Percentage of Ash in Kibble

[SubMariner]

I am trying to make some sense over the issue of how much ash is too much in dry dog food.

So far I haven't been able to find any scientific evidence as to what is an "acceptable" level. Also, what effect, if any, ash has on the health of a dog.

Lots of people say "oh, I wouldn't feed my dog that food because the ash levels are too high". But they can show nothing that suggests that there is a "maximum percentage" of what a dog should be getting. All they do is point me to websites that are just anecdotal information & not actual empirical data.

Just wondering if someone can demystify this subject...

[MonsterDad]

I wondered about this several years ago after talking with a Phd in nutrition doing a seminar at a local all-breed club. His take was that above 7.5% the dog was already getting multiples of the mineral content it needed and there was no way to know whether things like high phosporous would damage even healthy kidneys over time. He also said the high calcium levels in some of the foods caused constipation in many dogs.

What I find ironic is all the worry about corn, wheat, by-products, etc. but people have no issue using a food with high ash. Also ironic is that most of the really high ash foods are some of the most expensive, whereas the low ash foods are some of the least expensive. You would think the more expensive products would use superior ingredients to keep ash low. If you talk to vets, they can link some skin problem to high calcium because of how calcium interferes with zinc.

Basically you pay for ash, but it has no value above a certain amount, and high ash has the potential to cause problems.

So, there doesn't seem to be any justification for using high ash products, IMO.

[Sharon]

More of a worry for cats than dogs, as cats have a urethra the width of a needle.

[ezzy333]

I think you will find animals protein sources are going to be higher in ash that vegetable sources or grain. Ash has not really been a problem for dogs so it draws little attention. And probably deserves little attention. I have worked with those PHD's as most feed companies have them on their payroll formulating their feeds and I have to admit I tend to think they know what they are doing. I am sure that is the main reason most all feeds that are one the market today are good feeds regardless of what so many people who know little about nutrition try to tell us.

Minerals in the different ingredients are being considered when working up a formula just like the other essential elements and even though there is little difference in the ingredients no matter where they are purchased the rest of the formula is varied as much as possible to keep everything within a healthy range for the animal. That is why we often use meat and bone meal instead of just meat meal because it supplies both protein and mineral and then we used limestone, bone meal, di-calcium phosphate, blood meal, or a range of othe ingredients to balance everything. When you use corn instead of rice you need less fat and protein from other sources. And even though so many people want to judge quality of a feed by how little waste is eliminated we know that less is not always better so some higher fiber ingredients are included. But overall ash is not something that needs a lot of attention as long as it is at a fairly low level. But you do need to know some feed companies in the desire to create a need for their product are going to tell you different things, so be aware.

Ezzy

[MonsterDad]

I think you will find animals protein sources are going to be higher in ash that vegetable sources or grain. Ash has not really been a problem for dogs so it draws little attention. And probably deserves little attention. I have worked with those PHD's as most feed companies have them on their payroll formulating their feeds and I have to admit I tend to think they know what they are doing. I am sure that is the main reason most all feeds that are one the market today are good feeds regardless of what so many people who know little about nutrition try to tell us.

Minerals in the different ingredients are being considered when working up a formula just like the other essential elements and even though there is little difference in the ingredients no matter where they are purchased the rest of the formula is varied as much as possible to keep everything within a healthy range for the animal. That is why we often use meat and bone meal instead of just meat meal because it supplies both protein and mineral and then we used limestone, bone meal, di-calcium phosphate, blood meal, or a range of othe ingredients to balance everything. When you use corn instead of rice you need less fat and protein from other sources. And even though so many people want to judge quality of a feed by how little waste is eliminated we know that less is not always better so some higher fiber ingredients are included. But overall ash is not something that needs a lot of attention as long as it is at a fairly low level. But you do need to know some feed companies in the desire to create a need for their product are going to tell you different things, so be aware.

Ezzy

Well put, but let's rephrase the question. You are right it isn't much to worry about if its low, but what would you consider the risk of using a feed with 12% ash and 2.50% calcium & 1.60% phosphorous. Is there any benefit?

Most good 30/20's like Pro Plan, Eukanuba, Diamond, etc will have max ash of 6.5% and below, with 1% calcium and .75% phosphorous.

[dr tim]

Ash is the true filler in a dog food. Dogs have a requirement of about 2% ash (the non burnable/combustable minerals left over after food is burned) as in that 2% will be the calcium/phos/trace minerals they need. Above that is the useless part of a dog food as a rule. Of course, you can have a lot more useless ingredients in dog food if it isn't produced so it is digestable. For instance starches do need to be cooked for dogs to utilize them as they are not a ruminant like a cow.

So, ash tends to denote the quality of a protein ingredient, the less bone included in said meat meal the lower the ash(minerals from the bone). Many look at ash as the key to understanding if a higher quality protein is being used in the making of a dog or cat food.

Too much ash can be an impediment as well as in the gastrointestinal tract an overabundance of one type of mineral can inhibit uptake of another, either directly or by binding with the other mineral. And we have not talked about too much phosphorus and that possible effect on the kidneys over time.

I was taught ash of 7% or lower is the goal in constructing a quality food. Ash is unfortunately not required to be listed on labels so you have to do your research. Cost of using higher quality proteins, thus lower ash, than comes into play and you can tell that by what a food costs.

[ezzy333]

I was taught ash of 7% or lower is the goal in constructing a quality food. Ash is unfortunately not required to be listed on labels so you have to do your research. Cost of using higher quality proteins, thus lower ash, than comes into play and you can tell that by what a food costs.

I doubt if there are mny if any higher than that but admit I don't know. And what you said about it is right on too. But you will have a very hard time proving that price is a sign of quality. Price is determined by a lot of things but probably the major influence is marketing policy. And of course transportation costs are a big factor today more than ever. But as we all know if you are not equipped to manufacturs in the volume needed or lack of distribution abilities to cover big areas it is a necessity to produce less and therefore charge more if you are going to exist. And when you have to do that marketing will try to sell more on quality and higher price whether it is true or not.

In my mind quality should be sold on performance that you can see and not on price.

Ezzy

[dr tim]

You are right on marketing and the evils there. Ash does denote quality in my book and it is is one measure that is utilized to measure the protein quality from the nutritionists I have talked with over the years. Meat off the bone has very little ash is the idea and makes sense to me. More meat and less bone leads to less ash. Or less feathers in the chicken meal. I bet there are many that are higher than that 7%(done my homework long ago there)and I did just see a post on another site that listed a performance food at 8.75% ash. I know of only 3 foods under that number that are considered performance foods but could be wrong.

Yes, performance/results on a food does tell a lot about that food but also genetics and training are part of the equation. I have always looked at nutrition being the first part of the puzzle in this equation. As to manufacturing costs/transportation the first Model T's were darn expensive until enough demand allowed for more to be made bringing the price down but they were still a very good car at the time.

[Cajun Casey]

Moot discussion. AAFCO does not require ash to be listed on dog food.

[ezzy333]

Moot discussion. AAFCO does not require ash to be listed on dog food.

Nothing moot about it. What the AAFCO requires be the extent of your concern but we were discussing the effect on our dogs. Quite a difference when you stop to think about it.

Ezzy

[Cajun Casey]

Moot discussion. AAFCO does not require ash to be listed on dog food.

Nothing moot about it. What the AAFCO requires be the extent of your concern but we were discussing the effect on our dogs. Quite a difference when you stop to think about it.

Ezzy

Actually, it is a question I deal with regularly and there is no easy way to get percentages for comparison. Excluding clinical diets, the manufacturers don't have an obligation to provide the information.

[dr tim]

Ask em, Cajun,as they know the numbers. Whether they tell you is another matter. Not moot as all.

[MonsterDad]

Moot discussion. AAFCO does not require ash to be listed on dog food.

Nothing moot about it. What the AAFCO requires be the extent of your concern but we were discussing the effect on our dogs. Quite a difference when you stop to think about it.

Ezzy

The issue has nothing to do with the cost of the food, as you can find low ash foods for much less than $1lb. The foods with chicken by-products are generally all low ash foods, even the foods with 30% protein.

So two very learned people, Ezzy & Dr. Tim, seem to agree 7% or less is a good level. This level can be obtained at virtually any pricepoint.

The big violators of this level are the high protein grain-free foods, where the numbers are too high for me to get comfortable with. Earthborn Primitive (14%), Evo (12%) and Nature's Variety (12%) are three that I know of.

I went through kidney disease with a labrador several years back and what I didn't understand then was that 80% of kidney function can be lost without any symptoms. So back to the OP's question, the experts on here feel 7% is a good area to target and since there is only downside to excessive ash there is no reason to play around with high ash foods.

[Garrison]

This post made me curious to what I was feeding, so I contacted Nutrena and asked what the Ash content in the Loyall Professional Formula is, maximum gurantee 6.5% if anyone cares to know.

[northUpland]

Yep, even though they are not required by AAFCO to print the ASH numbers on the bag. As a consumer, MFG's must respond to your personal questions via direct contact...aka phone, email, smoke signals(no pun intended)!