# Why is 38% protein too much for my dog?



## stealle

I keep finding posts (like this one from one of our moderators) stating that we should not feed high protein kibble to our puppies:



goldenjackpuppy said:


> Personally I think 35% protein is way too high. Higher protein is not better for a growing puppy of a larger breed, like a golden...


Is there some kind of study to prove this? Remember, while numbers like 35% to 38% protein sound high (and it is in comparison to other formulas of kibble), kibble is a concentrated form of food. When you do the math, these "high protein" kibbles often come out to about the same amount of protein found in a whole prey diet. 

*Kibble*
Let's use Orijen Regional Red for example. It's 38% protein.
I feed my 66 lb. senior golden 1 cup/120 grams of Orijen per meal. At 38% protein that's *45.6 grams of protein per meal*.

*Whole Prey*
When I feed raw whole prey on the weekends I feed my senior golden the recommended 2% of her 66 lb weight. So, I feed her .66 lb (299.4 grams) per meal. The average amount of protein in a whole chicken or a whole rabbit is about 16%. So, a .66 lb meal of whole chicken or whole rabbit will be *47.9 grams of protein per meal*.

So basically, my Goldens are getting the same amount of protein per serving when eating kibble vs whole prey. Why are there all these comments that 30%+ protein is too much? Please provide some evidence, study, or scientific fact that it is too much.

Also, please avoid bashing Orijen even if you don't like it. I'm not trying to discuss Orijen specifically, here. I'm just using it as an example since that is what I feed. There are other brands that have protein at 35% or higher as well. I don't have a problem with ANY of those other brands based on protein >30% alone. Please let's discuss protein, not specific brands.


----------



## CrazyZane

Ive read that high protein isn't good for LBP puppies because it causes them to grow too quickly. But then I've read that's old thinking and the evidence now shows that you need to concentrate more on the calcium / phosphorus ratios than protein levels.


----------



## CITIgolden

stealle said:


> I keep finding posts (like this one from one of our moderators) stating that we should not feed high protein kibble to our puppies:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there some kind of study to prove this? Remember, while numbers like 35% to 38% protein sound high (and it is in comparison to other formulas of kibble), kibble is a concentrated form of food. When you do the math, these "high protein" kibbles often come out to about the same amount of protein found in a whole prey diet.
> 
> *Kibble*
> Let's use Orijen Regional Red for example. It's 38% protein.
> I feed my 66 lb. senior golden 1 cup/120 grams of Orijen per meal. At 38% protein that's *45.6 grams of protein per meal*.
> 
> *Whole Prey*
> When I feed raw whole prey on the weekends I feed my senior golden the recommended 2% of her 66 lb weight. So, I feed her .66 lb (299.4 grams) per meal. The average amount of protein in a whole chicken or a whole rabbit is about 16%. So, a .66 lb meal of whole chicken or whole rabbit will be *47.9 grams of protein per meal*.
> 
> So basically, my golden are getting the same amount of protein when eating kibble vs whole prey. Why are there all these comments that 30%+ protein is too much? Please provide some evidence, study, or scientific fact that it is too much.
> 
> Also, please avoid basing Orijen even if you don't like it. I'm not trying to discuss Orijen specifically, here. I'm just using it as an example since that is what I feed. There are other brands that have protein at 35% or higher as well. I don't have a problem with ANY of those other brands based on protein >30% alone. Please let's discuss protein, not specific brands.


It's not too much protein. There are debates on both ends. Dogs are omnivores largely thanks to us teaching them to eat foods we feed them that include fruits and veggies and carbs that ordinarily likely would not be on their menu in the wild. That said, I'm not implying those ingredients are bad for dogs - though some I think should be avoided.

There's no conclusive or substantial evidence that supports high protein is correlated to anything negative in healthy dogs. Some dogs with certain illnesses could indeed have issues, but even those conclusions are largely based on what we know about human health. And of course if your dog is not tolerating high degree of protein that's an issue you should check - first rule out protein allergies - but if the dog is doing fine, you have nothing to worry.

Sadly, there's never been a large sample longevity nutritional study on dogs, the Morris foundation has just added it to the first lifelong study of goldens (thanks Dallas Gold for sharing that). So to a large extent what we feed is based on clinical studies on a limited number of dogs and unrepresentative samples. 

I know you don't want to talk orijen, but I've fed my dogs orijen and they've been in perfect health. Plus I add some pieces of raw food or cooked chicken. My parents' dogs exclusively ate meat only and raw and one lived to be 15 the other 17, and my parents are annoyed at me how many times I go to see vets as they almost never did. That said, there are dogs out there that survive scavenging landfills and reach 15+ years whose stomachs contain all sorts of nasty indigestible stuff and dogs that get the best food and care and die young.

So it's a mix of a lot of things...but protein, as long as it's high grade protein, is not the enemy.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## WasChampionFan

stealle said:


> I keep finding posts (like this one from one of our moderators) stating that we should not feed high protein kibble to our puppies:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there some kind of study to prove this? Remember, while numbers like 35% to 38% protein sound high (and it is in comparison to other formulas of kibble), kibble is a concentrated form of food. When you do the math, these "high protein" kibbles often come out to about the same amount of protein found in a whole prey diet.
> 
> *Kibble*
> Let's use Orijen Regional Red for example. It's 38% protein.
> I feed my 66 lb. senior golden 1 cup/120 grams of Orijen per meal. At 38% protein that's *45.6 grams of protein per meal*.
> 
> *Whole Prey*
> When I feed raw whole prey on the weekends I feed my senior golden the recommended 2% of her 66 lb weight. So, I feed her .66 lb (299.4 grams) per meal. The average amount of protein in a whole chicken or a whole rabbit is about 16%. So, a .66 lb meal of whole chicken or whole rabbit will be *47.9 grams of protein per meal*.
> 
> So basically, my Goldens are getting the same amount of protein per serving when eating kibble vs whole prey. Why are there all these comments that 30%+ protein is too much? Please provide some evidence, study, or scientific fact that it is too much.
> 
> Also, please avoid bashing Orijen even if you don't like it. I'm not trying to discuss Orijen specifically, here. I'm just using it as an example since that is what I feed. There are other brands that have protein at 35% or higher as well. I don't have a problem with ANY of those other brands based on protein >30% alone. Please let's discuss protein, not specific brands.


There is no reason to feed puppies a food with more than 30% protein. There are 2 reasons 1) They don't need that much and can't use that much that quickly and 2) In many cases these foods come with very high ash, like Evo, Primitive, TOTW and some others. If the ash is 7.5% and below it is safe but not needed. Puppies are fed 3 - 4 times a day because they simply cannot absorb that many nutrients at once.

These high protein foods come along with high fat, so what happens is you adjust the amount of fed to accomodate the fat content at the expense of protein and vitamins.

Stealle, that is what you are doing with your dog. 1 cup of food is not enough for your dog. Seniors actually require a bit more protein than adults and I would feed at least 1 gram of low ash protein per lb of body weight. Feeding 1 cup is depriving your dog of protein and vitamins. 

You say you are feeding 47.9 grams but its more like 35 - 40 grams.

An older golden would be better served on a 26-30/13-15 food, and about 2-3 cups. 3 if you go with a 26ish type food.

People like to brag how little they feed but often don't do the math.


----------



## stealle

WasChampionFan said:


> These high protein foods come along with high fat, so what happens is you adjust the amount of fed to accomodate the fat content at the expense of protein and vitamins.
> 
> Stealle, that is what you are doing with your dog. 1 cup of food is not enough for your dog. Seniors actually require a bit more protein than adults and I would feed at least 1 gram of low ash protein per lb of body weight. Feeding 1 cup is depriving your dog of protein and vitamins.
> 
> You say you are feeding 47.9 grams but its more like 35 - 40 grams.
> 
> An older golden would be better served on a 26-30/13-15 food, and about 2-3 cups. 3 if you go with a 26ish type food.
> 
> People like to brag how little they feed but often don't do the math.


I want to follow you here, but I don't. Seriously, please show me your math, literally. Where do you come up with 35-40 grams out of a 120 grams serving at 38%(minimum) protein?

Also, you are saying I need to feed my dog more protein, but I need to feed a lower protein formula. Huh?

You say I need to feed 1 gram of protein per pound. How often? Per meal... per day?


----------



## tippykayak

I don't actually see it as too much, especially for an adult dog. We feed something that's 30% protein in the GA, and the dogs do great. So 38% doesn't sound crazy to me.

In my personal experience, puppies don't consistently have solid stools on protein that high, so it's not something I'd give to a dog under a year old.

However, I did a TON of reading last year on protein levels in dog food, and I'm convinced I was wrong on two points: high protein increases kidney risks, and high protein causes bone issues in puppies. Both of those concerns didn't hold up in the research. Excess protein can hurt when there's already kidney damage, but not normal kidneys. And excess calories and calcium/phosphorus can cause growth problems, but probably not protein.

So I think it's more of a practical issue that's easy to confirm. If the puppy's stools aren't solid, I'd go to a less rich food, but if they're solid, then the protein probably isn't too high.

Again, my sense of protein percentages is based largely on my anecdotal experience rather than hard science, but the myth busting about growth issues and kidneys was certainly based on very careful study of real science.


----------



## Megora

WasChampionFan said:


> People like to brag how little they feed but often don't do the math.


On the assumption you didn't misread that person's comment and saw they feed 2 cups of food a day.... as opposed to feeding 4-6 cups a day as you apparently were recommending.... (holy cow)

When somebody tells you that they only feed their dogs 2 cups a day, it's not bragging. It's actually following instructions from trainers and vets who put health of the dog first. Feed too much and your dog will become overweight and unhealthy.

The amount of food you feed a dog - you do not go by the food. You go by the dog. That dog's activity level and metabolism.

IF your dog is losing weight, you feed more. 

If your dog is gaining weight or has a propensity of packing on the pounds, you drop that serving size down. 

That is responsible ownership. It's not just some dum-dum bragging about how little they feed their dogs. 

Because I know my goldens, having owned a few.... I start them out with 2 cups a day. That's generally a good weight maintaining level of food. If they had no treats in a day, then they would probably be getting 3 cups a day. No more than that. I can't imagine feeding a dog more than 3 cups a day. 

One of my past goldens went down below 65 pounds and was still losing when we put him on a senior diet. We switched him back to a higher fat level food and while feeding him the same servings as before, his weight level righted itself and he maintained his weight. 

I lost a golden to kidney failure, btw. We had no idea he had a failing kidney all his life until that point when it was shriveled up and dead. Considering those early years, I believe if we had fed him a very high protein food from the beginning it would have sped up the kidney failure. As it was, the crappy food with the very low fat and protein content we fed him probably helped him live as long as he did. Who knows. 

I guess I don't feed low protein/fat type foods to my dogs. But I'm very cautious about going overboard with uber high protein. It's not necessary for most dogs, for one thing.


----------



## Mirinde

tippykayak said:


> but the myth busting about growth issues and kidneys was certainly based on very careful study of real science.


Tippy, I'm confused by this statement. The way I am reading it suggests that it has been debunked that higher protein foods can cause kidney and growth issues? Am I reading that correctly? Totally 100% genuine, not snarky question. I know how these food posts tend to devolve : I'm just kind of clueless about the science behind high protein vs moderate/low protein.

I'll be keeping an eye on this post... I've been confused about the cons of high protein for awhile now and would be excited if this post stays on track and provides some clarity.


----------



## HiTideGoldens

As I said in the other thread, I would not feed that protein level to a growing puppy. I have had a dog with pano, and once we lowered the protein level of her food her symptoms started to go away. Knowing that Goldens can be prone to developing pano I would personally not risk that again with a puppy, which is the context of my post in the previous thread where we were discussing puppy food. 

I also feel compelled to point out that being a moderator doesn't make me an expert on food. It is still just my opinion just like everyone else on the forum who has opinions on food. Feed what works for your dog, if your dog is thriving on a high protein diet, then great! What is the "best" diet can vary from dog to dog. 

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Rastadog

*My Boy Just had Surgery for kidney stones*

My boy Pronto has been on EVO( 42% protein) for the past 5 years, started at 4 1/2. He began with infections. The stones he had do not show up on xray. He had emergency surgery to remove almost 100 stones from his bladder. His urethra began to block. They were able to flush the stones back into his bladder and save his penis, yea! The results of the stone analysis is back. He has either a liver problem, will test early next week, or TOO MUCH PROTEIN. I put him on Evo because he had two mast cell tumors removed over a one year period approx 4-5 years ago.. He was almost 5 then now he's almost 10 and for an older sedintary dog EVO is too much protein. He's doing great after his operation. Sled dogs work on around 30% protein. Why would a pet need more? This is not a knock on EVO but a story about a senior golden on the wrong food.


----------



## Tuco

WasChampionFan said:


> There is no reason to feed puppies a food with more than 30% protein. There are 2 reasons 1) They don't need that much and can't use that much that quickly and 2) In many cases these foods come with very high ash, like Evo, Primitive, TOTW and some others. If the ash is 7.5% and below it is safe but not needed. Puppies are fed 3 - 4 times a day because they simply cannot absorb that many nutrients at once.
> 
> These high protein foods come along with high fat, so what happens is you adjust the amount of fed to accomodate the fat content at the expense of protein and vitamins.
> 
> Stealle, that is what you are doing with your dog. 1 cup of food is not enough for your dog. Seniors actually require a bit more protein than adults and I would feed at least 1 gram of low ash protein per lb of body weight. Feeding 1 cup is depriving your dog of protein and vitamins.
> 
> You say you are feeding 47.9 grams but its more like 35 - 40 grams.
> 
> An older golden would be better served on a 26-30/13-15 food, and about 2-3 cups. 3 if you go with a 26ish type food.
> 
> People like to brag how little they feed but often don't do the math.


My vet who has a focus in veterinary nutrition says that anything under 13% is fine. Your point that that much protein isn't needed is void because no amount of carbohydrates has been shown to be needed nor even ideal. We don't even know what exact ammount of nutrients is ideal for dogs so regardless of whether its necessary or not, if the alternative means higher carbs I would sure as hell go with high protien.


To steale, that is not too much protein and the fact that a moderator made those claims without basis concerns me, especially when they have called out people to support claims they have made that are common sense 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## WasChampionFan

Megora said:


> On the assumption you didn't misread that person's comment and saw they feed 2 cups of food a day.... as opposed to feeding 4-6 cups a day as you apparently were recommending.... (holy cow)
> 
> When somebody tells you that they only feed their dogs 2 cups a day, it's not bragging. It's actually following instructions from trainers and vets who put health of the dog first. Feed too much and your dog will become overweight and unhealthy.
> 
> The amount of food you feed a dog - you do not go by the food. You go by the dog. That dog's activity level and metabolism.
> 
> IF your dog is losing weight, you feed more.
> 
> If your dog is gaining weight or has a propensity of packing on the pounds, you drop that serving size down.
> 
> That is responsible ownership. It's not just some dum-dum bragging about how little they feed their dogs.
> 
> Because I know my goldens, having owned a few.... I start them out with 2 cups a day. That's generally a good weight maintaining level of food. If they had no treats in a day, then they would probably be getting 3 cups a day. No more than that. I can't imagine feeding a dog more than 3 cups a day.
> 
> One of my past goldens went down below 65 pounds and was still losing when we put him on a senior diet. We switched him back to a higher fat level food and while feeding him the same servings as before, his weight level righted itself and he maintained his weight.
> 
> I lost a golden to kidney failure, btw. We had no idea he had a failing kidney all his life until that point when it was shriveled up and dead. Considering those early years, I believe if we had fed him a very high protein food from the beginning it would have sped up the kidney failure. As it was, the crappy food with the very low fat and protein content we fed him probably helped him live as long as he did. Who knows.
> 
> I guess I don't feed low protein/fat type foods to my dogs. But I'm very cautious about going overboard with uber high protein. It's not necessary for most dogs, for one thing.


Where did that poster say he was feeding 2 cups per day? It sure sounded like 1 cup per day. If I were trying to illustrate what I fed, I wouldn't describe it in terms of "per meal" or "per serving". There are many people that feed only once per day in the evening. In fact the entire hunting and trial season, I only feed once a day and no later than 6 pm.

I meant 2-3 cups per day not twice a day.

If the poster is indeed feeding 2 cups per day, even with 80% digestibility overall, 2 cups would be fine.

People do in fact brag about how little they feed and it is not always in the dog's interest.

As far as how much protein to feed, companion animals like most of the dogs on here especially older dogs would be better eating a 25 - 30% low ash foods with moderate fat (15% or less) and eating a bit more each day to get to level of 1 gram of protein per day. 18% fat is a pretty high level for dogs that sleep most of the day. I see no need for it. Sled dogs showed no sign of anemia on 32% protein foods, so for the average golden, 38% seems like just dog park nutrition.


----------



## Tuco

Mirinde said:


> Tippy, I'm confused by this statement. The way I am reading it suggests that it has been debunked that higher protein foods can cause kidney and growth issues? Am I reading that correctly? Totally 100% genuine, not snarky question. I know how these food posts tend to devolve : I'm just kind of clueless about the science behind high protein vs moderate/low protein.
> 
> I'll be keeping an eye on this post... I've been confused about the cons of high protein for awhile now and would be excited if this post stays on track and provides some clarity.


There is no evidence to support that the high protein foods damage or put the kidneys at any increased risk for problems or faliure UNLESS a lot of the protein is coming from lower quality non meat sources with less complete amino acid profiles, ie an all meat formula with 40% protein all meat food shouldn't cause any damage or stress to the kidneys while a 40% protien formula where a quarter is from chickpeas abit from lentils and abit from corn, the stress and risk for kidney damage is higher. If a dog has kidney issues these principles still apply but. To a less extreme extent, an all meat 40% protien food may further damage while a 30% may not.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## WasChampionFan

Rastadog said:


> My boy Pronto has been on EVO( 42% protein) for the past 5 years, started at 4 1/2. He began with infections. The stones he had do not show up on xray. He had emergency surgery to remove almost 100 stones from his bladder. His urethra began to block. They were able to flush the stones back into his bladder and save his penis, yea! The results of the stone analysis is back. He has either a liver problem, will test early next week, or TOO MUCH PROTEIN. I put him on Evo because he had two mast cell tumors removed over a one year period approx 4-5 years ago.. He was almost 5 then now he's almost 10 and for an older sedintary dog EVO is too much protein. He's doing great after his operation. Sled dogs work on around 30% protein. Why would a pet need more? This is not a knock on EVO but a story about a senior golden on the wrong food.


The problem with EVO and a bunch of others is that the quality of protein is really really really really bad. There is so much bone in that food it drives the ash levels to very dangerouse levels. 12% I believe.

It wasn't the protein level it was the quality of that protein.


----------



## WasChampionFan

Please stop Tuco, you don't know what you are talking about. Vegetable sources of protein are arguably safer because they are very easy to assimilate. They may be technically "incomplete" but that is not a risk for kidneys.

The issue with high protein food safety is the ash content, phosphorous in particular. Some of these foods like Evo, Earthborn, Nature's Variety have very high levels of ash from bone content and that is the danger. Even healthy kidney can suffer over time. The high protein is not required for muscle repair but amino acids are not dangerous, it is the bone that comes along. 

As far as Orijen, I would like to see an independent lab run the ash, because 7.5% total ash would not be consistent with the stated Calcium and Phosphorous levels, 10% would be. So I am skeptical that Orijen is 7.5%.

You simply don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## Tuco

WasChampionFan said:


> Where did that poster say he was feeding 2 cups per day? It sure sounded like 1 cup per day. If I were trying to illustrate what I fed, I wouldn't describe it in terms of "per meal" or "per serving". There are many people that feed only once per day in the evening. In fact the entire hunting and trial season, I only feed once a day and no later than 6 pm.
> 
> I meant 2-3 cups per day not twice a day.
> 
> If the poster is indeed feeding 2 cups per day, even with 80% digestibility overall, 2 cups would be fine.
> 
> People do in fact brag about how little they feed and it is not always in the dog's interest.
> 
> As far as how much protein to feed, companion animals like most of the dogs on here especially older dogs would be better eating a 25 - 30% low ash foods with moderate fat (15% or less) and eating a bit more each day to get to level of 1 gram of protein per day. 18% fat is a pretty high level for dogs that sleep most of the day. I see no need for it. Sled dogs showed no sign of anemia on 32% protein foods, so for the average golden, 38% seems like just dog park nutrition.


I had a friend in Norway a long while back who I'm pretty sure fed prey model cooked or raw, I remember asking why they did because at the time I thought my family were the only ones who fed it. They said most of the sled dogs they knew of were fed that way because the store bought food didn't give them enough energy, im assuming because they didn't have the high fat and protein content that the dogs needed, considering what they fed it was most likely at least 40% protien. Fat is the traditional form of carbohydrates for canines, while carbs are not needed, fat is for the dogs metabolism and energy. I don't know why you are making such a big deal out of what he feeds, no one was showing off and maybe in your head people seem to get smug about how much they feed but really they don't care, you feed more if your dog is losing weight or working more and less the other way around. As for ash, I'm going with what a veterinary nutritionist over myself or some guy on the Internet, he says under 13% is completely fine and has yet to see any issue arise from ash contents below 16%. You say we should go to 25-30% percent foods with substantially low fat, all that's left is carbohydrates which are THE ONLY of the 3 which is not needed whatsoever in a dogs diet, nor has even been fully proven to provide benefits.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## HiTideGoldens

Tuco said:


> To steale, that is not too much protein and the fact that a moderator made those claims without basis concerns me, especially when they have called out people to support claims they have made that are common sense
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


Please remember, as has been mentioned a number of times on this forum recently, moderators do not surrender our right to have an opinion on the forum by virtue of becoming moderators. We are volunteers and are allowed to participate in discussions. My basis for my statement in the previous thread which was quoted here is certainly anecdotal, as it is based on my own dog, so it is simply my opinion, just like anyone else's opinion on dog food. I mentioned that in a post in this thread on the previous page.

Also, just a reminder to everyone in the thread to keep posts polite in general. This subject has been very heated lately so please let's all choose our words carefully before we hit "reply"


----------



## Tuco

Oh and the foods that you listed all have an appropriate calcium to phosphorus ratio for dogs and puppies with a couple specific food exeptions where the ratio isn't ideal for puppies. Vegetable proteins are KNOWN to cause more stress on the kidneys vs meat proteins your statement has no merit whatsoever 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Penny & Maggie's Mom

Tuco said:


> . Fat is the traditional form of carbohydrates for canines, while carbs are not needed, fat is for the dogs metabolism and energy.
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


Fats are not carbohydrates.... fats are fats!

There is no way that I'd feed a food that high in ash. I would question the quality of the meat products for sure. All that ash has to be processed and, from what my vet says, it IS taxing on kidneys.


----------



## CarolinaCasey

stealle said:


> I keep finding posts (like this one from one of our moderators) stating that we should not feed high protein kibble to our puppies:





Tuco said:


> To steale, that is not too much protein and the fact that a moderator made those claims without basis concerns me, especially when they have called out people to support claims they have made that are common sense


By definition--


> *mod·er·a·tor *
> 
> /ˈmädəˌrātər/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noun
> 
> An arbitrator or mediator.
> A presiding officer, esp. a chairman of a debate.


No where in the definition do I see a mention that a moderator is an expert. Nor do I see any mention that a moderator is not able to participate on the forum, for one which they VOLUNTEER and offer their opinion based on their experience. If the title was "Expert Canine Nutritionist" rather than moderator maybe you could have an argument. 

I happen to agree that 38% protein is WAY too high. I wouldn't feed it, I don't know many that would to a young puppy that is growing. Pano is a concern, joint disease, and I can't say that I've seen but a few dogs not have gastic upset for a period while making a transition to such a rich food. I like a more moderate food 30/20 or 25/15.


----------



## Mirinde

Ugh, wait, so now I'm concerned about ash more than protein. The food we switched to is moderate protein (26%) and a good fat level and he likes it and his poops are good on it and his ears are clean and skin is good but it is known for having a higher ash content than most foods. Dog food is going to drive me crazy, especially since no one can seem to talk rationally about it. 

My vets are admittedly nutrition dumb... better than most, but it's certainly not a focus. I could ask them about the dangers of high ash content but I wouldn't really be particularly confident in the responses. At what point is ash too high and why is it dangerous? To google I go...


----------



## Tuco

Mirinde said:


> Ugh, wait, so now I'm concerned about ash more than protein. The food we switched to is moderate protein (26%) and a good fat level and he likes it and his poops are good on it and his ears are clean and skin is good but it is known for having a higher ash content than most foods. Dog food is going to drive me crazy, especially since no one can seem to talk rationally about it.
> 
> My vets are admittedly nutrition dumb... better than most, but it's certainly not a focus. I could ask them about the dangers of high ash content but I wouldn't really be particularly confident in the responses. At what point is ash too high and why is it dangerous? To google I go...


I thought I saw in another thread you feed earthborn, again absolutely nothing bad about 12% ash unless there is already preexisting kidney problems


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## CarolinaCasey

Mirinde said:


> Ugh, wait, so now I'm concerned about ash more than protein. The food we switched to is moderate protein (26%) and a good fat level and he likes it and his poops are good on it and his ears are clean and skin is good but it is known for having a higher ash content than most foods. Dog food is going to drive me crazy, especially since no one can seem to talk rationally about it.
> 
> My vets are admittedly nutrition dumb... better than most, but it's certainly not a focus. I could ask them about the dangers of high ash content but I wouldn't really be particularly confident in the responses. At what point is ash too high and why is it dangerous? To google I go...


Earthborn (which Tuco mentioned you fed) is a good food. If your dog is doing that great on it-- keep it up. Certainly there is a lot of consider when picking a dog food. I think Earthborn fits the bill- IMO, of course. 

Clean ears, good weight, eagerness to eat, and good fat/protein. You shouldn't mess with something if it's not broken.


----------



## Mirinde

We are feeding Earthborn Meadow Feast which is actually supposed to be around 9%? So less than 12%, even. I kept watching for potty issues and stuff when we switched and everything seems normal. You should not need a nutrition degree to feed your dog, lol! It just seemed like a good food that wasn't related to any plants with recalls and was at a great price point and didn't have chicken in it! Aaaahhhh!


----------



## Penny & Maggie's Mom

Quoted from Dr Tim on another forum, : Ash is the true filler in a dog food. Dogs have a requirement of about 2% ash (the non burnable/combustable minerals left over after food is burned) as in that 2% will be the calcium/phos/trace minerals they need. Above that is the useless part of a dog food as a rule. Of course, you can have a lot more useless ingredients in dog food if it isn't produced so it is digestable. For instance starches do need to be cooked for dogs to utilize them as they are not a ruminant like a cow.

So, ash tends to denote the quality of a protein ingredient, the less bone included in said meat meal the lower the ash(minerals from the bone). Many look at ash as the key to understanding if a higher quality protein is being used in the making of a dog or cat food.

Too much ash can be an impediment as well as in the gastrointestinal tract an overabundance of one type of mineral can inhibit uptake of another, either directly or by binding with the other mineral. And we have not talked about too much phosphorus and that possible effect on the kidneys over time.

I was taught ash of 7% or lower is the goal in constructing a quality food. Ash is unfortunately not required to be listed on labels so you have to do your research. Cost of using higher quality proteins, thus lower ash, than comes into play and you can tell that by what a food costs."


----------



## tippykayak

Mirinde said:


> Tippy, I'm confused by this statement. The way I am reading it suggests that it has been debunked that higher protein foods can cause kidney and growth issues? Am I reading that correctly? Totally 100% genuine, not snarky question. I know how these food posts tend to devolve : I'm just kind of clueless about the science behind high protein vs moderate/low protein.
> 
> I'll be keeping an eye on this post... I've been confused about the cons of high protein for awhile now and would be excited if this post stays on track and provides some clarity.


I wouldn't say that that it's been proven that higher protein foods _never_ cause kidney or growth issues. What I found while researching was that there was no evidence that they did. High protein can further damage abnormal kidneys, and excess calories or calcium and phosphorus can cause growth issues, for sure. But there was no clear evidence that protein in itself was a problem for normal kidneys or for growth.

So I wouldn't say it's been proven to be safe, but rather that there was no evidence that it would be a problem.


----------

