Questions about Dogfoodanalysis website
Ok, I know how passionate people are about their food conversations! LOL So, I hope this stays quite civil because I genuinely am puzzled by some of what I hear. So yes, I am actually going to go there and ask some questions.
It seems to me that quite a lot of people who feed premium foods are using info such as the type at the dog food analysis website. I have read their site and I have some concerns with some of their conclusions.
Now, it really doesn't matter to me what individuals decide to feed their dogs. If your dog is healthy and happy, great! There are several food threads going here. Opinions are a dime a dozen. Now on to my questions:
Corn. Ok, most of us probably agree that grain should not be the top ingredient in foods for an average dog (of course some dogs have special diets and special needs). Dog food analysis cites the inclusion of corn as a bad thing, mentioning that corn is a common food allergy. Well, true enough. But peanuts are the most common food allergy in people, followed closely by shellfish. Strawberries. Tree nuts. And yet peanuts, strawberries, and tree nuts are highly valued and healthy food sources for the vast majority of us who are not allergic. I've also seen mentioned that corn is "not digestible" yet can find quite a lot of scientific studies, actually weighing and measuring poops, that show that corn in the form found in dog foods is very digestible indeed. So, is this conclusion that corn= bad based on actual scientific studies? Or is it more of an opinion?
Grain-free. Again, studies show that grains are highly digestible by dogs. The website I mentioned states that in a "natural state" dogs didn't eat grains. Except the domestic dog as we know him never, ever existed in a natural state. I have yet to see a wild poodle! LOL. Dogs have been domesticated for around 15,000 years. During that time, every breed of dog known to man developed. Man fed dogs, man eats lots and lots of grain. I'm guessing here that, with food scarcity being a common problem up until about 50 years ago in even wealthy societies, most people did not feed their dogs lean cuts of meat and lots of tasty veggies. My guess is dogs got a lot of scraps, and considering the typical human diet those scraps included lots of grains. Remember, the modern dog is purely a creature of captivity, and would have been selectively bred to prosper on whatever food he was getting. So I guess I'm asking again, is there scientific evidence to back up the notion that dogs don't digest carbohydrates?
Finally, that ingredient listing. One of the 6 star foods listed saskatoon berries. Never heard of that, so I looked it up. It turns out it's serviceberry (juneberry). I have two bushes in my yard, and the birds go crazy for them. I'm lucky if I can get a single ripe berry. My guess is in nature, not many fall to the ground. Anywho, my dog walks by the bush frequently and doesn't show much interest (I understand John's dog does!). Seems like it's not high on his list of "natural diet." However, when we go for a walk in the woods, my dog will run a dead line from 50 yards out and find raccoon poop or whatever it is buried in the leaves and scoff it down right quick. LOL. My frantic "Leave it, leave it, LEAVE IT!!!" cries are met with faster swallowing on the part of the dog. My unscientific observation leads me to believe that animal poop is probably very high on the list of an unfed dog's favorite food groups. In small farming communities, I'm guessing cow poop and horse poop was probably quite a common snack for our pets' ancestors. But those saskatoon berries? Not so much.
I know that the antioxidants in berries are excellent for humans, but then we are descended from hunter-gatherer ancestors that likely ate lots of nuts and berries and plants. But did dogs? My dog has learned to like fruits and veggies, but it took him a few times before he figured it out. The first time he saw a piece of bread on the ground, though, he ate it in a hurry. So again, are there long-term studies that show that those particular antioxidants found in fruits help our doggie friends? Are we basing it on what we think is good for us, and assuming similar is good for the dogs? Can dogs successfully extract those nutrients from fruit? I know that dogs will naturally eat a certain amount of plant material if they are allowed to roam.
My biggest question is the big picture one: the "you would not want to eat these things" reference to some of the ingredients in traditional dog foods appeals to emotion. Of course I would not eat them. But my dog can eat poop, drink pond water, swallow worms, and several other gross things with no ill effects. My dog thinks plenty of things are lovely that I find gross. Dogs eat entrails. Dogs eat organs. Yuck and gross, in my opinion, but not the dog's.
I have tried to do research on line, but all I find to back up the claims of the foods is a circular argument where other people say "I have done a lot of research and I have found" and just keep citing back the same few web sites. I guess what I'm looking for is actual scientific studies that back up the claims of this site that quite a lot of what I consider to be high-quality foods are in fact junk.
It seems to me that quite a lot of people who feed premium foods are using info such as the type at the dog food analysis website. I have read their site and I have some concerns with some of their conclusions.
Now, it really doesn't matter to me what individuals decide to feed their dogs. If your dog is healthy and happy, great! There are several food threads going here. Opinions are a dime a dozen. Now on to my questions:
Corn. Ok, most of us probably agree that grain should not be the top ingredient in foods for an average dog (of course some dogs have special diets and special needs). Dog food analysis cites the inclusion of corn as a bad thing, mentioning that corn is a common food allergy. Well, true enough. But peanuts are the most common food allergy in people, followed closely by shellfish. Strawberries. Tree nuts. And yet peanuts, strawberries, and tree nuts are highly valued and healthy food sources for the vast majority of us who are not allergic. I've also seen mentioned that corn is "not digestible" yet can find quite a lot of scientific studies, actually weighing and measuring poops, that show that corn in the form found in dog foods is very digestible indeed. So, is this conclusion that corn= bad based on actual scientific studies? Or is it more of an opinion?
Grain-free. Again, studies show that grains are highly digestible by dogs. The website I mentioned states that in a "natural state" dogs didn't eat grains. Except the domestic dog as we know him never, ever existed in a natural state. I have yet to see a wild poodle! LOL. Dogs have been domesticated for around 15,000 years. During that time, every breed of dog known to man developed. Man fed dogs, man eats lots and lots of grain. I'm guessing here that, with food scarcity being a common problem up until about 50 years ago in even wealthy societies, most people did not feed their dogs lean cuts of meat and lots of tasty veggies. My guess is dogs got a lot of scraps, and considering the typical human diet those scraps included lots of grains. Remember, the modern dog is purely a creature of captivity, and would have been selectively bred to prosper on whatever food he was getting. So I guess I'm asking again, is there scientific evidence to back up the notion that dogs don't digest carbohydrates?
Finally, that ingredient listing. One of the 6 star foods listed saskatoon berries. Never heard of that, so I looked it up. It turns out it's serviceberry (juneberry). I have two bushes in my yard, and the birds go crazy for them. I'm lucky if I can get a single ripe berry. My guess is in nature, not many fall to the ground. Anywho, my dog walks by the bush frequently and doesn't show much interest (I understand John's dog does!). Seems like it's not high on his list of "natural diet." However, when we go for a walk in the woods, my dog will run a dead line from 50 yards out and find raccoon poop or whatever it is buried in the leaves and scoff it down right quick. LOL. My frantic "Leave it, leave it, LEAVE IT!!!" cries are met with faster swallowing on the part of the dog. My unscientific observation leads me to believe that animal poop is probably very high on the list of an unfed dog's favorite food groups. In small farming communities, I'm guessing cow poop and horse poop was probably quite a common snack for our pets' ancestors. But those saskatoon berries? Not so much.
I know that the antioxidants in berries are excellent for humans, but then we are descended from hunter-gatherer ancestors that likely ate lots of nuts and berries and plants. But did dogs? My dog has learned to like fruits and veggies, but it took him a few times before he figured it out. The first time he saw a piece of bread on the ground, though, he ate it in a hurry. So again, are there long-term studies that show that those particular antioxidants found in fruits help our doggie friends? Are we basing it on what we think is good for us, and assuming similar is good for the dogs? Can dogs successfully extract those nutrients from fruit? I know that dogs will naturally eat a certain amount of plant material if they are allowed to roam.
My biggest question is the big picture one: the "you would not want to eat these things" reference to some of the ingredients in traditional dog foods appeals to emotion. Of course I would not eat them. But my dog can eat poop, drink pond water, swallow worms, and several other gross things with no ill effects. My dog thinks plenty of things are lovely that I find gross. Dogs eat entrails. Dogs eat organs. Yuck and gross, in my opinion, but not the dog's.
I have tried to do research on line, but all I find to back up the claims of the foods is a circular argument where other people say "I have done a lot of research and I have found" and just keep citing back the same few web sites. I guess what I'm looking for is actual scientific studies that back up the claims of this site that quite a lot of what I consider to be high-quality foods are in fact junk.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Boo Buchheit on
-
So knowing what you know...what do you feed your dog? Not trying to incite, just curious. Mine get Blue Buffalo cause it is a pain in the butt to get where I live and is therefore a status symbol of sorts. No one around here has ever heard of it so it must be better, LOL. As you might know, it is not in the 6 or maybe even 5 star list on that site. My guys seem to really like it and they are both healthy and beautiful so I guess it works for us (the important thing IMO). Before I got them Blue they ate Purina Puppy Chow, and they were both healthy and beautiful...go figure.
-
Permalink Reply by Beth on
-
Oh, we feed a one-star food, Iam's! LOL Our breeder fed another one-star food, Eukanuba (as do many breeders). Her dogs were gorgeous. Well, not the ones who had recently whelped, as they were blowing their coats. My parents' dog hunts. She goes running miles and swims several times a week and has been fed Iam's mini chunks for years and is very healthy and in excellent condition.
That's why the website causes me such confusion: it gives Iam's the same one star it gives, say, Kibbles and Bits, which has no meat at all in the top like 80 ingredients (exaggeration) and uses several tasty dyes to make it a pretty red color.
You see, I remember not too long ago when Iam's and Eukanuba could not be found in stores and they were considered "premium" foods that people went out of their way to look for. Yes, I know Iam's was bought out by another corporation and their formula changed a bit. But part of me can't help but wonder is there is perhaps just a little "if I can find it in a grocery store it must be lousy" thinking going on here. We all love our dogs and want to do what is best for them, and looking for the best possible food is one way of showing we love them. But on what knowledge are we basing "the best?"
-
Permalink Reply by Bev Levy on
-
Ha Ha! Mine will eat any smushed thing on the sidewalk if they get to it before me! I feed them Inova because that is what my son's doberman eats and when I tried to switch her to their old food to eliminate the extra food bag (storage) she gave me rivers of poo every night in her kennel! A doberman with a weak stomach produces a HUGE amount of poo (info for the unaware).
You bring up some good points though. My husband is diabetic and is horrified when I eat spaghetti when we are out but my pancreas works really well and it is a good food for me. It is funny to spend a fortune on a dog's diet that will eat the first leftover moldy sandwich off the sidewalk though! Kind of like the kids who have more fun with the boxes than the toys. Honestly we all are a little (at least) nuts about our dogs or we would not be on this great site!
-
-
Oh, yeah, Jack and loose stools on chicken and corn, but is ok on lamb and rice. My parents' dog has never had loose stools in her life, unless she finds something dead in the woods, and thrives on chicken and corn. But moldy sandwiches are much, much preferred by all! I was walking Jack in the park the other day and he turned 90 degrees to the right and ran straight up the hill 50 feet, and made a beeline for a dead hamburger someone had left out in the rain there. It was like he was following radar. LOL. And worms are both a snack AND something fun to roll in!
-
-
Here's another way that I am thinking about this food thing. Horses, in the wild, are grazers (and to a lesser extent browsers; the wild ones on Assateague Island eat poison ivy, for example). A wild horse (or one many generations feral) would likely colic and die if you put it in a stall and fed it pounds of grain.
Yet a Thoroughbred is a "hard keeper". Turn a Thoroughbred out to grass (it's "natural" food) and it will be in very poor condition. It probably would not make it through the winter. A Thoroughbred as a breed is only about 300 years old, and yet in that short time it has changed enough (even though it looks very similar to wild horses, more so than our dogs resemble wolves) that it could not thrive, and very well could not survive, in its "wild" habitat on its "natural" diet and needs high-energy supplemental feeding to do well.
A Shetland pony, conversely, would do quite poorly on pounds of grain or other rich foods, and again may very well colic and die. The feral ponies on Assateague Island survive quite well on salt marsh cord grass and whatever else they can browse. A few decades ago, they tried to introduce some mustangs to provide some genetic outcross; between the crappy food and the insects, most of them died that first winter.
And most horse folks know that you must be very careful turning a horse out in early spring when the grass is growing quickly. Too much of that good grass early on will make some horses founder or colic.
I know more about horses than dogs, even though I've never owned a horse and have had several dogs. I was a typical horse-crazy girl and learned as much as I could about them. And part of what I learned tells me that looking at wild ancestors thousands of years removed can tell us some things about our captive critters, but does not necessarily guide the healthiest way to feed an animal that has been heavily selectively bred to live in conditions totally different from its wild state.
-
-
A dog trainer we know told me that with all the research available regarding dog's diet they have not extended dog's lifespans at all! Interesting, huh?
-
-
And that is quite possibly because we have reached the upper limits of their genetically determined life span, more or less. Also, as an animal that is primarily a scavenger, the domestic dog is probably genetically programmed to thrive on a huge variety of foods. I can tell you one thing, though: since the rise of pet store foods and the decline (relatively speaking) of the almost meatless types of grocery-store foods, it seems to me observationally that I see many fewer dogs with lousy coats. I think the meatless diets did not provide enough healthy fats, perhaps. But that's just observational, which is not at all scientific.
My cat eats the crappiest food, Friskies Dental Diet. If I knew then what I know now, I would not have put her on it. Cats in the wild are not omnivores, but obligate carnivores, and meat is scarce in this particular food. And yet she is 16 and very healthy. We had a blood panel done last year to check her kidney function, and it is normal which is actually pretty good for an aging cat. Her face looks like a kitten, and she's slowed down a bit but her coat is spotless and glossy and her teeth are great. Lord knows I'm not switching her now at this advanced age. So.... I take it all with a grain of salt.
-
Permalink Reply by Sam Tsang on
-
I agree with you Beth. First off, Dogfoodanalysis.com was started by a group of bulldog owners (read their faq), regular joes and janes like you and me. There are no labs to test what the label claims, so the judging is purely by assuming the label is 100% accurate. Now we all know that is not the case. In another words, the site is a collection of dog food labels and individual opinion only. Nothing more.
On my quest to understand more about dog food, I went straight to the source: FDA and AAFCO (see FAQ), Those are the rules and standards that they set out for the food manufacturer, however, manufacturers have too much grace period to "comply", that's why there are so many things that slip through the crack and we as consumers suffer for it. My sister in law used to be an FDA compliance agent, her job was to make sure the company meets all FDA standards, she said the company can be in non compliance for years before the FDA can shut them down. So it is a game of cat and mouse, don't rely on the "police" to keep us safe. There are not enough agents to catch everything that is going on.
For me, I have no brand loyalty. Here are my reasons: Company change, they get bought out by other companies. Management change, people get hired, people get fired, different dynasty have different management style. Suppliers and formulas change, after all it is a business, maximize profits is the ultimate goal. I refuse to stick with ONE brand and swear by it for life.
So what do I use now? For the year 2009, I rotate between Hills Science, Blue Buffalo Wilderness, Solid Gold and Wellness Core. I rotate them to give my dogs different flavors. A kibble will ALWAYS have other things added besides real meat, why? because real meat is call JERKY. It is very important for consumers to understand the marketing lingo on pet food products have a different definition and meaning. Natural doesn't mean what you think. again, read the FAQ, go straight to the source and read the definition that the manufacturers supposed to follow.
Most consumers read what they want, read with attached emotions and look for affirmation only. For example the attacks on Hills Science, people accuse them of bribing, kickbacks and among other things. Well, if those things really happened, where are the court documents? People complained that they sponsor or send "reps" to teach nutrition in vet school, well, do they send sales reps or people who actually studied pet nutrition? If they are indeed "reps", how will that affect the vet school reputation? If Hills science shouldn't teach nutrition, then who else should teach nutrition? Other reps from other food company? Who else have the long history of documented scientific research in the field? Who else have the facilities and manpower to do so? Coming from the medical field, my old job was to read medical research, understanding where it's done, how it's done, who funded it? was it double blinded...etc. My job was to separate the emotions and stick with the facts and outcome. I'm not saying there are no bad vets, but anyone seen a vet getting rich by kickbacks from selling Hills Science? If it's even remotely true, wouldn't that make vets worst that car salesman? There is such thing call the AVMA and all vets have code of ethics to uphold. Vet students get discount from Hills Science the same way a Taco Bell staff can get at discount for a burrito, it's call benefit, not bribing. Taco Bell staff are not forced to eat at taco bell, they always have the option to pay full price and eat at taco bell or McDonalds. Do you insist on paying full sticker price if you work at Best Buy, Walmart or the Apple Store? Of course not! Do you remember what brand of computer you used at your high school or college lab? How did that shape you in purchasing your own computer today? It shouldn't! Because what matters is the components inside, just like dog food.
Again, I'm not loyal to any brand, if something goes wrong with the brand I mentioned today, I would switch to another brand in a heartbeat and I would feel great about it. Use logic, don't belief everything you hear and resonate with it blindly.
-
-
What you say about Hills reminds me of some heated conversations on a forum I sometimes frequent for a chronic medical condition I have.
There are a group of people who swear a no-starch diet is a "cure" for this medical condition. These people are equally convinced that there is some sort of conspiracy by doctors to not pursue this route because they would lose money from the prescription drug companies.
My gently pointing out that there are quite a few diseases for which diet modification is nearly always tried before drugs (high blood pressure, high cholesterol, mild diabetes, gastric reflux) does not dissuade them from their firmly held belief that the doctors just want kick backs from the drug companies, and so avoid diet-based solutions.
If the medical community is not backing up your beliefs, one of the best ways to get people to follow you is to attack the medical community for being part of the conspiracy. It reminds me of a certain flavor of politics, but goodness knows I won't broach that subject here! LOL
-
Permalink Reply by Cindi on
-
One of the issues with Hill's is their support of veterinary colleges. One of my vets told me they got one unit on nutrition and it was taught by a Hill's rep. The second is the quality of ingredients since the buyout by Colgate-Palmolive. If you find their Nature's Best selection, it's much more healthy.
-
-
Hi Beth...some very good observations and questions. I like the dogfoodanalysis site as it is informative. The downside is that it's a bit militant in it's observations and assertions. I guess there really is no perfect site. Like anything else, you have to glean what intuitively is right for you and your pup and do that. One can't take a real cookie-cutter approach. I have friends who feed raw and would fight you tooth and nail over it. It can get ugly! Personally, I feed Natural Balance no grain formula because I have a catahoula who is TERRIBLY allergic. Bless her, she looks like someone drug her ten miles behind a truck if she gets grains! So...that's the way I went and why. Even without that allergy, I think I would watch the grains just because of how they are grown and processed. I worry about the inclusion of steroids, antibiotics, etc. in the growth of grains. For example, in and of itself, corn isn't that awful. BUT, how it is handled in this country since the 1970s gives me pause. Just think about how much corn is in our food chain (and in other products) and how the maturity of humans has been affected (kids maturing at 14 as opposed to 9 since it's subsidizing by our gov't.)
Just my two cents. There's is really no RIGHT way. Just what you feel is the best you can do by your pup. I've had folks in classes swear by Dog Chow and folks who would break your arm if you didn't feed raw. But, at least there are some sites out there that we can use as a tool----not a bible.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/04/04/Corn-...
-
-
Thank you for your thoughtful response. As I said, I know passions run high. And some of it is simply what resonates with you. Personally I am more concerned with the rampant use of growth hormones and antibiotics in our meat products. And yet.... I like meat, I feel meat offers some nutrients that are difficult to obtain elsewhere, and so I still eat it.
I also think that a lot of the hormone-mimicking chemicals in plastic are contributing to our early-maturing kids, along with the growth hormones left over in the milk and beef. But again, that's just what resonates with me personally.
Complicated world we live in.
Rescue Store
Stay Connected
FDA Recall
Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recall
Groups
We support...
Badge
© 2024 Created by Sam Tsang.
Powered by
