Puppy Problem!

Trostan

Oh I missed this one!!

More nonsense. No premium pet food that I am aware of contains 1.2% salt!
Our food contains between 0.3% and 0.5% with higher levels in food delivering higher energy levels.

This means that a Lab eating 320 gms of food per day - gets - yes you're right! - 1 gram of salt.

3. Your average lab requires 1g of salt per 400g of food. Dry food starts at 1.2% salt (same as sea water), without it dogs won't eat it. So a 400g pile of pellets is at the very least 6g of salt per day for your dog . Or 6 times the dogs RDA of salt. When we eat 9g instead of 6g per day we die suffer osteoporosis, cardiovasc disease etc. Why is it OK for dogs?

DogsFirst

Quick look at biggest seller in Australia - Advance pet food....pick any product anywhere

http://www.advancepet.com.au/products/dog-products/puppy/puppy-plus-growth-largeplus-breed,-chicken-15kg.aspx

0.6% sodium. Sodium makes up 40% of salt. The rest is chloride. Hence this particualr pup food is 1.5% salt.

DogsFirst

That's just a big selling Mars product, most of the top sellers. Most dry foods don't state salt content on their websites in percentages, preferring to say "Guranteed Analysis" which looks like the dog needs it. As opposed to simply, nutritional information.

Which one are you selling and lets take a look at the salt there

DogsFirst

Not accounting for the likes of potassium chloride of course, which is also salt and used along side sodium chloride, adding to the salt effect

Trostan

I can imagine, based on your previous post that you don't read anything.
However that doesn't explain the "food reps" jibe and you failed to comment on the research book.
If, as you say, you are a food scientist, have you read this bible of the pet food industry?
Surely as an expert, you must assess all available data, particularly that fro the leading pet food academics in the world.

Comment on your totally incorrect claims:- sprayed on fats, high levels of salt, protein levels in senior dogs.

Finally, in face of the evidence of these animal nutrition scientists, hat has NASA got to do with animal nutrition?

I suggest you DO read, perhaps you might modify your prejudices.
To that end, if you contact us at ireland@husse.com, I will open up our partner, nutrition training videos for your comments.
Prepared by Dr Guy Werquin Ph.D., our food design consultant (who is a vet, a botanist and a zoologist), these online presentations may open up more opportunities for you to criticize or comment.

DogsFirst wrote: »

Look I didn't actually read any of that.

I notice one bit about "ingredients bouncing off eachother" which you're laughing at. It's slang to save people the boredom of reading stuff like the above. I refere of cource to the whole idea of complete, getting everything in there at once, every meal. Which is not possible as NASA nutrition scientists will explain to you. Phytic acid in wheat binds pretty much everything out like zinc and mangnesium, which you can't increase as it binds out copper etc etc.

And, why put scientist in quotations. I spent a lot of time in university studying this stuff!!

Look all my stuff is up there for everyone to see. Go ahead and look read my books, articles or vids which have all the references you need, certainly for the whole omnivory thing you're stuck on, including lots of work done on the studies and conclusion produced by some of the lads you mention above.

If you find anything, anything at all that I may be askew on please point it out, one thing at a time, dry or fresh food, training or behaviour for that matter, and we can discuss it in under 50 words tweet style. If I'm wrong I'd appreciate the heads up.

DogsFirst

Yes definitely I've read a lot stuff put out there by big industry, it was my job. The bible I refer to is "Small Animal Clinical Nutrition" used by most vets worldwide, published by Morris Inst (which is owned by Colgate-Palmollive, which only shot to prominence in the dog food world in the 90's afer they got vets to endorse their Science products, following from their successful, heavily financially motivated endorsement of their tooth pastes by dentists in the 80's). But universities need cash so in it goes.

I have no doubt your vet is an excellent nutritionist and I'm sure your food is better than most as a result. But I have seen the veterinary curriculum in Ireland and the UK and little to no time is spent on fresh food. A curriculum that covers subjects as vast as biology, physiology, oncology, nutrition and pharmacology in 5 different animal groups, in five years! As most information thereafter is supplied by pet food companies (and I attended their lectures whilst with guide dogs here and abroad) and because I lecture to vets on the matter (last year my course offered 4CVE points for attendance, I invited the majority of dog food companies, one showed and were great fun) he may be at a disadvantage discussing the pros and cons of a fresh diet with me. By all means though, submit my above comments to him, I'd appreciate his advice.

I have one question for him though, the same one I asked lots of nutritionists in pet food companies, does he believe your processed food is better than feeding fresh food to a dog? That's the bottom line. I know what the printed answer is already. The true answers are face to face.

Also coming back to salt as pointed out, ask your nutritionist what the salt content of Husse is, it's not on the website, sodium chloride and potassium chloride. But I suggest you don't, this isn't going to end favourably for your brand up on boards.

Irishchick

Trostan wrote: »

Really, this responder who claims to be a scientist does no research and has absolutely no idea about the manufacturing, research, ingredients and controls in the quality pet food industry.

Let's see what he says:-
"Every two years 1,000 Mars / Nestle / Colgate Palmollive researchers get together. That's not science. That's a gathering of food reps. Science is when independent, peer reviewed (others outside your inst. review your work) studies get together and bounce results. Their "millions on research" by thousands of researchers by their science arms such as the Morris Inst (CP) or Waltham (Mars) has resulted in a very scientific little pellet alright! But no science behind it's efficacy."

Here's the names of some of the "gathering of food reps" who submitted the last report, upon which we rely heavily.

Donald C. Beitz, Ph.D. - Charles F. Curtiss Professor of Agriculture in the Department of Biochemistry, Biophysics and Molecular Biology at Iowa State University.

John E. Bauer, Ph.D. D.V.M - Professor of Small Animal Medicine and Surgery, and Professor of Clinical Nutrition in the College of Veterinary Medicine at Texas A&M University

Keith Behnke Ph.D. - Department of Grain Science at Kansas State University

David A Dzanis D.V.M, Ph.D. - Consultant in his own company on veterinary nutrition and federal regulation and licencing.

George C. Fahey, Ph.D. - Professor of Animal Sciences and Nutritional Sciences, College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois.

Richard C Hill, Vet Mb, Ph.D., MRCVS professor of Clinical Nutrition, Dept. of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, University of Florida

Plus another 7 such "Mars/Nestle/Palmolive employees". Though I would suggest that should you report them to their various educational faculties as such, they might well face severe disciplinary action.
Indeed I would be delighted to observe their collective reaction as I introduce you to them as the person who referred to them as "a gathering of food reps".

Indeed, also on that panel was Quinton D. Rogers Ph.D. professor of physiological chemistry at University of California. Someone who is as knowledgeable as you knows, of course, that Rodgers is one of the most lauded small animal researchers in the world and it was he who discovered the necessity for the supplementation of taurine for cats and for large breed dogs. This "food rep" has been responsible for saving literally millions of companion animals from blindness and early death.
(Maybe HE works for Whiskas.)

The report collated by them 4 years ago was based on their own collective research and from submitted papers by up to 600 other "food reps" is called "Nutrition Requirements of Dogs and Cats" and was prepared and published under the auspices of The National Research Council in the US, one of the National Academies. This highly authoritative 438 page report deals with all the latest research into all aspects of the components of nutrition needed for manufactured foods.
Their statement "one of the best delivery methods for nutritional balance for dogs is through properly prepared dry pet food" may have some significance.

"Every single canine nutritional book written in the last 20 years talks of fresh diets, full of meat, cartilage and bone, how a dog is supposed to be fed."

Nowhere in this report do these eminent scientists recommend any form of fresh meat diets.

So let's get the rubbish about "food reps" out of the way once and for all.

The rest of your list of points wavers between total misinformation and prejudice. Let's have a look:- (in relation to our food)

"50% cereal" - dogs are indeed omnivores and can survive without any meat in their food. Many vegans and vegetarians feed such a diet, carefully balanced, to their healthy pets. Cats, however are pure carnivores and need a meat content. Dogs will develop better and faster however, when fed a properly balanced meat-inclusive diet.
The ridiculous mythology about cereal is widespread. Provided the starch within the cereal is properly gelatinised in a pressure and steam environment, it becomes up to 86% digestible, providing approx 14% to 17% of a dog's energy requirement by weight. Protein provides approximately the same %, with fats providing the balance of about 60%. Cereal husks used for bulking in some cheaper foods are of no nutritional value. Rice is the most easily digestible carb and is used in over 90% of our foods as the Starch source.
9 out of 10 of our Super Premium foods list the meat protein first in the ingredients, meaning that these are, by weight, the dominant constituent of the food.
Our beef is carved from the bone in Germany, fat removed and prepared as for human consumption. Lamb is NZ prepared, fat removed and turned into a "meal" for transportation. Salmon is from Norway; Chickens - fed to our nutrient specification and differing for pup, adult and senior food are from co-ops in Belgium and Northern France. All the proteins are tracked and traceable and all are human grade. No derivative is used, the flesh is the ingredient.
Exploding these prejudicial myths is always worthwhile.
Like other premium quality manufacturers, we take care to ensure that only the best is included.

"They believe processed animal remains are as good nutrition as fresh. They dogs are immune to the effects of processed meats when humans are told to eat a matchbox amount a day, max!"
"Immunity" to food is a strange expression for a scientist to offer!! As stated above, dogs eat for energy; the vast majority of which is provided by animal fats. The quality of these fats and how the dog's digestive tract and how energy conversion to oxygen within individual cells are performed is the critical factor to the delivery of this energy and the efficient use of it for warmth, exercise and digestion. Up to 15% of the energy used by a dog goes solely to the digestion system.

This submitter ignores or may be unaware of the supplementation of NATURAL Lecithin and Carnitin in the super premium foods.
Feeding vast lumps of fatty oils in a raw diet is an inefficient way of delivering energy. The bulk of the globules of the fats pass through the short alimentary system and are excreted, explaining why the ancient wolf who ate such diets aged early and had a very short lifespan .Since the introduction of dry dog food (and with improved animal welfare standards) the average lifespan of the dog has increased by over 2 years.

Supplementation of lecithin emulsifies the fats into small globules, greatly increasing their surface area and allowing for more efficient digestive transfer of this main energy source.

The supplementation of natural carnitin acts as a fat burner in the mitochondrium of the cell, improving the "burning" of the fat and accelerating its conversion.
The effective result is that these fats are converted to useful energy, helping the dog maintain its body conformation due to non over-supply of fat and improving energy delivery through the cells with less necessity for increased feeding amounts.

The addition of fructo and mannan-oligosaccarides sugars inhibit the ability of pathogenic bacteria to cling to the food in the digestive tract, allowing for better absorption by beneficial bacteris, giving our food a digestibility of 90-92%. Indeed our dogs mainly excrete the fibre we put into the food to clean their intestine. Without this fibre and with such high digestibility, the dog would struggle to have anything to excrete at all.

Hydrolysed chicken - the enzymatic process of breaking down complex amino acid chains in the proteins, prior to digestion, ensures rapid digestion, helps prevent allergenic reaction and improves the palatability, removing the need for supplemental flavourings. Again nature adapted to the ultimate benefit of the dog.

This respondent should take a breath now and consider how the "food reps" at their meeting came up with all of this. Maybe it was in between beers at the bar.

The supplementation of chrondroitin and glucosamine (from sea algae and green lipped mussels) strengthens and fortifies the cartilage in the joint articulations, delaying the onset of arthritic problems. The addition of Devils Claw - a herb from Namibia - provides nature's anti-inflammatory relief for dogs with pain from poor articulation in the relevant foods. We supplement these from puppy hood on and have seen wonderful results in mobility and pain relief from breeds with arthritic tendencies.

"Fat is sprayed on from the outside" - more wrong and ill-informed nonsense.
In the process of extrusion, the warm kibble burst from the extruder and expand, becoming porous as they harden and dry. The kibble is now a maze of tiny holes.
The dry kibble is transferred to a huge vacuum processor, where up to 1.5 tonnes is introduced. The air is withdrawn from the chamber and it is inverted, causing the kibble to "float" in suspension.
Two large pumps - one with the fats, oils and digest mix - the other with vitamins and minerals, release carefully measured and balanced quantities (food dependent) into the vacuum chamber, which is again rotated. The food and the these mixes are now in suspension. Air is rammed back into the vacuum at high pressure, driving the mixes deep into each kibble and saturating them. This is "vacuum-coating" and is used by all the major premium food producers.
You should check your facts before making ridiculous claims about spraying.

"Dry food manufacturers use plant fibre" - a sweeping and mis-leading statement. This may refer to small producers and much cheapo food does indeed contain such. All mammals need fibre in their diet - difficult to introduce in an all meat diet. Non-digestible fibre cleans the digestive tract and works with the arythmical movement of the dog's anus during the act of excretion. Without this fibre the dog has a great deal more trouble during excretion, leading to potential problems with. In the wild wolves get semi-digested fibres from the stomach of "kill". We use beet fibre as a means to assist the dog in this area and indeed often that is all the dog excretes.

The nonsense about vitamins is derisory. Not only do we use the highest quality minerals and vitamins, we stabilise some of them with enzymes, extending their life and ensuring delivery. Our vitamin C provides 85% efficiency in the food after 9 months, as against 25% in non-stabilised varieties.
As for the key minerals, research (as above) shows the following.
Remember that in a raw food diet, the host animal has already "used" (to an unknown extent) some of the key minerals. How old was the animal that is providing this "raw" diet - the mineral levels available in the meat depend on the host's age. How long ago was it killed? What level of pathology is present?
How much should be externally supplemented?
A raw meat diet provides on average 0.04 per cent calcium, 0.61 per cent phosphor, giving a ratio of .7 between these. These critical minerals, vital for the stabilisation of the skeletal structure should be in a ratio of 1.4, which is the balanced figure available from our foods. If meat diets are so efficient, why do they have to be supplemented so much?

The "raft of scientific evidence" about high levels of protein in older dogs is not evident. Once again, the importance of the percent of protein in food is completely inferior to its "digestibility". Beef is the least digestible of meats and delivers poor protein supplementation to dogs. The complex amino acids are difficult to break down, this is why in older dogs and dogs with poor digestions, chicken, lamb and salmon are much better alternatives. Older dogs do indeed require less protein as their organs are not renewed as regularly as when younger. Remember protein only delivers a fraction of the dogs energy requirements. Also a reduction in the energy derived from fats that is needed for older dogs, to prevent weight increase. So look for a fat content of not more than 11%


8. "Theres no such thing as complete dinners, its a fallacy brought on by industry. Any nutritionist that perpetuates such a need in dog owners is being paid by the top four. Due to cooking, ingredients bouncing off each other etc, NASA can't make it for astronauts. Charities were shot down for thinking out loud could left over dog pellets be fed to the starving. The answer was no and people no doubt starved."
"Ingredients bouncing off each other????"
I won't bother. Other than my last terrier fed "complete dinners!!!!" lived for 19 years and 4 months and died "healthy". In fact the day before she died she was chasing a ball. Properly manufactured dry food has greatly contributed to the increase in longevity of dogs.


"Not forgetting gluten in wheat, food chemicals like texturisers, preservatives, stabilisers, colours, allergy, rocketing chronic disease, terrible gums, huge amounts of product recalls and countless stories of the inadequacies of dry food, dogs allergic to chicken and beef like cows being allergic to grass, all before you consider the ANTECH study in 2003 of 200 premium dry fed dogs to 200 fresh fed dogs. In short fresh fed dogs were significantly healthier."

Did you ever notice the terms - gluten free - on the packaging, did you know that 90% of premium dog food does not contain the vegetable derivative that contains that protein?
"Terrible gums!!!!!" - we supplement sea weed (KELP)in our food, it transfers ascophyllum nodosum through the blood stream to the saliva, where it softens the tartar.
The kibble are tested for hardness on a continuing basis to ensure that they shard in the dog's mouth, with these shards having the mechanical effect of removing the softened tartar from and in between the teeth. Result - white teeth, fresh breath. Please do some research!

More unsupported allegations not worth dealing with. There are no chemical supplements, additives or colorants in our foods. There are no soaps in our shampoos. Our arthritis treatments and wormers are herbal; our poop collection bags are made from corn. Our packaging is bio-degradable. Like other environmentally aware manufactured food producers, we care deeply about the animals and the environment and work with researchers such as those above to ensure the very highest standards are maintained.

The "scientist's" post shows a complete lack of research, knowledge or interest in the industry and is a lot of self-justifying and inaccurate misinformation.

Thanks for posting that it was actually really informative. Learned a lot about the manufacturing process.

Just 1 disagreement. No studies, as of yet have concluded that glucosamine and Condriotin do anything to effect joint mobility.

Glucosamine MAY help absorption which acts as a shock absorber but this cannot be 100% proven.

It's still a very grey area.

ISDW

Thanks trostan, very informative. I think im probably like the vast majority of dog and cat owners, want to feed whats best, but get confused by the myriad of different information and opinions out there. Im not saying im going to go off and change my dogs' food now, but good info to read.
I read a newspaper article once abour the uks oldest dog, he was 27 years old and had been fed a totally vegetarian diet. Lol

DogsFirst

I was going to let it go but to be very clear, I'm not putting out misinformation.


1. Adult dry food by husse (http://www.husse.ie/dog-food-products/dry-food-for-dogs/?product=95)
Wheat flour, wheat, meat meal, greaves, animal fat, hydrolysed chicken protein, beet pulp.......

You say meat is your first ingredient. Even it it was in some of your products it's a wet weight you're talking about, the other ingredients are dry. So you have a lump wet meat, 75% of which is water and the next two or three ingredients are heaps of dry cereal. That's a huge amount of cereal. Humans are advised to include max 25% cereal, and they should be the whole grain varieties like brown rice. Now dogs eat 50% wheat. When this years weather pushes the wheat prices up I bet we'll have a few more rice based product next year.


2. Without plant fibre dogs have more trouble excreting!!!! Ridiculous. I would say dogs with their anal glands blocked up are having difficulty excreting. Having anal glands removed. Big wet sloppy stools that are now the standard for dogs. "Dogs mostly excrete the plant fibre...." Their rapid systems excrete all of it. Rapidly. Likely pushing digesta past at rates beyond limits of absorbtion in the dog. No studies exist in support of this yet but there is also no scientific benefit to putting indigestible plant fibre in healthy dogs. Your products are 3.3% indigestible plant fibre.

And once again wolves do not eat the stomach contents of their prey. Is that why you put so much cereal in?
Mech is a good example here, 350 years of collective research where he highlights it is "the only bit consistently ignored" (p450 I think, Wolves: Biology, Consv. Behaviour)

Also check out this video of dogs eating a sheep avoiding the YUMMY stomach contents
www.youtube.com/watch?v=YB0jNiELlyk, skip to 1:40 and watch for 20 seconds, the big white bag you see hanging out is the rumen, the sheeps stomach, which is carefully avoided by the dogs

To be clear I support nothing said in the above video.


3. As for fresh food being deficient in vitamins due to some usage by the animal itself.....brilliant! How do all the carnivores manage to get by on their own before pet food saved the day?!!! I saw a group of wolves attack a Boots there last week, got away with 50 packs of Centrum.


4. Protein in older dogs, please google scholar the below article. This has already been up on boards, with a "raft" of other references, no need to go through it all again. They need need more, higher quality proten, not less. Husse drop the protein level from 28% in adult carnivores to 22%. 22% protein, much of which in contributed by your plant ingredients.

Laflamme, D. P. (2008). Pet food safety: Dietary protein. Topics in Companion Animal Medicine, 23(3): 154–157.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1938973608000421

Now you show me a study, just one, that supports cash saving protein restriction in healthy older dogs.


5. So you're saying dry food is not responsible for 4/5 3yr olds dogs having immunologically destructive gum disease?
Whats the point in arguing with someone who has this stance, a stance directly in opposition of British and Australian Veterinary Associations.

Instead of having a million scientists engineering each little kibble for the benefit of your clients, give dogs a fresh bone.

irishbucsfan

DogsFirst, you are continually referring to problems caused by the feeding of standard foods which is confusing the argument.

I don't think anyone would disagree that there are dry foods out there that are certainly bulked like you claim. A lot of standard foods (the household names) are extremely guilty of this.

However the good foods out there (hills/Husse/Euk etc.) are not guilty of this at all. Gum disease may be prevalent in 3 y/o dogs, but not in those fed on foods such as the above.

You are dead right to criticise some dry foods, and I for one wish pet owners were more aware of the difference the quality of food can make to a dogs life, however you are not making the very important distinction between, say, Pedigree Chum and Hills Science or Husse Optimal. There is no point even having the discussion if this distinction isn't made, it's like discussing cars without making the distinction between a Ford Fiesta and a Bentley Continental.

As for dogs fed on a fresh food diet, they can be extremely healthy for sure, but they are missing out on some of the superb natural additives that these excellent companies scour the world to find. I don't think you have a bunch of African Marigolds or Devils Claw, or whatever else the crazy Swedish Husse guys like Trostan was talking about, growing in your garden! Also, the scientific foods reach digestibility levels of 90%, you'll never reach anything like that on a fresh food diet.

DogsFirst

Agree with a lot of that but I can't comment on individual brands unless dealing with the companies or the reps themselves.

So yes I suppose they are sweeping statements but I it's like saying TV dinners are acceptable because some of them include parsley, or some starter bottled milk for babies is OK because they found a way to include colostrum. Granted dry food is starting to put in some good stuff but it doesn't outweigh the points mentioned above, particularly when they cost the same. All the Devils Claw in the world will not make up nutritionally for a cereal based product containing cooked processed meat and high salt content in every meal for life. Cooking destroys infinitesimal bits in fresh food that NASA hasn't been able to replicate for astronauts. They only freeze dry and say on their site "we still haven't got it right yet". Zoo keepers will not allow dry food companies in though they badly need their dollars. We haven't got a complete food for starving humans. It doesn't exist and it's a fallacy to say it exists in dogs. 6/8 caged dogs are proven to survive adequately for 6mths but in a comparison of 200 fresh fed to premium dry fed by ANTECH 2003 (ANTECH Diagnostics® services more than 19,000 animal hospitals throughout North America), fresh fed were significantly and statistically healthier.

At this point dry food companies say, yeah but that's not our product, ours is totally different. Which is ridiculous. All pet foods are made by the big four under different names. When one is recalled for hypervitaminosis or whatever (see FDA recalls) sometimes over 150 brands are taken back.

Dry food sales (in quantity, not cash of course) are now falling in the US. Dry food companies know this. It makes marketing (let alone scientific) sense to compare their complete products to the control diet - a fresh, natural meat based diet, one likely to be absent in Devils claw, for a period of years to give some substance to their claims, but it's not done. Or it has been done repeatedly but the results are either not released or do not pass independent peer review as a scientific study. Whichever.

As a result the best brands are those with the biggest advertising budget. It's not a debate and it's not fair on the public. It's an onslaught of marketing dollars to ingrain acceptability. The same happened with TV dinners and bottle milk. Nestle used dentists to push their toothpaste in the 80's, a brilliant marketing ploy and within a year had "the best tooth paste". In the 90's they used vets and now make "the best food" prescribed by vets. Google Parker Popes article in the Wall Street Journal in 1997 that documented this move into universities.

The breast versus bottle debate waged in the courts for years before big companies were forced down, so they moved to the third world. Only one or two dog owners have tried that route and it didn't go well for them. Dogs unfortunately have some way to go.

irishbucsfan

DogsFirst wrote: »

Agree with a lot of that but I can't comment on individual brands unless dealing with the companies or the reps themselves.

So yes I suppose they are sweeping statements but I it's like saying TV dinners are acceptable because some of them include parsley, or some starter bottled milk for babies is OK because they found a way to include colostrum. Granted dry food is starting to put in some good stuff but it doesn't outweigh the points mentioned above, particularly when they cost the same. All the Devils Claw in the world will not make up nutritionally for a cereal based product containing cooked processed meat and high salt content in every meal for life. Cooking destroys infinitesimal bits in fresh food that NASA hasn't been able to replicate for astronauts. They only freeze dry and say on their site "we still haven't got it right yet". Zoo keepers will not allow dry food companies in though they badly need their dollars. We haven't got a complete food for starving humans. It doesn't exist and it's a fallacy to say it exists in dogs. 6/8 caged dogs are proven to survive adequately for 6mths but in a comparison of 200 fresh fed to premium dry fed by ANTECH 2003 (ANTECH Diagnostics® services more than 19,000 animal hospitals throughout North America), fresh fed were significantly and statistically healthier.

It is not a fallacy to say that Eukanuba or Hills Science is a complete food. The evidence of this surrounds us every day. There are some superbly healthy animals that are fed exclusively on these foods. How can you explain this? The super premium foods offered by these companies, or indeed the Optimal range of those Husse foods, are very specifically engineered to be a complete food. You can claim they aren't a complete food but the truth is they absolutely are.

At this point dry food companies say, yeah but that's not our product, ours is totally different. Which is ridiculous. All pet foods are made by the big four under different names. When one is recalled for hypervitaminosis or whatever (see FDA recalls) sometimes over 150 brands are taken back.

Really? Which of the big four own Arden Grange? Or Husse? There are plenty of very successful and highly rated independent dry food manufacturers across Europe.

Dry food sales (in quantity, not cash of course) are now falling in the US. Dry food companies know this. It makes marketing (let alone scientific) sense to compare their complete products to the control diet - a fresh, natural meat based diet, one likely to be absent in Devils claw, for a period of years to give some substance to their claims, but it's not done. Or it has been done repeatedly but the results are either not released or do not pass independent peer review as a scientific study. Whichever.

Do you have any statistics on the quantity of dry food sales in the US? It has increased in value by 33.3% since 2003 according to one website I can see.

As a result the best brands are those with the biggest advertising budget. It's not a debate and it's not fair on the public. It's an onslaught of marketing dollars to ingrain acceptability. The same happened with TV dinners and bottle milk. Nestle used dentists to push their toothpaste in the 80's, a brilliant marketing ploy and within a year had "the best tooth paste". In the 90's they used vets and now make "the best food" prescribed by vets. Google Parker Popes article in the Wall Street Journal in 1997 that documented this move into universities.

Absolutely. This is the same in so many industries though so I'm not sure of your point. Market share doesn't grant quality though and people who take the time to look into the options available to them will be able to see that the standard foods available don't match up at all in terms of quality or value to the top end of the market. I don't think there are many retail markets where the best quality product is automatically granted the biggest market share and pet food is no different.

The breast versus bottle debate waged in the courts for years before big companies were forced down, so they moved to the third world. Only one or two dog owners have tried that route and it didn't go well for them. Dogs unfortunately have some way to go.

If people were more educated (and in the case of some others, more accurately educated) about pet nutrition, then the bulk foods would be forced out of the market. Unfortunately that isn't going to happen any time soon. The best you can do is let people know that moving to a brand at the top end of the market will decrease the amount they need to feed their dog making the food more valuable and will also increase the quality of the dog's life. I've seen it first hand myself.

borderlinemeath

irishbucsfan wrote: »

DogsFirst, you are continually referring to problems caused by the feeding of standard foods which is confusing the argument.

I don't think anyone would disagree that there are dry foods out there that are certainly bulked like you claim. A lot of standard foods (the household names) are extremely guilty of this.

However the good foods out there (hills/Husse/Euk etc.) are not guilty of this at all. Gum disease may be prevalent in 3 y/o dogs, but not in those fed on foods such as the above.

I wouldn't rate hills tbh, I think an awful lot of people have it up there on a pedestal because vets recommend it as most of them sell it. I've met a few dogs that are on it purely because the vet recommended it and it caused them fairly bad flatulence and runny poo.

You are dead right to criticise some dry foods, and I for one wish pet owners were more aware of the difference the quality of food can make to a dogs life, however you are not making the very important distinction between, say, Pedigree Chum and Hills Science or Husse Optimal. There is no point even having the discussion if this distinction isn't made, it's like discussing cars without making the distinction between a Ford Fiesta and a Bentley Continental.

As for dogs fed on a fresh food diet, they can be extremely healthy for sure, but they are missing out on some of the superb natural additives that these excellent companies scour the world to find. I don't think you have a bunch of African Marigolds or Devils Claw, or whatever else the crazy Swedish Husse guys like Trostan was talking about, growing in your garden! Also, the scientific foods reach digestibility levels of 90%, you'll never reach anything like that on a fresh food diet.

And most dogs in their natural environment pre dried food wouldn't come across those ingredients and were probably just as healthy.

Every dog is different and will thrive on different things, just as every human is different and some are intolerant to some foodstuffs. I think some dogs do just fine on certain dried foods, some need a specific food that may be gluten free or whatever.

DogsFirst

There's no evidence that dry fed dogs are healthier Irishbucsfan, but there is for the opposite. Dogs today are possibly living longer, no data I can find on that one. But its like saying Americans are living longer thanks to their diet. They are living longer despite their diet. Chemical sales are rocketing. Chronic disease is rocketing. 3 times the rate of diabetes than humans, 25 times the rate of pancreatitis than humans. Both diet related. Copious amounts of carbohydrate are processed by the pancreas which must produce enough amylase to digest the entirely unnatural amount (from o carbs to 50%) and then enough insulin to balance soaring blood sugars. 4/5 dogs with gum disease. Gut cancer far beyond that in humans. Allergy, skin and gut medication making up the top 5 vet complaints. All diet related illnesses.

I mean come on everyone knows a dry fed dog that lasted 20years. A vegetarian with a vegetarian dog. My friend plays football for Dublin, he's good. Happens he smokes. What does that tell us about smoking? Nothing. Pit 11 smokers against 11 non-smokers and the non-smokers do them in the second half. When dry fed dogs are pitted against fresh fed dogs, they lose immunologicaly speaking. Dry food companies have not one study to show dogs do better on their food. Dogs can live for an undetermined time on it, that is all. The conclusion from the ANTECH study would be dogs would live longer on fresh.

And sorry you're right on the independent brands of dry food thing, apologies. It was a sweeping statement. 95% say.

The stats on dry food sales come from Euromonitor Pet Food Report 2010, summary available at their site, http://www.euromonitor.com. Sales decreased in 2010-2011 in quantity and it actually says here in the latest increased by 0.7% in 2011-2012 (went up 4% in cash sales) but are stalling again. Dig up the figures. One quote I remember was "exponential growth of raw products".

Disagree with market share thing, marketing dollars equals top sellers equals "best brands" in pubic persona. Not every time, that would be a sweeping statement.

SillyMangoX

This is kinda ridiculous, the OP posted because their pup wasn't eating and it somehow transpired to a pissing match between 2 dog food suppliers.. I really don't see how it has anything to do with what the OP posted!

DogsFirst

Agreed. Apologies. It won't happen again.

tk123

Hey OP if you're sticking with Burns zooplus.co.uk are giving £5 when you spend £39 - the offer is on their homepage

Trostan

The Green tea bones we supply are anti-oxidant and provide cell protection as well as tooth cleaning. The sea weed in the food softens tartar and the sharding of the kibble removes the tartar. however, they don'lasyt too long
i totally agree with you giving your dog fresh bones, both for calcium etc. and also to postpone boredom.

wetfish

Trostan wrote: »

The Green tea bones we supply are anti-oxidant and provide cell protection as well as tooth cleaning. The sea weed in the food softens tartar and the sharding of the kibble removes the tartar. however, they don'lasyt too long
i totally agree with you giving your dog fresh bones, both for calcium etc. and also to postpone boredom.

That's it! Trostan has me totally won over. I'm moving over to a diet of dry dog-food and my Trixie will just have to settle with raw meats.

Now will you let me live in peace!