# Is the "Ask Susan Peters" site a good source of information on dog food?



## lgnutah (Feb 26, 2007)

Is this site a reliable source of information when checking the adequacy of a particular dog food? (my dog's dry food didn't fare very well, and when I typed in the names of some other dry foods, they weren't much better)


----------



## missmarstar (Jul 22, 2007)

Honestly I've never heard of her! A Google search isn't coming up with her actual website for me either, can you link it?

Have you done a search here on the forum about the particular food to see what experiences other members have with it? And most importantly, how is Brooks doing on it?


----------



## Penny & Maggie's Mom (Oct 4, 2007)

I hadn't heard of her either and my Google search was similar to Marlene's.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

The food that I feed (and that most of the top winning dogs in all venues are also fed) _never _fares well on any of those sites. I guess that excellent health, great coats, fantastic overall condition, excellent longevity, and dogs that never ever turn their noses up at it (even when simply poured into a bowl) ranks low on the lists of what makes a food good. Yeah, I can see that...


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

lgnutah said:


> Is this site a reliable source of information when checking the adequacy of a particular dog food?


I would say, probably not.


----------



## Retrieverlover (Feb 8, 2010)

Pet Food Ratings


----------



## Ryley's Dad (Oct 12, 2010)

Pointgold said:


> The food that I feed (and that most of the top winning dogs in all venues are also fed) _never _fares well on any of those sites. I guess that excellent health, great coats, fantastic overall condition, excellent longevity, and dogs that never ever turn their noses up at it (even when simply poured into a bowl) ranks low on the lists of what makes a food good. Yeah, I can see that...


And what food is that?


----------



## diana_D (Jan 27, 2008)

Pointgold said:


> The food that I feed (and that most of the top winning dogs in all venues are also fed) _never _fares well on any of those sites. I guess that excellent health, great coats, fantastic overall condition, excellent longevity, and dogs that never ever turn their noses up at it (even when simply poured into a bowl) ranks low on the lists of what makes a food good. Yeah, I can see that...


And the ones most such websites rave about cause a lot of issues....


----------



## msdogs1976 (Dec 21, 2007)

Retrieverlover said:


> Pet Food Ratings


Just your typical website that has a bias against grains. Take a look at her rating on Pro Plan All Stages formula. Zero out of ten and she suggest you only buy the ones with a score of ten. :

Pro Plan Chicken & Rice Formula All Life Stages Dry Dog Food


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Pointgold said:


> The food that I feed (and that most of the top winning dogs in all venues are also fed) _never _fares well on any of those sites.


Can you substantiate that claim that most of the top winning dogs in _all_ venues eat the same food?


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

tippykayak said:


> Can you substantiate that claim that most of the top winning dogs in _all_ venues eat the same food?


 
I won't demand that you substantiate that it isn't. :doh: If I say white, you'll say black. 
Pro Plan, which is the food that I have fed for years, _is_ fed to MANY of the top winning dogs, in all venues. (Conformation, obedience, and field. I also know many agility folks who feed it.) Eukanuba is right up there - another food that rates poorly with these ranking site.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Pointgold said:


> I won't demand that you substantiate that it isn't. :doh: If I say white, you'll say black.
> Pro Plan, which is the food that I have fed for years, _is_ fed to MANY of the top winning dogs, in all venues. (Conformation, obedience, and field. I also know many agility folks who feed it.) Eukanuba is right up there - another food that rates poorly with these ranking site.


I agree with you about the foods and food rating sites, obviously, but I think that claim sounds totally overblown. I agree with you fairly often, so I don't think the insinuation that I'm somehow only interested in saying the opposite of what you do isn't really accurate.

I think you're overselling the case by saying that most winning dogs in every single venue eat ProPlan.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Here, just for "grins":

Purina pro plan's everyday heroes campaign is a winner. | Food & Beverage > Food Industry from AllBusiness.com


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

tippykayak said:


> I agree with you about the foods and food rating sites, obviously, but I think that claim sounds totally overblown.


I'm sure that you do.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Pointgold said:


> I'm sure that you do.


So you agree that you just kind of made it up and don't know for sure? You're taking your experience that several of the people you've talked to with winning dogs who feed ProPlan and then just assumed that the rest do?

Maybe you could just admit that you misspoke and exaggerated.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

tippykayak said:


> So you agree that you just kind of made it up and don't know for sure? You're taking your experience that several of the people you've talked to with winning dogs who feed ProPlan and then just assumed that the rest do?
> 
> Maybe you could just admit that you misspoke and exaggerated.


I won't, because I haven't. That's ridiculous. Google Top Winning dogs fed Purina Pro Plan. You can even narrow it down to field dogs, or show dogs, or agility dogs. 
The owners and handlers of these dogs are the ones who feed and recommend Pro Plan, Mr. Tippykayak, and there are loads of articles about them. You can find it yourself. Sheesh.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Pointgold said:


> I won't, because I haven't. That's ridiculous. Google Top Winning dogs fed Purina Pro Plan. You can even narrow it down to field dogs, or show dogs, or agility dogs.
> The owners and handlers of these dogs are the ones who feed and recommend Pro Plan, Mr. Tippykayak, and there are loads of articles about them. You can find it yourself. Sheesh.


So more than 50% of all the winning dogs in all venues feed ProPlan, and that's verifiable information? Wow...I guess my research skills are a bit off, because I can't seem to find the info that you're finding, Mrs. Pointgold.

Can you post that proof for us? If not, clarify your statement. Or just stick to your guns. Either way, I've made my point and I'm done responding.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

I will "stick to my guns". There is plenty of info out there. And I personally know many of the handlers who are handling these dogs, and feeding Pro Plan.

http://www.purinaproclub.com/Dog/ResourceLibrary/BreederResources/TodaysBreeder/639c9127-5f9c-4fec-af28-5cab2b2fdf72/c76d7ef4-6174-4e6c-bfa8-8fe1ead75d3b

http://www.purinaproclub.com/Dog/ResourceLibrary/BreederResources/TodaysBreeder/96b68708-e403-44ed-b2d0-c8246056e967/02a0b937-52ea-4060-a9e2-a319169eac80

http://www.purinaproclub.com/Dog/ResourceLibrary/ChampionsCup


----------



## LifeOfRiley (Nov 2, 2007)

lgnutah said:


> Is this site a reliable source of information when checking the adequacy of a particular dog food? (my dog's dry food didn't fare very well, and when I typed in the names of some other dry foods, they weren't much better)


Honestly, I wouldn't waste my time looking for credible information on that site.
She lost me when she stated that the life span of your pet should be at least 20 years, stated that diet strongly influences lifespan and implies that feeding a food which she's given a 10/10 rating will help your dog live longer. In my opinion, that's a ridiculous and irresponsible thing to say. I wouldn't be interested in anything she has to say after that.


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

Acually TK, there was a survey on the site that most of us field folks hang out on (including those who are putting FC's and AFC's on their dogs) and upwards of 85% are feeding Pro Plan or Eukanuba. So I would have to agree with PG.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Swampcollie said:


> Acually TK, there was a survey on the site that most of us field folks hang out on (including those who are putting FC's and AFC's on their dogs) and upwards of 85% are feeding Pro Plan or Eukanuba. So I would have to agree with PG.


And I am not referring to Goldens only.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Swampcollie said:


> Acually TK, there was a survey on the site that most of us field folks hang out on (including those who are putting FC's and AFC's on their dogs) and upwards of 85% are feeding Pro Plan or Eukanuba. So I would have to agree with PG.


I doubt 50%+ are feeding ProPlan. I definitely think far more than 50% are feeding traditional foods like those from Eukanuba or Purina vs. the small percentage feeding boutique foods, but I still don't think PG's original claim is accurate or provable.

I think the people who actually show their dogs in competitive venues tend to rely on the proven foods and their proven results. I feed Eukanuba food myself. I just don't think exaggerated, unsubstantiated claims should be part of a debate, even when they support my perspective.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

And I stand by my "claim". Which is not exaggerated, unsubstantiated, or "overblown". 
Many of those who now feed Pro Plan actually _used _to feed Eukanuba. I'm one of them.


----------



## Ryley's Dad (Oct 12, 2010)

Before choosing a dog food for my pup I did a lot of on-line research. I found this website very helpful.

http://www.dogfoodanalysis.com/


I ended up going with Acana (same company that makes Orijen) Large Breed Puppy
http://www.dogfoodanalysis.com/dog_food_reviews/showproduct.php?product=2247&cat=all
... for two reasons...

1. It got a good review and was recommended.
2. Its Canadian made.

When I change Ryley over to adult food I will stick with Acana and go with either Wild Prairie, Pacifica, or Grasslands (all grain free)
http://www.dogfoodanalysis.com/dog_food_reviews/showcat.php/cat/3


... not sure which yet.



Ryley loves his food and he is doing quite well on it.


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

I'm wondering how a simple question, which could be answered with a yes or no, about a website managed to get turned to yet another debate about foods. All the OP asked was whether the website was good or not.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Are we only allowed to give a yes or no answer?  I believe the sites are totally biased, and simply expressed why I do - because the food I feed (and that IS fed to so many top winning dogs" gets no stars, or 0/10, or is called "crap", etc. when clearly, dogs do _very _well on it. But, hey, that's just one of my exaggerated, overblown, unsubstantiated lies.  I was happy enough to state that and leave it be, but was put in a position to have to defend myself. Surprise!


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Swampcollie said:


> Acually TK, there was a survey on the site that most of us field folks hang out on (including those who are putting FC's and AFC's on their dogs) and upwards of 85% are feeding Pro Plan or Eukanuba. So I would have to agree with PG.


Hey SC, if you're referring to this thread on RTF, then only 42% picked ProPlan. If you're referring to this one, 40% picked ProPlan. This one, Euk vs. ProPlan, says 54% (though there's no "other" option).

I think those results would actually contradict what PG is saying, though RTF polls are hardly scientific.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Pointgold said:


> Are we only allowed to give a yes or no answer?  I believe the sites are totally biased, and simply expressed why I do - because the food I feed (and that IS fed to so many top winning dogs" gets no stars, or 0/10, or is called "crap", etc. when clearly, dogs do _very _well on it. But, hey, that's just one of my exaggerated, overblown, unsubstantiated lies.  I was happy enough to state that and leave it be, but was put in a position to have to defend myself. Surprise!


Your exaggeration (nobody said lie) was your claim of "most," which you refused to back down from.

"Many" would have been more accurate, and is pretty verifiable. "Traditional" foods are obviously much more popular than boutique foods among real competitors, and I think it's one of the most valid points one can make in the dog food debate.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

tippykayak said:


> Your exaggeration (nobody said lie) was your claim of "most," which you refused to back down from.
> 
> "Many" would have been more accurate, and is pretty verifiable. "Traditional" foods are obviously much more popular than boutique foods among real competitors, and I think it's one of the most valid points one can make in the dog food debate.


Just out of curiosity, is there a verifiable quantitative difference between "most" and "many"? I would assume that "most" means over 50%, but I doubt that "many" has an amount associated with it other than being more than 1. If you're asking for statistics and evidence I'm not sure why the nitpicking is necessary regarding word choice. I would assume that PG's statement was based on her experience in the breed and it sounds like "most" is a fair statement for her.

FWIW, and back on topic, I would also agree that "most" people I know in conformation feed ProPlan (i.e. well over 50%) and it's a food that is not typically rated well by the websites. I am not one of the people who feeds ProPlan, but I would have no problem switching to it if we were unhappy with our current food - regardless of random website opinions. I try to do my own research and decide what's important to me before picking a food for our animals.


----------



## goldensrbest (Dec 20, 2007)

It does seem like this is a quest for who knows, the most on what to feed our dogs.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> Just out of curiosity, is there a verifiable quantitative difference between "most" and "many"? I would assume that "most" means over 50%, but I doubt that "many" has an amount associated with it other than being more than 1. If you're asking for statistics and evidence I'm not sure why the nitpicking is necessary regarding word choice.
> 
> FWIW, and back on topic, I would agree that "most" people I know in conformation feed ProPlan (i.e. well over 50%) and it's a food that is not typically rated well by the websites. I am not one of the people who feeds ProPlan, but I would have no problem switching to it if we were unhappy with our current food - regardless of random website opinions.


"Most" is the superlative of "many." In the context in which it was used, it's pretty clearly means "the majority." "Most" professionals clearly means "more than 50%" of them.

The reason I'm picking this particular nit is that I don't think inaccurate exaggeration is helpful in this discussion. If ProPlan is really the most popular food, that's awesome, and it may well be. But half our problem in contentious threads, particularly in dog food threads, is unsubstantiated, unproven claims.

Like I said, I agree with PG about the type of foods she feeds; we have very little disagreement on issues of dog nutrition. I think Purina and Eukanuba foods stand well enough on the actual facts, and misleading statements are not helpful. Debates should be based on evidence and logic, not on rhetoric or statements of personal authority.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

I still stand by what I have said. Unlike someone who made his point was "done responding". 
I won't play semantics (most vs many), or who is the most brilliant researcher. I don't know if there is any peer reviewed papers, or scientific studies or national census that would prove to his satisfaction that my overblown, exaggerated, unsbstantiated claims are true. And frankly, I don't really care if he believes me or not. I'm very involved in the community that I am referring to, and I stand by the "claim".


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Pointgold said:


> I still stand by what I have said. Unlike someone who made his point was "done responding".
> I won't play semantics (most vs many), or who is the most brilliant researcher. I don't know if there is any peer reviewed papers, or scientific studies or national census that would prove to his satisfaction that my overblown, exaggerated, unsbstantiated claims are true. And frankly, I don't really care if he believes me or not. I'm very involved in the community that I am referring to, and I stand by the "claim".


Well, I was done responding to _you_. But then SC got in and I felt like responding further.

Most vs. many ain't just semantics. They're two different words that mean very different things.

This isn't about research brilliance. My only point is that it's irresponsible and counterproductive to state assumptions you can't prove as if they're fact.

But we've done this to death, haven't we?


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Prove that they _aren't _then. Did you even bother to look at any of the links that I provided? Or, do you just cry "cite proof!" without looking yourself?

I said "top winning dogs". How many do you think there are of "top winning dogs"? From what you are harping about, it would seem that you think I am claiming that "more than 50%" of ALL dogs or something are being fed Pro Plan, and that is not what I have said. 
I stand by the claim. Period.


----------



## Rob's GRs (Feb 25, 2007)

tippykayak said:


> But we've done this to death, haven't we?


I think it is best for all that this end now as it has been "beaten to death" by all parties.......

Thanks


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Rob's GRs said:


> I think it is best for all that this end now as it has been "beaten to death" by all parties.......
> 
> Thanks


Yup, I promise not to engage in it anymore. 

Please don't lock the thread, though, there's plenty of potential answers to the OP's question that could still be posted. I think the silliness will stop if I make myself scarce.


----------



## Bender (Dec 30, 2008)

I think it depends on your dog, your budget and what works. Ticket was on raw like the girls, he's now on some raw and kirkland dog food - cannot tell the difference, really!

I know others who swear by organic raw and all the bells and whistles, and I know of others who swear by old roy, and everyone has their favorite food that works for them and is within budget. I know I couldn't feed raw if my only choice was the organic premade patties, we do cases of things. Ticket is on kibble because he just was never gaining much and was always horribly thin, tried some other kibbles then settled on kirkland, it seems to do well for him so we're not complaining.

At the very least read up on ingredients and decide what looks the best, and if your dog isn't doing well then SWITCH to something else that might work. That's my only beef, people who complain about their dog's health and itching etc. but are feeding something like beniful and insisting it's healthy because of all the purty colours in it.

Lana


----------



## lgnutah (Feb 26, 2007)

I am the OP and just came back for the first time to see what people had to say about this website.......(I am one of the "post and go" posters, who wants to get an answer but it isn't an immediate need)
So thanks for the feedback on that site I wondered about. 
And, Pointgold, your first response with your own perspective on that site and the food you have confidence in was very helpful.


----------

