Dog Owners: What brand dog food do you purchase?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have several websites here that can answer most of the questions associated with canine nutrition. Some of it validates Labman's opinions.....most not. These are just reference tools and can assist those that seek information based on research, tests, statistics, veterinary medicine, and yes....opinion.
http://www.dogfoodanalysis.com/dog_food_reviews/
http://www.peteducation.com/article.cfm?c=2+1770&aid=668
http://www.woodhavenlabs.com/dogfoods.html
http://www.best-dog-food-guide.com/index.html
 
Last edited:
Except for woodhaven, those sites are highly biased with nothing to back the opinions they state a fact.

Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
Not trying to argue, but no, not really.

By half truth do you mean that some number of euthanized animals are used? Or is it a pure myth?



Yes, P&G, Nestle, and Mars buy fat from rendering plants. So does Hershey. Hershey makes dog food? No, chocolate. Some of the fat from the rendering plants is refined into human grades. So not only does Kibbles and Bits have a trace of Fluffy, so does M&M's, and premium dog foods made from ''human grade'' ingredients. This is one of the favorite emotionally loaded half truths used to promote premium dog foods. The web is full of them. I hate those that use such deceptive tactics to bash quality products. Some of those spreading the misinformation are innocent Kool Ade drinkers that are only guilty of failing to exercise critical thinking. Every single argument I have dug into turns out to be invalid.

Unappetizing ingredients? It is difficult to formulate a complete and balanced dog food with organ meats. No problem, they are available in ''human grade'' too. Don't think human grade is limited to what is in the meat section at Krogers.
 
Originally Posted By: labman
Except for woodhaven, those sites are highly biased with nothing to back the opinions they state a fact.

Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
Not trying to argue, but no, not really.

By half truth do you mean that some number of euthanized animals are used? Or is it a pure myth?



Yes, P&G, Nestle, and Mars buy fat from rendering plants. So does Hershey. Hershey makes dog food? No, chocolate. Some of the fat from the rendering plants is refined into human grades. So not only does Kibbles and Bits have a trace of Fluffy, so does M&M's, and premium dog foods made from ''human grade'' ingredients. This is one of the favorite emotionally loaded half truths used to promote premium dog foods. The web is full of them. I hate those that use such deceptive tactics to bash quality products. Some of those spreading the misinformation are innocent Kool Ade drinkers that are only guilty of failing to exercise critical thinking. Every single argument I have dug into turns out to be invalid.

Unappetizing ingredients? It is difficult to formulate a complete and balanced dog food with organ meats. No problem, they are available in ''human grade'' too. Don't think human grade is limited to what is in the meat section at Krogers.


I think this is where the black and white of the views on pet food delves into the grey area.

Do some premium foods contain just as much "gross" stuff as the cheaper foods? Of course. And I think that is very much of your point (please correct me if I'm wrong) that by buying "premium" foods, many think they are getting away from that entirely and in many cases they are not.

That being said, I believe there are foods out there that do not contain traces of "Fluffy" as you so eloquently put it. For example, here is the ingredient list from the Orijen adult food:

http://www.orijen.ca/orijen/products/adultIngredients.aspx

Quote:
Fresh deboned chicken, chicken meal, turkey meal, russet potato, fresh deboned pacific salmon (a natural source of DHA and EPA), herring meal, sweet potato, peas, fresh deboned lake whitefish, fresh deboned northern walleye, chicken fat (naturally preserved with vitamin E and citric acid), chicken liver, salmon meal, fresh deboned turkey, fresh whole eggs, fresh deboned herring, sun-cured alfalfa, salmon oil, chicory root, dehydrated organic kelp, pumpkin, carrots, spinach, turnip greens, apples, cranberries, saskatoon berries, black currants, choline chloride, psyllium, licorice root, angelica root, fenugreek, marigold flowers, sweet fennel, peppermint leaf, chamomile flowers, dandelion, summer savory, rosemary, sea salt, vitamin supplements (vitamin A, vitamin D3, vitamin E, niacin, vitamin C, thiamine mononitrate, riboflavin, vitamin B5, vitamin B6, folic acid, biotin, vitamin B12), mineral supplements (zinc proteinate, iron proteinate, manganese proteinate, copper proteinate, selenium), dried Lactobacillus acidophilus, dried Enterococcus faecium fermentation product.


Surely there are parts of the chicken and turkey that we might think of as being gross. But I think there is a marked difference between something that is clearly defined as being chicken or turkey and the departure to the land of road kill and euthanised animals. Can we agree on that?
 
People can feed their dog what ever they want. Just refrain from bashing other foods and quit posting a bunch of deceptive half truths. The trace of of euthanised animals is so small that no honest, rational person would use it as an argument.
 
Originally Posted By: labman
...quit posting a bunch of deceptive half truths....


Good advice that everyone should follow.
 
Originally Posted By: labman
So your are suggesting I have been posting emotionally loaded half truths?


Yes...

I can't honestly take you seriously if all you have to offer is that Woodhaven site.

Truth: NOT ALL DOG FOODS ARE EQUAL
Truth: WHAT WORKS FOR YOUR DOG MAY NOT WORK FOR MINE
Truth: JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE HAS NO PROBLEMS WITH BRAND X DOESN'T MEAN IT IS GOOD OR BAD
Truth: BETTER INGREDIENTS MAKES BETTER FOOD, SAME IN HUMANS AS PETS

Ask yourself this question if you didn't have a choice would eat a can of meat by-products for dinner? Wouldn't you prefer a whole chicken instead of a ground up chicken parts?
 
It's not allegations it's FACT and I might add commonsense.

I also might add that you say the trace euthanized animals is so small it is not worth arguing over. Why? It still happens doesn't it? They won't disclose it happening but it still does so why isn't it worth not feeding an animal remains of it's on kind.

Can the same be said for humans? Do think we would ingest the remains of others so readily if we knew before hand?
 
Last edited:
''Truth: BETTER INGREDIENTS MAKES BETTER FOOD, SAME IN HUMANS AS PETS'' Better in what way? Healthier dogs? Please give me a link to a study. A study, not speculation at dogfoodanalysis.
 
I think it's best to just say that some of us believe one way about canine nutrition, others believe in another. Labeling people in overtly negative terms really isn't worthy of a good argument. I, for one, don't believe that dogs should eat certain ingredients like excessive grains,corn, wheat, etc. I base this on common sense, the design of the canine purpose, and experience of having owned and fed at least fifteen dogs in my lifetime. Others, such as labman, thinks grains and such are completely fine. He apparently bases this on his own experiences....and a big distrust of advertising (don't blame him there....but the sad fact is that most faulty advertising is put out by the larger commercial dog food manufacturers, you know...the ones that use loads of additive, dyes, and ethoxyquin as a preservative).
Each person just needs to make a decision best suited to the economics, health benefits, and personal experience. Insults, slights, and arrogance is only a sign of a hampered ego.
 
Originally Posted By: labman
''Truth: BETTER INGREDIENTS MAKES BETTER FOOD, SAME IN HUMANS AS PETS'' Better in what way? Healthier dogs? Please give me a link to a study. A study, not speculation at dogfoodanalysis.


What makes dogfoodanalysis and less/more credible than woodhaven?

I'm not going to scour the web for anecdotal arguments from both sides when no study to prove or disprove it exists.

You just have vets calling other vets fools for saying raw is the best, or Alpo will kill your dog.

Personally after seeing what common pet foods have done to some other animals I choose to feed what isn't common and is not driven by marketing or $$$. I went through this battle with other Chinchilla owners who would buy the foods sold in stores with all kinds of nuts/berries/treats in it. Chinchilla's are naturally diabetic and don't need anything resembling of sugar in their diets. All they need is Alfalfa pellets to thrive as well as Timothy hay.

So yes IMO anything with filler grain in it is junk.
 
I am not interested in anecdotes. I want to see controlled studies like the ones backing some articles on the woodhaven site.
 
The following book, "Canine and Feline Nutrition" by Carey (DVM), Case (MS) and Hirakawa (PHD) lend itself highly to the scientific and 'study' based data advising that while corn and other such materials in dog foods are not in themesleves harmful, they conclude that they are certainly not optimal sources of protein...certainly not as in the top three main ingredients. Labman will still probably discount the highly regarded book (read and accepted by many vets as accurate....since it WAS written by those in the profession), but it pretty much closes the argument from the pro-corn/grain 'supermarket' kibble people.
Link: http://www.naturalpetfood.com/meatorgrain.html
In the upper middle of the page the article sites the book as reference.
Have fun.
 
Originally Posted By: labman


Yes, P&G, Nestle, and Mars buy fat from rendering plants. So does Hershey. Hershey makes dog food? No, chocolate. Some of the fat from the rendering plants is refined into human grades. So not only does Kibbles and Bits have a trace of Fluffy, so does M&M's.....


While you can say that human foods do contain rendered fat, to imply that those fats are rendered from the same sources is not factual.

The fat that is rendered for edible human consumption is most often from beef and swine fat, NOT from random road kill and euthanized pets or body parts. The process is entirely different than the process for rendering whole slaughtered carcasses.
Edible animal feed and pet feed, that is a whole different class of rendering. It's a wet process that grinds the entire carcass and boils it down to seperate it. These types of rendered product are not considered edible for human consumption.

It is very hard to get inside info on the rendering business. You may be right, Fluffy may be in my M&M's but my research says otherwise. The NRA site has very little info regarding human edible rendered products, but what it does contain. Describes a process far removed from the typical animal feed rendering process.
 
Originally Posted By: labman
...No studies, no credibility....


Has to be hypocritical. I guarantee you there are dozens of things that YOU would not eat (nor feed your pet) that you KNOW (by reasoning) are inappropriate but have not seen "studies" on.
 
If you want to indulge yourself by feeding premium brands, Please don't state as fact that they are better and don't put down common brands and the people that feed them.

Oh, and skip the links to opinion filled sites with nothing to back them. I despise having my time wasted verifying claims are without merit.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: labman
If you want to indulge yourself by feeding premium brands, Please don't state as fact that they are better and don't put down common brands and the people that feed them.

Oh, and skip the links to opinion filled sites with nothing to back them. I despise having my time wasted verifying claims are without merit.


So is any brand that doesn't contain road kill, house pets, etc., considered a "premium" brand? I've been buying Purina Pro Plan Selects lately. Price seems right and no by-products, meals, etc. on the label.

How about give us response on how many studies you have on what you eat yourself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top