with my current brand now for 6 months. It's on the list provided by the OP of recommended foods. If your dog is doing "well" on the brand you've been feeding, good for you and the dog. But, if you haven't fed other brands one doesn't know what the possibilities could be.

displaced_texan · Post by **displaced_texan** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 9:58 am

pato y codoniz wrote:
ezzy333 wrote:I never saw a name make anything more nutritious.
Again, I can't believe that you're arguing against an accurate and transparent ingredients list on the packaging.

Would you go to the market and buy a black wrapped tray that was labeled "meat" or a brown bag labeled "grain"

What is next?

Ezzy Hi Pro?

Ingredients: stuff and things

Exactly. Honesty and transparency are good things, period.

And like was stated, Purina is a big, public company. Their primary goal is maximum profits, not the best quality.

Grange · Post by **Grange** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 11:01 am

clink83 wrote:I'm a biologist, so I know there is a huge difference between research and the application of research. Purinas business model requires high volumes of sales, which nessitates lower quality ingredients. Brewers rice is still waste rice, and corn and wheat are used because they are dirt cheap, no matter how much research you do.

Dave and Fay Walker fed the dogs in their kennels grainfree food and PERFORMED, and their dogs also had nicer coats and less still to clean up.

I've yet to meet someone who went to a higher quality food and went back to something else for any reason other than price. Not all people are willing to pay $50/30lb bag. If you're running a string of dogs or a kennel and are getting good results with a brand of food that has good deals and a lower price I can't fault someone for protecting their bottom line.

I can tell you I've gone from "higher quality" dog foods to "lower quality" dog food based on performance rather than price. I have never had very good luck with grain free dog food in relation to performance with my dogs. The dog food that my dogs performed the best on would have been deemed "unsatisfactory" and "what to avoid" because it has corn. This is also one of the more expensive foods I've tried.

RayGubernat · Post by **RayGubernat** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 11:23 am

displaced_texan wrote:
pato y codoniz wrote:
ezzy333 wrote:I never saw a name make anything more nutritious.
Again, I can't believe that you're arguing against an accurate and transparent ingredients list on the packaging.

Would you go to the market and buy a black wrapped tray that was labeled "meat" or a brown bag labeled "grain"

What is next?

Ezzy Hi Pro?

Ingredients: stuff and things
Exactly. Honesty and transparency are good things, period.

And like was stated, Purina is a big, public company. Their primary goal is maximum profits, not the best quality.

I would agree with most of what you wrote. Dogfood companies may not be interested in product quality for their entire line, BUT, in the case of Purina, Loyall, Sunshine Mills, Black Gold, and a few others,they ARE VERY interested in the performance of dogs that are being fed their PERFORMANCE products.

When you evaluate the dog's performance when fed a certain diet, that is something real and tangible and quantifiable. The rest is BS.

Folks...lets get real about ingredients...protein is protein, fat is fat. Once it is cooked to death the way they must to process ingredients, it matters very little what the protein source was.

Think about it... Dogs, if given the chance will take a hunk of raw meat, bury it and then dig it up a couple weeks later and eat the rotten meat, dirt, maggots, bugs and all...and most often, will be just fine.

Dogs. if given the chance will eat their kennelmate's poop, their own poop, rabbit poop, deer poop, will go out of their way to eat fresh, squishy horse poop...and most often, will be just fine.

Dogs, if given the chance, will kill and eat a rabbit, fur feet, guts and all or a quail, beak, feet and feathers and all, and most of the time, be just fine.

Many dog owners would find it instructive to watch a hungry dog go after what is left of a deer carcass after butchering.

Marketing hype is just that. The proof is in the performance. Purina Pro Plan Performance, like it or not, is the gold standard in this area because they have done the research, they have the data and Purina, as well as a few other producers continue to spend money on research and testing with the goal of improving their product's PERFORMANCE.

Lastly, something to consider... dogs are not the only creatures to willingly eat food products with unnamed ingredients. Does anyone REALLY know what is in their SCRAPPLE??

RayG

Neil · Post by **Neil** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 11:24 am

Purina may well be interested in high volume.

But their Pro Plan is for performance, and performance well beyond that demanded by any hunter I know. The National Championship is 3 hours, and there are many other endurance trials. There are several invitationals; with the format of running an hour on each of the first two days and 1 1/2 to 2 hours on the third. All at speeds and distances that a foot hunter would not match in a week, maybe two.

The top pros are not interested in saving money, they must win. If investing money would have given Bo a better shot at winning a 3rd National Championship, Robin would have hired him a personal chef with a Mobil kitchen.

SCT · Post by **SCT** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 12:41 pm

My question is; what is wrong with a big public company trying to make the maximum profits it can???? Isn't that the goal of Capitalism? Why do you think they are in business and at the top of their game (Purina)? Like Ray says, the proof is in the pudding!!! My dogs love corn and they love Purina Pro Plan Performance. And their performance quality along with their healthy stools proves that it is a high quality food. Same with Diamond Performance even though the stools aren't quite the same. Honestly, my dogs stools from eating PPP is identical to when they are eating RAW, small, dark, and hard... It amazes me how often the dog food industry is hashed over on this forum.

Kellym · Post by **Kellym** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 1:00 pm

Corn is not as bad as many make it out to be. If its not processed right its a useless source but with the right processing it can add to the protein of a dog.

pato y codoniz · Post by **pato y codoniz** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 1:36 pm

RayGubernat wrote:
I would agree with most of what you wrote. Dogfood companies may not be interested in product quality for their entire line, BUT, in the case of Purina, Loyall, Sunshine Mills, Black Gold, and a few others,they ARE VERY interested in the performance of dogs that are being fed their PERFORMANCE products.

When you evaluate the dog's performance when fed a certain diet, that is something real and tangible and quantifiable. The rest is BS.

Folks...lets get real about ingredients...protein is protein, fat is fat. Once it is cooked to death the way they must to process ingredients, it matters very little what the protein source was.

Think about it... Dogs, if given the chance will take a hunk of raw meat, bury it and then dig it up a couple weeks later and eat the rotten meat, dirt, maggots, bugs and all...and most often, will be just fine.

Dogs. if given the chance will eat their kennelmate's poop, their own poop, rabbit poop, deer poop, will go out of their way to eat fresh, squishy horse poop...and most often, will be just fine.

Dogs, if given the chance, will kill and eat a rabbit, fur feet, guts and all or a quail, beak, feet and feathers and all, and most of the time, be just fine.

Many dog owners would find it instructive to watch a hungry dog go after what is left of a deer carcass after butchering.

Marketing hype is just that. The proof is in the performance. Purina Pro Plan Performance, like it or not, is the gold standard in this area because they have done the research, they have the data and Purina, as well as a few other producers continue to spend money on research and testing with the goal of improving their product's PERFORMANCE.

Lastly, something to consider... dogs are not the only creatures to willingly eat food products with unnamed ingredients. Does anyone REALLY know what is in their SCRAPPLE??

RayG

Publicly traded corporations have a duty to their shareholders to maximize profits. If there were 3 rules to running a publicly traded corp, they would be 1) maximize profits, 2) maximize profits, and 3) go back to 1.

I'm going to offer two extreme hypotheticals...

1) if Purina found that adding an ounce of gold to every bag of dog food increased perormance, do you think that they'd add it despite drastically effecting their product's market researched to maximize profit price point?

2) if Purina found that dog meat was they best protein source for performance and they could get it at a similar cost, do you think that pro plan would be made out.of dog meat?

Once we've acknowledged that, at best, they're only willing to make the best performance dog food at a certain price point or with certain public relations ramifications, we have to acknowledge that they might also be willing to sacrifice performance by using cheaper ingredients to maximize profit at their market researched ideal price point for maximizing sales of a performance food.

If you're saying that pro plan offers good performing product at a price point that is acceptable to the majority of the performance dog food market, of which they have a large share, I guess they could be considered the gold standard.

Btw, I'd also disagree that protein is protein, fat is fat, and carbs are carbs regardless of source.

DougB · Post by **DougB** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 1:48 pm

You don't test a food by setting up a list of ingredients and comparing that list to the products.. You get a huge number of different dogs, catagorize the dogs and feed them different foods. Then you check the dogs for health, performance, weight loss or gain. Compare breed to breed, sex to sex, use to use, size to size. These are animals that have descended from a long list of carrion eaters, are happy eating cat droppings and road kill (softened by time in the sun). Most commercial foods will do just fine, unless you run into an allergy or real health problem. Quality food will make the droppings smaller. Performance dogs will need a diet for athletes. I feed grain free now, as the dog has an allergy to some thing, and you start by eliminating grains. But dog has performed well and grown well on a variety of different foods. Ears get funky when fed grains.
Corn is the grain most likely to cause allergy problems and is the one responsible for large loose stools, but dogs will eat it and digest it, if the corn is processed and cooked.

This is interesting: Apparently all corn sources are not the same.
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/201 ... s-sniffers

Now, researchers have uncovered how to improve dogs' smelling skills through diet, by cutting protein and adding fats.

https://www.purina.com/meet-purina/nutr ... e-our-word

Lindblad-Toh and her team catalogued the genetic changes involved in domestication by looking for differences between the genomes of 12 wolves and 60 dogs from 14 different breeds. Their search identified 36 regions of the genome that set dogs apart from wolves — but are not responsible for variation between dog breeds.

Nineteen of those regions contained genes with a role in brain development or function. These genes, says Lindblad-Toh, may explain why dogs are so much more friendly than wolves. Surprisingly, the team also found ten genes that help dogs to digest starches and break down fats.

Post by **ezzy333** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 1:48 pm

I have no idea where the idea that cutting quality improves profits. Profits are generated by sales and sales volume relies on repeat sales which comes from people liking what they are buying because it fulfills their needs. We do not see many Yugo's or Roll Royse's on the roads but for different reasons. Yugo cut quality to cut costs and improve profits and disappeared. Rolls increased or maintained quality at a high cost and are still viable but have priced themselves out of the market because people can't afford them. But you have a lot of cars that are very popular and the company is profitable because of the volume of quality vehicles they sell at as low of a price as possible to stay in the market because they fulfill the needs of their customers while being affordable.

As far as the dog food world Purina has spent millions along with our Universities and some other companies developing a product that fulfills the needs of the dog at as cheap a price as they can. That allows we the customers to be able to buy a great product that fulfill our needs while making enough profit to keep their stock a viable option for people to invest in. They have accomplished much and have been willing to share a lot of the info from their research with other companies and the industry as a whole.

Always amazes me when people who live in a capitalistic society by choice think it is bad for anyone other than themselves try to make money. Why would any company that relies on us to buy their product and come back for more try to make it as poor as they can. the real secret to success I think would be well stated to be the company that can produce the best cheaper than anyone else. Thank God those kind of companies do survive and continue to provide the products we want or need to succeed at what we are doing.

My own experience in working in the industry in practically every capacity over my career is the best feeds you will find to fulfill the needs of your active dogs will have an animal protein source and corn, which by the way does not take a lot of processing other than grinding, at the top of their ingredient lists. That isn't saying that there aren't other good feeds but when you look at what I said it takes to be successful, top quality at a reasonable price, it will be hard to find anything else that can beat it.

Post by **ezzy333** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 1:53 pm

DougB wrote:You don't test a food by setting up a list of ingredients and comparing that list to the products.. You get a huge number of different dogs, catagorize the dogs and feed them different foods. Then you check the dogs for health, performance, weight loss or gain. Compare breed to breed, sex to sex, use to use, size to size. These are animals that have descended from a long list of carrion eaters, are happy eating cat droppings and road kill (softened by time in the sun). Most commercial foods will do just fine, unless you run into an allergy or real health problem. Quality food will make the droppings smaller. Performance dogs will need a diet for athletes. I feed grain free now, as the dog has an allergy to some thing, and you start by eliminating grains. But dog has performed well and grown well on a variety of different foods. Ears get funky when fed grains.

Most of what you say is true but one note that comes from repeated test. Grain is almost never the source of an allergy. Actually any food source allergy is rare but the very large percent of those few are triggered by a protein source.

Nutmeg247 · Post by **Nutmeg247** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 2:51 pm

ezzy333 wrote:
DougB wrote:You don't test a food by setting up a list of ingredients and comparing that list to the products.. You get a huge number of different dogs, catagorize the dogs and feed them different foods. Then you check the dogs for health, performance, weight loss or gain. Compare breed to breed, sex to sex, use to use, size to size. These are animals that have descended from a long list of carrion eaters, are happy eating cat droppings and road kill (softened by time in the sun). Most commercial foods will do just fine, unless you run into an allergy or real health problem. Quality food will make the droppings smaller. Performance dogs will need a diet for athletes. I feed grain free now, as the dog has an allergy to some thing, and you start by eliminating grains. But dog has performed well and grown well on a variety of different foods. Ears get funky when fed grains.
Most of what you say is true but one note that comes from repeated test. Grain is almost never the source of an allergy. Actually any food source allergy is rare but the very large percent of those few are triggered by a protein source.

That's one of those facts that somehow get lost in the corn and grain bashing.

It seems to me that there are a wide range of possible ingredients to answer a performance dog's needs -- for instance, pumpkin instead of corn and "line-caught" fish instead of chicken could work fine. But, things like "line caught" fish are going to be more expensive and not matter to the dog. Purina PPP 30/20 does cost more than Purina's cheapest kibble, but using Purina as a reference point I doubt you'd see any real positive correlation between cost and "performance." Redpaw 32k is about the same price per pound, maybe a little more, subject to either being on sale, for instance. There are kibbles that cost 5 or more times as much per pound that would still be poor enough you'd need to supplement them.

pato y codoniz · Post by **pato y codoniz** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 2:52 pm

ezzy333 wrote:I have no idea where the idea that cutting quality improves profits. Profits are generated by sales and sales volume relies on repeat sales which comes from people liking what they are buying because it fulfills their needs. We do not see many Yugo's or Roll Royse's on the roads but for different reasons. Yugo cut quality to cut costs and improve profits and disappeared. Rolls increased or maintained quality at a high cost and are still viable but have priced themselves out of the market because people can't afford them. But you have a lot of cars that are very popular and the company is profitable because of the volume of quality vehicles they sell at as low of a price as possible to stay in the market because they fulfill the needs of their customers while being affordable.

As far as the dog food world Purina has spent millions along with our Universities and some other companies developing a product that fulfills the needs of the dog at as cheap a price as they can. That allows we the customers to be able to buy a great product that fulfill our needs while making enough profit to keep their stock a viable option for people to invest in. They have accomplished much and have been willing to share a lot of the info from their research with other companies and the industry as a whole.

Always amazes me when people who live in a capitalistic society by choice think it is bad for anyone other than themselves try to make money. Why would any company that relies on us to buy their product and come back for more try to make it as poor as they can. the real secret to success I think would be well stated to be the company that can produce the best cheaper than anyone else. Thank God those kind of companies do survive and continue to provide the products we want or need to succeed at what we are doing.

My own experience in working in the industry in practically every capacity over my career is the best feeds you will find to fulfill the needs of your active dogs will have an animal protein source and corn, which by the way does not take a lot of processing other than grinding, at the top of their ingredient lists. That isn't saying that there aren't other good feeds but when you look at what I said it takes to be successful, top quality at a reasonable price, it will be hard to find anything else that can beat it.

If I reduce the quality of my dog food and performance reduces by 1% but my profit per bag increases 5% because I maintain the same price point, I'll reduce the quality of my dog food, pocket 5% more profit, and you'll never know the difference.

Btw, aside for the above hypothetical, I'm not sure how you believe that a company wouldn't reduce the quality of their product to maximize profits when you just spent several paragraphs lauding the pet food manufacturers, who along with universities, have created good fulfilling dog foods with in the constraints of lower price points. You're literally lauding them for creating a good, not perfect food, despite the constraints which they've set to maximize profits.

Btw, nobody thinks that companies shouldn't make a profit. It is just naive to believe that their goal is to benefit society when it is to make the most money from society. If that means curing cancer or doing something illegal, because the risk of getting caught and the subsequent penalties are offset by huge returns, they'll do it.

Post by **ezzy333** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 3:15 pm

I am truly sorry for anyone that has to go through life thinking everyone is out to get you instead of helping you with what you need. I just can not distrust people till they prove they can't be trusted. I just like people too much to have to live looking over my shoulder instead of where I am going.

RayGubernat · Post by **RayGubernat** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 4:24 pm

SCT wrote:My question is; what is wrong with a big public company trying to make the maximum profits it can???? Isn't that the goal of Capitalism? Why do you think they are in business and at the top of their game (Purina)? Like Ray says, the proof is in the pudding!!! My dogs love corn and they love Purina Pro Plan Performance. And their performance quality along with their healthy stools proves that it is a high quality food. Same with Diamond Performance even though the stools aren't quite the same. Honestly, my dogs stools from eating PPP is identical to when they are eating RAW, small, dark, and hard... It amazes me how often the dog food industry is hashed over on this forum.

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

In fact there is a whole lot RIGHT with the profit motive, especially when viewed in the context of long term profitability.

Ultimately, a company that sells a product has to maintain a satisfied customer base for that product in order to maximize profitablility for that product, over time.

One that does not...goes out of the business.

RayG

clink83 · Post by **clink83** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 5:13 pm

Nutmeg247 wrote:
ezzy333 wrote:
DougB wrote:You don't test a food by setting up a list of ingredients and comparing that list to the products.. You get a huge number of different dogs, catagorize the dogs and feed them different foods. Then you check the dogs for health, performance, weight loss or gain. Compare breed to breed, sex to sex, use to use, size to size. These are animals that have descended from a long list of carrion eaters, are happy eating cat droppings and road kill (softened by time in the sun). Most commercial foods will do just fine, unless you run into an allergy or real health problem. Quality food will make the droppings smaller. Performance dogs will need a diet for athletes. I feed grain free now, as the dog has an allergy to some thing, and you start by eliminating grains. But dog has performed well and grown well on a variety of different foods. Ears get funky when fed grains.
Most of what you say is true but one note that comes from repeated test. Grain is almost never the source of an allergy. Actually any food source allergy is rare but the very large percent of those few are triggered by a protein source.
That's one of those facts that somehow get lost in the corn and grain bashing.

It seems to me that there are a wide range of possible ingredients to answer a performance dog's needs -- for instance, pumpkin instead of corn and "line-caught" fish instead of chicken could work fine. But, things like "line caught" fish are going to be more expensive and not matter to the dog. Purina PPP 30/20 does cost more than Purina's cheapest kibble, but using Purina as a reference point I doubt you'd see any real positive correlation between cost and "performance." Redpaw 32k is about the same price per pound, maybe a little more, subject to either being on sale, for instance. There are kibbles that cost 5 or more times as much per pound that would still be poor enough you'd need to supplement them.

This is my exact point. The first three ingredients in PP 30/20 is Chicken, Corn Gluten Meal, and Brewers Rice. The corn and rice are cheap byproducts that can be easily replaced with quality ingredients like whole brown rice or sweet potato. They are not in there to provide superior nutrition, despite what their marketing department says. Most people just don't see past the sponsorship and fancy marketing. There are quite a few foods in the same price point that provide better quality ingredients with a similar nutrition profile.

As far as food allergies go, I have heard from several vets chicken is the most common culprit. I don't know if that is true or not though.

shags · Post by **shags** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 6:49 pm

Geez.

Stop reading the bags. Put the devices in sleep mode. Go outside and play with your dogs.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Neil · Post by **Neil** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:35 pm

Most of the naysayers use hypothetical, Ezzy, Ray, and others are using facts that you ignore and go back to hypotheticals.

If another company could produce a food that would increase performance by even 10%, they could sell it at twice the price of Purina Pro Plan and the pros would buy it for their top tier dogs. 10% would mean more wins, which would mean a lot more money. They might not feed Bo gold, but they would gladly pay $3.00 lb if it increased performance.

Here is a hypothetical for you, one of you guys that feed raw or some other dog food on that list, go win the National Championship and see how quick the pros switch.

Don't just say the food is better, prove it in the real world. Win the National Championship.

clink83 · Post by **clink83** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 9:32 pm

Circular logic for the win. Purina heavily sponsors pro trainers and gives away their food as prizes, who use their food, then go on to win fin. Must be the food, and not good genetics combined with solid training.
I
This is why advertising is so effective. Field trials aren't timed foot races, and increasing "performance" is such a vauge term that it's meaningless, especially in a subjective game that has as much to do with manners as "performance".
Waste corn and rice has less nutritional value than higher quality ingredients. That's basic science. A 30/20 food with Salmon and sweet potatoes will out perform anything proplan has, for the simple fact it hasore vitamins and minerals than the pro plan has. That's basic science, and can easily be proven experimentally.

Post by **ezzy333** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 9:52 pm

Clink, I just happened to be working with the research farm back at the time Corm Gluten became available as a by-product of the Ethanol industry and we run many tests on it trying to find where it fit into the animal feeding protocol. The thing we found is one of the most complete vegetable source proteins ever. It is has been very economical while the Ethanol industry prospers but the main thing is its profile as a protein supplement. I have no idea where you got your info on it but you are way off the mark. Because something is new and economical does not tell you a thing about the quality, as price is normally based on availability and new products are being tested everyday. They are not poor because they are cheap and they are not bad because they are new.

Neil · Post by **Neil** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 9:56 pm

clink83 wrote:Circular logic for the win. Purina heavily sponsors pro trainers and gives away their food as prizes, who use their food, then go on to win fin. Must be the food, and not good genetics combined with solid training.

This is why advertising is so effective.

Why is this so hard to understand? Or are you all just being obtuse?

With or without Purina sponsorship and advertising, if there were a markedly superior feed, a feed that would improve performance, we would all switch. It is all about winning, not loyalty, not free food. Prove it is better.

clink83 · Post by **clink83** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 10:12 pm

ezzy333 wrote:Clink, I just happened to be working with the research farm back at the time Corm Gluten became available as a by-product of the Ethanol industry and we run many tests on it trying to find where it fit into the animal feeding protocol. The thing we found is one of the most complete vegetable source proteins ever. It is has been very economical while the Ethanol industry prospers but the main thing is its profile as a protein supplement. I have no idea where you got your info on it but you are way off the mark. Because something is new and economical does not tell you a thing about the quality, as price is normally based on availability and new products are being tested everyday. They are not poor because they are cheap and they are not bad because they are new.

If all you look at is raw protein, fat or carbs you're missing the big picture. I actually did look up in CGM, and its very rich in one form of amino acid, and low in another key amino acid. I can't remember which though. What about how bioavailable it is compared to meat protein, since plant cell walls are cellulose vs phospholipods. What about the nutrient profile? Considering dogs have short digestive tracks and limited amounts of alpha amalaze its a hard sell to convince me that a plant based protein is superior to a meat based.

The same thing is true for brewers rice vs brown rice vs sweet potato, they all can give the exact same nutritional profile in regards to carbs, but they don't deliver the same nutrition.

clink83 · Post by **clink83** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 10:26 pm

Neil wrote:
clink83 wrote:Circular logic for the win. Purina heavily sponsors pro trainers and gives away their food as prizes, who use their food, then go on to win fin. Must be the food, and not good genetics combined with solid training.

This is why advertising is so effective.
Why is this so hard to understand? Or are you all just being obtuse?

With or without Purina sponsorship and advertising, if there were a markedly superior feed, a feed that would improve performance, we would all switch. It is all about winning, not loyalty, not free food. Prove it is better.

Again, "performance" is some vauge term with no meaning. The ability is run is a combo of genetics, cardio, and glycogen levels in the liver. You can restore those with pure sugar. Should we feed our dogs that for "performance"?
Nutrition is a basic science, and you're just avoiding that pro plan is filled with lower nutritional value than other common ingredients. Can you disprove it or not? Cost aside, is meat a better source of protein than corn meal? Is white rice nutritionally superior to sweet potatoes or brown rice?

Easy, quantifiable questions. Answer them instead of relying on ancidotal evidence. Eeezy at least can.

I'm also willing to bet the winners of the nationals also have a higher VO2 max than other dogs, which is also mostly genetic.

Neil · Post by **Neil** » Fri Jun 26, 2015 2:04 am

This is my last post.

First performance is very real, it is primarily what is judged in a field trial. Without the best nutrition and conditioning dogs cannot display the other traits.

All the top pros are campaigning dogs with very similar genetics, they all are close in ability as trainers and handlers, all work hard. They pretty much take turns winning, some slow with age, and there are always young talent emerging, and ever so often they find an extraordinary dog.

So if there were a major flaw in Purina or the other proven brands, the first to discover a better alternative would tilt the scales and dominate. It would not have to be dramatically better, just a little would be enough. If these superior ingredients gave just a small increase in stamina, strength, cardio, etc. It would result in a better performance and more wins. And we would hear about it and switch.

I am done.