Dog Food Preference...

Post Reply
boykinhntr

Post by boykinhntr » Mon Apr 12, 2004 8:26 pm

I really like Pro Plan. It has done well with every dog I have owned.

User avatar
grant
GDF Junkie
Posts: 2098
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2004 4:06 pm
Location: Rome, Georgia

I do...

Post by grant » Mon Apr 12, 2004 8:29 pm

I did Pro Plan, now I do iams...

Seems to work =)

Country-Side Breeders

Post by Country-Side Breeders » Wed Apr 14, 2004 6:10 am

I use Canidae. All natural, no fillers like so many other foods have; corn, soy wheat, grain fractions or other fillers that only fill the emptiness and offer little/no nutritional value. Iams is high in fillers, unfortunately as well as chemically produced ingredients that studies are starting to show are leading to a number of health concerns. Grains also are the culprit of many allergy and skin problems. You'll want to look for a food that has at least 2 of the top ingredients with meat, and meat meal is better than meat by-product and real meat because it's already been reduced of the water in it and the content is much more.

lking
Rank: Junior Hunter
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 2:50 pm
Location: wisconsin

Post by lking » Wed Apr 14, 2004 10:24 am

Gunner, I'm not going to tell you what to feed, but if you're a hunter you may want to reconsider Iams products. They have now begun to support HSUS, which is one of the largest ANTI-hunting organizations in the nation. Many trainers are taking a stand and using other products who believe in hunting and hunters themselves.

seadog
Rank: Junior Hunter
Posts: 64
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 6:11 am
Location: Ontario

Post by seadog » Sun Apr 18, 2004 6:48 am

Eagle

TheHooch

Post by TheHooch » Sun Apr 18, 2004 6:53 am

I have been a Purina breeder for 26 years. I use Pro Plan but right before hunting season I switch to Blackwood 7000. It has 33% protein and 25% chicken fat in it and really keeps your dogs energy and weight maintain through the season. You can do a Google search for Blackwood Pet Co and it is delivered to your door, which I love.

Hooch

Duane M
Rank: Champion
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2004 3:15 pm
Location: Oklahoma

Post by Duane M » Wed Apr 21, 2004 7:58 am

Diamond nuff said :)

Haile

Post by Haile » Wed Apr 21, 2004 6:54 pm

We use Diamond and have for years! 8)

raven

Post by raven » Thu Apr 22, 2004 10:58 am

Started with Pro-plan but he didn't seem to eat it verey well now he eats Nutro Chicken and lamb in off season High energy during bird season

User avatar
grant
GDF Junkie
Posts: 2098
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2004 4:06 pm
Location: Rome, Georgia

Post by grant » Thu Apr 22, 2004 5:02 pm

I've got 1 bag of iams to use then I'll got get some Diamond =)

llewgor
Rank: 3X Champion
Posts: 500
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 6:54 pm
Location: rio linda ca

Post by llewgor » Sun Jul 04, 2004 5:27 pm

www.thepetcenter.com has some great articles about dog food and naturapet.com. has a great way to compare your ingredients with other pet foods. Also you can click on the ingredient (corn gluten meal) and see if that's what you what your dog to eat. It can get pretty complicated. :banghead: So right now I'm feeding Candiae and Healthwise active half and half. Greenies for treats (more protein). Candiae because thats what I started with Healthwise because of the protein to fat ratio(30/20). :?:
Billy
"Change the way you look at things, and the things you look at change"

http://www.perfectpedigrees.com/3genview.php?id=147

http://www.perfectpedigrees.com/3genview.php?id=152

Wireviz_lady

food

Post by Wireviz_lady » Mon Jul 12, 2004 12:21 am

Diamond of course. I mix the purple puppy and Professional. Vizsla run on the thin side and the pro is higher in fat.
Bec

fleetmanager

Dog food

Post by fleetmanager » Wed Jul 14, 2004 12:55 pm

I have the pups on Iams. It is a good balanced food. I recommend buying a 40# bag of Iams original puppy in a yellow bag and then going to the adult maintenance in the green bag. I do not recommend keeping them on puppy food after 4 months of age. It is not good for their growth pattern. Orthopedics, especially in the elbow area can be affected by to much calcium and high levels of protein. They will grow to their full potential in the end just a bit slower.


This was passed down to me from a top Labrador breeder. :)

www.rockinoak.com

This where I bought my new Lab.

fleetmanager

IAMS SUPPORT OF BUNNY HUGGERS

Post by fleetmanager » Fri Jul 16, 2004 10:59 am

Looks like the tables have turned and IAMS is now the enemy of all the Bunny huggers. :D

http://www.iamscruelty.com/iams-feat-hunters.asp

I guess I'll continue to use IAMS, it is a good food. The HSUS and Peta are looking for any reason to get rid of hunting even if it means slamming dog food companies.

Fleet

User avatar
Ayres
GDF Junkie
Posts: 2771
Joined: Sat May 08, 2004 9:01 pm
Location: Flat Rock, IL

Post by Ayres » Fri Jul 16, 2004 11:15 am

Checked out that link. Laughed my butt off. That is such a load of ..... ill-informed propoganda. That article not only misinterprets the mission of certain pro-hunting groups, but it also purports that Iams (once the great food company who sponsored a 'good' event) is suddenly a harsh, animal-cruel company. It sounds more like a bitter kid screaming sour grapes when he doesn't get first pick of the toys.
- Steven

Justus Kennels.com

Justus James Ayres SH CGC - Justus - Rest in Peace, buddy.
Wind River's JK Clara Belle - Belle
Wind River's JK Black Tie Affair - Tux

fleetmanager

Post by fleetmanager » Fri Jul 16, 2004 12:04 pm

Exactly! :D

They were the only groups complaining.

User avatar
WildRose
Rank: 5X Champion
Posts: 1454
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 10:22 pm
Location: Outfitter/Guide Gsp Breeder/Trainer

Post by WildRose » Sat Jul 17, 2004 1:36 pm

This whole subject is hard to handle. People want to believe they are doing the very best for their dogs, and of course feed is right at the top of the list. I Emailed some links and thoughts on what's being represented as "fact" on this thread to Mark Brinkman who is the CEO and Cheif Nutritionist for Diamond and Peremium Edge. Mark and I have corresponded for many years now and I've acted as a consultant for them on formulas and such off and on (unpaid) just to help them and in turn help my dogs. Here's a copy of the email I got back from him yesterday.

Hello Charles,

The topic of calories/cup in pet food is, once again, complex. This is primarily due to the pet food industry's insatiable desire to mislead customers. Sadly, many customers end up being misled.

There are two, recognized methods for estimating the kilocalories/kg, or more commonly referred to as "kcal/kg". There is the Atwater Equation, and then there is an actual animal digestibility study. Now, here is the Atwater Equation.

Kcal/kg = ((%Protein X 3500) + (%Carbohydrates X 3500) + (%Fat X 8500)

The carbohydrate total in a food is calculated as follows: 100% - %Moisture - %Protein - %Fat - %Ash - %Fiber

So, as an example, a product with 30% protein, 20% fat, and 31% carbohydrates contains:
((30% X 3500) + (31% X 3500) + (20% X 8500) = 3,835 kcal/kg. (If you divide that number by 2.2045, you will then have the kcal/lb.)

To get to the kcal/cup, you need to know the bulk density of the food, usually provided in ounces per cup. Let's assume that the bulk density of the food is 3.7 ounces/cup. There are 28.35 grams in an ounce. Knowing these 2 figures, we can now calculate the kcal/cup as follows:

(3.7 X 28.35 X 3,835)/1000 = 402 kcal/cup

Charles, the Atwater Equation is just that--it is an equation. It does not take into account processing factors that could help the AVAILABILITY of the calories. For instance, if a manufacturing plant has an exceptional grinding system, then nutrient availability is enhanced. If it has exceptional conditioning cylinder cook during extrusion, nutrient availability is enhanced. If the fat quality is high, being low in free-fatty-acids, nutrient availability is enhanced. The Atwater equation assumes the ingredient quality and production processes to be average, at best. As such, feeding guides developed using the Atwater Equation will calculate feeding amounts on the safe side--perhaps overfeeding some dogs in the population, but not underfeeding any.

Now, the Dog Digestibility Study has its own strengths and weaknesses. Its strengths are that you can actually measure the exact amount of protein, fat, and carbohydrates that were utilized by the animal. Here's how a digestibility study works: 6-8 dogs are fed the diet in question for a period of 7 days. Then, from days 8-14, all of their feces are collected. After the 14 days are completed, the feces and a representative sample of the food are sent to a reputable laboratory. The lab analyzes the food and the feces, determining what percentage of the nutrients were metabolized, and what percentage were passed through.

Obviously, the strengths of a digestibility study is that it is incredibly accurate. Its weaknesses are, first, that its expensive--$3,000 a pop. A second weakness is that by building your feeding guide off of a digestibility study, you are relying on the results from 6-8 beagles to make feeding recommendations for the entire population of dogs, every breed, from poodles to Golden Retrievers. That's a pretty small sample size, especially if those 6-8 dogs performed the test with exraneous variables in their environment (i.e. hot weather, cold weather, sickness, etc.).

Typically, Diamond's digestility numbers show our food to have 15-20% more metabolizalbe calories than what the Atwater Equation calculates. We've got exceptional processing equipment, so that is no surprise. But, that said, I refuse to use digestibility study results in order to justify lowering my feeding guides, because I don't want to risk underfeeding segments of the dog population that may be genetically predisposed to anorexic conditions. Most owners don't rely on the guides anyway. They figure out what is the right amount to feed based on their dog's body condition.

I don't mean to point an accusing finger at manufacturers that rely solely on digestibility tests to calculate feeding guides. That's OK, even though it wouldn't be my choice. The problem are less scrupulous manufacturers that simply "juice up" their calorie numbers, with no supporting data. Why would these manufacturers purposely lower their feeding guides? Because, their marketing people want to focus the customer's attention on the "cost/feeding/day" comparisons, and divert their attention away from their ungodly high prices/bag. Since I choose to use the Atwater Equation to calculate feeding guides, I leave myself open to these unscrupulous marketers, who lie about their calorie contents, and purposely lower their feeding guides, in order to make negative comparisons against Diamond. Diamond products are so competitively priced, it's the only choice they have.

Unfortunately, the person who pays the price for these sins is you, the customer. Very, very few people understand the concepts around energy density that I have just laid out. They are in the dark, and the pet food industry giants, for the most part, like it that way.

I hope you now better understand this issue, Charles. There are things about my industry that I am proud of. There are other issues, like this one, where am I not so proud of the way the customer is being treated.

I very much appreciate your desire to learn more, and be a better advisor to the many people whose lives you touch.

Warm Regards,
Mark

Mark Brinkmann
There's a reason I like dogs better'n people

Kevin

Post by Kevin » Sun Jul 18, 2004 9:48 pm

Thanks for the info Wildrose!
Now some of the numbers make a little more sense. It just seemed a little fishy why products like INNOVA senior 18/8 would have more calories/cup than Diamond or Eagles 30/20 food for highly active dogs. :roll: It's good to hear that you are able to get some honest info from the folks at Diamond. Most Feed companies are just trying to pull the wool over our eyes. I was on the Natura pet food website(makers of Innova,healthwise,calafornia natural and karma) and there is tool to compare various feeds ingredients lists side by side. Great right, except several of natura pets competitors ingredients list are wrong. I emailed them about it, and they admitted that the lists are wrong, :shock: hopefully they changed them.

Post Reply