# thoughts on Eukanuba large breed puppy food



## jwemt81

That paricular food is not natural. It's a decent food for dogs who don't have food allergies. We had our dog on Eukanuba for about 6-7 months and finally had to take him off and switch to California Natural because of his ear infection problems. If your dog doesn't have allergies to corn and other fillers, it's an okay food.


----------



## Kahlua Golden

ok, good info. well i dont think i will use it then just in case. because if my pup does have allergies, i dont want to find out AFTER i paid $30 for a 20lb bag of food. the Iams is the same price for 40 lbs


----------



## LuckyPup

I am going to leave the food to the experts. I also feed Luck California Natural. But he has a very sensitive stomach and we still have yet to find a food that works.

I do know you should feed him whatever he is being fed now and slowly transition to the new food (if you are going to switch). 

How much you feed her depends on the food you are giving her.

Can not wait to see pictures of her coming home this weekend!

And 3 times a day is a good feeding schedule IMO. I think vets say until they are 6 months old? Could be wrong on that time. Since my bf works from home we chose to keep Luck on a 3 times a day feeding schedule.


----------



## jwemt81

Iams is basically the same thing Eukanuba. It's just the cheaper version and is more widely available since they sell it in grocery stores and department stores. Eukanuba is supposed to be a little bit higher quality than Iams and you can only get it at pet specialty stores, but they are both made by the same company and are very similar. We have been using California Natural for almost 2 weeks now and I already see a difference in Tucker's coat and his ear is clearing up very nicely, so we will be sticking with the CN.

Like I said, they're not bad foods if you don't have a dog with food allergy issues.


----------



## esSJay

I haven't used Eukanuba, but I believe that *tippykayak* feeds it to his dogs.

As for the feeding schedule, we feed only twice a day since he came home at 3½ months. I don't know what the pros/cons are for the frequency of feedings.


----------



## Popebendgoldens

Kahlua Golden said:


> want to hear some thoughts on this brand as ive never used it. i am trying to stay as natural as possible, but still be in my price range. the Eukanuba is a bit out of my price range, but if its really worth it, ill spend the extra bucks. it seems to be pretty decent, any advice? also when we get Kahlua home, she will be around 10 weeks, how much should i feed her, and is it better to do two meals a day, or three? thanks!
> 
> EDIT: also, i forgot to ask, is large breed the right formula? im also looking at Iams, as they are cheaper, but still seem to have pretty good quality. thanks again


I don't like Eukanuba. Here is the first 5 ingredients "Chicken, Corn Meal, Ground Whole Grain Sorghum, Chicken By-Product Meal (Natural source of Chondroitin Sulfate and Glucosamine), Brewers Rice,"

This food is over 75% corn, grain & rice. Did you know that Sorghum is cattle feed? It looks a lot like corn when it is growing but it is primarily grown for cattle (at least here in Texas). Dogs are carnivores and do NOT need grain in their diets. 

Chicken by-product meal is chicken feet , parts of the chicken that aren't used for people to eat. 

Also puppy food, senior food, etc is a marketing ploy. Puppies do just as well on adult kibble.

Try to either find a dog food that is grain free or feed a raw diet. Forget about buying Eukanuba.

Please read the ingredients on any type of kibble, before you buy. If you still want to stick with kibble, try to find a kibble where the first 2 ingredients is meat or meat meal.


----------



## tippykayak

There are no "fillers" in Eukanuba, and it's pretty inaccurate to call all corn-based ingredients fillers. Eukanuba is a highly recommended company with a very long track record of excellence in producing foods that dogs thrive on, and I've had excellent personal experiences with the Large Breed Puppy formula.

Allergies to corn or other grains are exceedingly rare, and many people who think their dogs are allergic to corn have arrived at that conclusion by switching to a foods, which doesn't actually tell you which ingredient was causing your dog's problems or actually if the problem was really the ingredients in the first place. I'm not arguing against JW's personal experience, but rather against the general theme I often hear in anti-grain statements.

There's a huge, unscientific anti-grain bias out there on the web, and we don't help things by perpetuating myths that aren't grounded in good data. It's absolutely true that a dog _can_ have a condition that makes corn a bad ingredient for him, but it's dramatically less common than people think. Most allergies are to protein sources, and many allergy-like symptoms in Goldens are actually the result of hypothyroid conditions.

I have glossy, happy, healthy dogs that have always grown up on Eukanuba LBP and then switched to a Eukanuba adult food (currently, we're using the Premium Performance). Eukanuba makes well-balanced, excellent food, and the proof is right there in the healthy animals and in their long track record.

Even if you just poke around the forum, you'll hear more stories of dogs who have runny stools and other health issues from grain free foods than you will about medically confirmed cases of grain intolerance. The vast majority of dogs process grains just fine, and it's quite healthy for them to get a certain proportion of their calories and nutrients from grains. All-meat diets often work for dogs, and many people report great success, but don't go in that direction just because some dog food websites make claims about the digestive systems of wolves.

Eukanuba LBP is specifically formulated for fast-growing breeds like Goldens in order to help with proper development, particularly of bones and joints. It's an excellent choice for a Golden puppy.

Iams, for the record, is owned by the same corporation that owns Eukanuba, and they also produce good foods, but I believe the ingredient quality is slightly lower than Eukanuba's. In a pinch, though, I'd happily feed Iams to the dogs.


----------



## Kahlua Golden

good info, and thanks all. i havent seen california naturals in my area. i used to sell pet food, but its been a while and ive forgotten most of my knowledge lol. i was leaning towards the nutro brand, but it seems to be more expensive than i remember. the breeder sends some of the food she feeds them so we can transition, i was already planning on that.


----------



## jwemt81

I will add that we have been feeding our cats Iams for several years and they all do extremely well on it. Every animal is different. Some thrive on a certain food while others don't do so well on that food. It's really a personal choice depedning on how your pet does on the food that you choose. It's just like humans. Some people are allergic to dairy and wheat products and some aren't. If your dog does well and has no obvious problems on the food you choose, great. You have found your food. You really can't make a decision on what food to go with based on other people's experiences because you may have a completely different experience with that food. Your dog will tell you how she is doing by the look of her coat, stools, eyes, ears, and energy level.


----------



## tippykayak

Popebendgoldens said:


> I don't like Eukanuba. Here is the first 5 ingredients "Chicken, Corn Meal, Ground Whole Grain Sorghum, Chicken By-Product Meal (Natural source of Chondroitin Sulfate and Glucosamine), Brewers Rice,"
> 
> This food is over 75% corn, grain & rice. Did you know that Sorghum is cattle feed? It looks a lot like corn when it is growing but it is primarily grown for cattle (at least here in Texas). Dogs are carnivores and do NOT need grain in their diets.
> 
> Chicken by-product meal is chicken feet , parts of the chicken that aren't used for people to eat.
> 
> Also puppy food, senior food, etc is a marketing ploy. Puppies do just as well on adult kibble.
> 
> Try to either find a dog food that is grain free or feed a raw diet. Forget about buying Eukanuba.
> 
> Please read the ingredients on any type of kibble, before you buy. If you still want to stick with kibble, try to find a kibble where the first 2 ingredients is meat or meat meal.


I really have to object to this post, since some of the statements are not just inaccurate but downright harmful.

First of all, Chicken By-Product meal means, according to Eukanuba's website, that it contains organs, meat, and bones. As you may or may not be aware, ground bone is an important source of nutrition, and organ meat is harmless and nutritious. While "by-product" is often used in the industry to cover up a poor ingredient, it isn't always. Unless Eukanuba is lying in their product claims, that ingredient is not just chicken feet, but is rather a balance of whole chicken in with the chicken muscle meat. And what's wrong with chicken feet anyway? They're an hors d'oeuvre in some parts of the world.

Second, dogs are not carnivores. Wolves are carnivores, and dogs were recently reclassified back into the same species as the gray wolf (Canis lupus), but after fifteen thousand years of eating people scraps, it's hardly a given that dogs have the same nutritional needs as wolves. Certainly, it makes sense to discuss whether or not a dog needs more meat than they get in a traditional kibble, but claiming that they're carnivores and acting like the debate is over is at best unscientific and at worst unreflective.

Third, puppy food is generally lower calorie and has a different balance of nutrients than adult food. Your advice here is outright irresponsible, since there are many adult foods out on the market that are not appropriate for puppies and could increase the chances of lasting physical problems for the dog. I'm not sure why you'd pooh-pooh a piece of nutritional advice that's really important for large breed puppies. Some adult kibbles are appropriate for all life stages and thus can be fed to puppies, but grabbing an adult food that isn't AAFCO approved for puppies or for all life stages is not a good idea.

Fourth, the advice to look for a food with the first two ingredients as meat is a popular piece of folklore, but it's also one that is manipulated by boutique dog foods. After all, if Eukanuba has a massive amount of chicken meat, it still can only list it as the first ingredient. If, however, I want to exploit you, I can use two meats in order to give you the impression that the food is mostly meat.

Lastly, I have no idea where this 75% claim comes from, so I'd ask you to substantiate it. Is it by weight? By calorie? By volume? Or simply by rumor?


----------



## The_Artful_Dodger

My old dog ate Eukanuba most of his life and never had a problem with it. Dogs can be allergic to many things but there's no way to determine what if anything your dog will be allergic to. Corn has a bad rep on the internet, but your dog is no more likely to be allergic to it than anything else. 

By-products also get a bad rep - but it does not mean that it is beaks and feet. 

I'm not an expert, but I would recommend brands like Eukanuba and Science Diet. I would avoid grocery store brands. 

Puppies should eat three times a day (I think because they cant regulate thier blood sugar level?)


----------



## Bock

Popebendgoldens said:


> I don't like Eukanuba. Here is the first 5 ingredients "Chicken, Corn Meal, Ground Whole Grain Sorghum, Chicken By-Product Meal (Natural source of Chondroitin Sulfate and Glucosamine), Brewers Rice,"
> 
> This food is over 75% corn, grain & rice. Did you know that Sorghum is cattle feed? It looks a lot like corn when it is growing but it is primarily grown for cattle (at least here in Texas). Dogs are carnivores and do NOT need grain in their diets. *No, dogs no not NEED grains, but they surely don't harm them in anyway.*
> 
> Chicken by-product meal is chicken feet , parts of the chicken that aren't used for people to eat. *Chicken by-product meal is not necessarily chicken feet. It is true that this is the part of the chicken that people do not eat. However, give a dog a raw chicken and see what parts the dog eats -I'd be willing to bet that the dog will happily eat parts of the chicken I wouldn't think about touching*.
> 
> Also puppy food, senior food, etc is a marketing ploy. Puppies do just as well on adult kibble. *While the "breed specific" foods are more of a marketing ploy, there are differences in puppy foods and senior foods. Different nutrient levels occur in these various foods. The only adult kibble I would feed a puppy is an ALS (all life stages) kibble*
> 
> Try to either find a dog food that is grain free or feed a raw diet. Forget about buying Eukanuba.*A grain-free or raw diet is not the goal here. The goal is to find a food that works for your dog whether it be raw chickens or a food full of corn. If it works, it works. A dog does NOT need a grain-free or raw diet to thrive.*
> 
> Please read the ingredients on any type of kibble, before you buy. If you still want to stick with kibble, try to find a kibble where the first 2 ingredients is meat or meat meal.*Once again, this is not sound advice. While I do advocate finding a food that has a meat meal as the first ingredient, it is not necessary to have the first 2 ingredients as meat. Some foods are limited ingredient foods and offer only 1 meat source and that 1 meat can make up a large percentage of the kibble. *


Sorry, but I think most of the statements made by the poster above are not much more than scare tactics some people use to advocate a grain-free/raw diet. While there are valid reasons to feed a grain-free/raw diet, a kibble diet with grain in it is perfectly suitable if it works for your dog.

My specific comments to each claim are above in *bold*.


----------



## Kahlua Golden

lots of great info there, i believe ive made my choice to start on Eukanuba and see how she likes it. if she wont eat it, i may switch to pedigree. as long as i can find a food that she likes and that isnt el-cheapo bottom-of-the-pot , i will be happy, and so will she. thanks, folks, for helping out a retriever rookie!!!


----------



## Ljilly28

I struggle mightily with all this. I got a golden to 15/1/2 eating Eukanuba and another one to 13. I did lose one at 9 to cancer. Then, with a new generation, I switched to Canidae because of Tally's contract, and it seemed like a great food until the forumla suddenly changed and caused some seriously upset tummies around here. Since then I've tried Eagle Pack Holistic and Innova, but havent had the CBC's and coats I want. My vet lobbied me to go back to Eukanuba premium performance sporting dog, and wow what a difference is both blood tests and coat. I wish I could be sure about the by products and preservatives, because the dogs certainly feel/look best on the top level Eukanuba. I do think that there may be something to a food like California Natural or Innova culling out cancer causing preservatives, so I will probably keep trying to mainly stay with Innova, but I certainly think the Eukanuba Premium Performance sporting dog is kind of a miracle food for adult dogs and Eukanuba LB puppy did very well by my first generation of goldies. It was sold to Johnson and Johnson - not sure who owns it now?


----------



## Garfield

Bock said:


> Sorry, but I think most of the statements made by the poster above are not much more than scare tactics some people use to advocate a grain-free/raw diet. While there are valid reasons to feed a grain-free/raw diet, a kibble diet with grain in it is perfectly suitable if it works for your dog.
> 
> My specific comments to each claim are above in *bold*.


Excellent post/corrections by Bock. It IS important that puppies receive certain nutrients, so you definitely want a puppy food or an all life stage food (which are specfically formulated to puppies' needs) and a large breed puppy formula is fine for a Golden.

So long as the dog can tolerate grains, I don't have anything against them in the food provided that they don't make up the majority of the protein count (which unfortunately foods like Eukanuba, Pedigree, Iams, etc tend to do). And I also take the company into account (things such as quality & manufacturing control, research methods, history, pricing, personal experience and that of pet owners, customer service, etc). That said, I generally recommend (at least starting with) one of the puppy foods from Healthwise or California Natural as alternatives to the Euk, Pedigree, Iams - both are from a top shelf company, affordable (especially Healthwise which is about $35 for 35 lbs in these parts), and though they have grains, they are minimal (making up no more than 20% of the protein) and those that are usually well tolerated/highly digestable. But as has been said, different food strokes for different dogs and some do better on premium stuff, some on lower end and some on the many in between, and you'll find it's just a matter of which one best suits your particular dog.


----------



## tippykayak

Garfield said:


> So long as the dog can tolerate grains, I don't have anything against them in the food provided that they don't make up the majority of the protein count (which unfortunately foods like Eukanuba, Pedigree, Iams, etc tend to do).


Can you substantiate this claim? Are you saying that in the Euk food, the bulk of the protein comes from gluten? Also, how are you measuring protein?


----------



## Garfield

tippykayak said:


> Can you substantiate this claim? Are you saying that in the Euk food, the bulk of the protein comes from gluten? Also, how are you measuring protein?


What I'm saying is that the bulk of the protein in this food (by weight) comes from corn, sorghum, and brewer's rice which can be ascertained from the ingredient listing.

But beyond that, as part of my work and a graduate project, I've researched foods extensively and inquired with several companies directly as to the quality control/manufacturing processes I mentioned above as well as to the specific nutritional makeups of several of their formulas, including the digestability of each of those components. I tend to only recommend the makers that were forthcoming with satisfactory answers (you'll notice that's very few).

This is not to blanketly pan Euk or any other food (as indicated elsepost, I've witnessed dogs thrive on non-holistic foods that didn't do well on grain free foods, vice versa and most everything in between), but rather an effort to provide information to make educated feeding decisions and hopefully encourage the original poster and other pet owners to really look into _any_ food they feed.


----------



## Bock

Garfield said:


> What I'm saying is that the bulk of the protein in this food (by weight) comes from corn, sorghum, and brewer's rice which can be ascertained from the ingredient listing.


I believe this is a realistic representation of where a majority of the protein in Euk (at least the adult large breed formula) comes from. 

If you have percentages, please share as that would be very interesting to analyze.


----------



## MyBentley

> I generally recommend (at least starting with) one of the puppy foods from Healthwise or California Natural as alternatives to the Euk, Pedigree, Iams - both are from a top shelf company, affordable (especially Healthwise which is about $35 for 35 lbs in these parts), and though they have grains, they are minimal (making up no more than 20% of the protein) and those that are usually well tolerated/highly digestable.


I also support these suggestions by Garfield. Healthwise by the Natura company is an excellent value ($36.50 for 35lb.) with ingredients and guaranteed analysis that look good on paper. My daughter's family is on a tight budget and their dogs do well on Healthwise and they like the fact that it is a company that only makes pet food. There are 468 kcal/cup in Healthwise which means you would feed less of it than some brands like Eukanuba Large Breed Puppy which is 361 kcal/cup. That makes it even more of a value. I've used other products by the Natura company and believe strongly in them. Here is the link: http://www.naturapet.com/brands/healthwise.asp

The following stores seem to carry Natura products (Healthwise, California Natural, Innova) in your area.

All About Pets
2953 Cape Horn Road
Red Lion, PA 17356
(717) 244-4099

Cape Horn Country
3100 Cape Horn Road
Red Lion, PA 17356
(717) 246-3778

Getty's Pet Shop
2908 East Market Street
York, PA 17402
717-755-4913

Happy Tee Kennels
333 Newcomer Rd.
Windsor, PA 17366
(717) 246-3267

Morgan's Paws Pet Care Center
305 Hill Street
York, PA 17403
(717) 755-9544
Website

Pets 'n You
673 Lombard Rd
Red Lion, PA 17356
717-246-1981

Puppy Tails
292 Dew Drop Road
York, PA 17402
(717) 741-9190

York Pet Supply
241 Pauline Dr.
York , PA 17402
(717) 741-1751


----------



## tippykayak

Garfield said:


> What I'm saying is that the bulk of the protein in this food (by weight) comes from corn, sorghum, and brewer's rice which can be ascertained from the ingredient listing.


Pretend, for a moment, that I'm a complete moron and break down the math for me. Since chicken meat is the heaviest single component of the LBP food, I don't see how one could figure out with any degree of surety that it comprises less than 50% of the protein content, particularly since the grains don't provide that much protein by weight.


----------



## Pointgold

Kahlua Golden said:


> want to hear some thoughts on this brand as ive never used it. i am trying to stay as natural as possible, but still be in my price range. the Eukanuba is a bit out of my price range, but if its really worth it, ill spend the extra bucks. it seems to be pretty decent, any advice? also when we get Kahlua home, she will be around 10 weeks, how much should i feed her, and is it better to do two meals a day, or three? thanks!
> 
> EDIT: also, i forgot to ask, is large breed the right formula? im also looking at Iams, as they are cheaper, but still seem to have pretty good quality. thanks again


I used to feed Eukanuba, switched to ProPlan and will never look back. I do not feed large breed. A 10 wk old pup will still likely be on 3 meals per day and within a couple weeks may eliminate lunch on her own. I feed ProPlan Puppy formula until between 4-6 months old, then switch to Adult, Life Stages Chicken and Rice if they are not to be shown, Performance if they are.


----------



## Ash

Short answer..... some dogs do well on it, some don't but thats with every food. Mine didn't so I wouldn't really reccomend it.


----------



## msdogs1976

MyBentley said:


> I also support these suggestions by Garfield. Healthwise by the Natura company is an excellent value ($36.50 for 35lb.) with ingredients and guaranteed analysis that look good on paper.


Lot's of people recommends Natura and it may be the best company out there, but it's not sold everywhere. For me the closest store that sells it is 100 miles away. Having it shipped would make it one of the more expensive one's. 

I'm happy with Iam's. It has worked for me, but I do have a question for the food guru's here. Iam's mini chunks has a calorie count of 426kcal/cup where as Iam's large breed has a 374kcal/cup. The protein and fat levels a little higher in the mini chunks resulting in a higher kcap/cup, I guess. Is there any reason why you would not want to feed the mini to a golden or lab as opposed to the large breed? Seems like you get more bang for the buck with the mini as you could feed less, in theory. At least I always see people make this argument for feeding certain brands over others, because of the higher cal count.


----------



## The_Artful_Dodger

msdogs1976 said:


> but I do have a question for the food guru's here. Iam's mini chunks has a calorie count of 426kcal/cup where as Iam's large breed has a 374kcal/cup. The protein and fat levels a little higher in the mini chunks resulting in a higher kcap/cup, I guess. Is there any reason why you would not want to feed the mini to a golden or lab as opposed to the large breed? Seems like you get more bang for the buck with the mini as you could feed less, in theory. At least I always see people make this argument for feeding certain brands over others, because of the higher cal count.


I'm not a food guru, but I'm going to throw this out there. Are the mini chunks a smaller kibble size than the other? If so, more kibble will fit into the cup (i.e., less space between the kibbles). When I transitioned Dodger's food, the kibbles from the breeder were much smaller so when I was mixing they would just fill in the gaps between the larger kibbles and not change the measurement on the measuring cup. If I had decided to feed that food I would have been "feeding less" according to the measuring cup, but probably not by actual volume.


----------



## Abbydabbydo

Ask your breeder what the pup has been on now, Don't switch too quickly. Finn was on Euk chicken and rice for a long time because his breeder had him on it and he did just fine. I have them both on CN Lamb and rice and they are doing great!

Plus a hamburger they steal off the counter now and then


----------



## Swampcollie

Kahlua Golden said:


> want to hear some thoughts on this brand as ive never used it. i am trying to stay as natural as possible, but still be in my price range. the Eukanuba is a bit out of my price range, but if its really worth it, ill spend the extra bucks. it seems to be pretty decent, any advice? also when we get Kahlua home, she will be around 10 weeks, how much should i feed her, and is it better to do two meals a day, or three? thanks!
> 
> EDIT: also, i forgot to ask, is large breed the right formula? im also looking at Iams, as they are cheaper, but still seem to have pretty good quality. thanks again


We've been feeding Euk for several decades to both our personal dogs and client dogs, with great success. 

When the Euk LBP formula came out we began feeding that formula to our litters and younger pups. To date, we have had *zero* food related or growth related problems with any pup on Euk LBP. 

When you first bring your new pup home, continue feeding the same food that the breeder was feeding her to help her adapt to your home and schedule more smoothly. If possible take a few empty containers along to fill with water, so the pup can make a graduall transition from the breeders water source to your water source. 

Whether to feed two or three times a day depends upon the individual pup and the particular food you've chosen to feed. Most of our pups are on twice daily feeding schedules by 10 weeks.


----------



## Lucky's mom

Corn isn't a protein source. Corn Glutin and rice Glutin can be. They are processed with the starch removed which leaves pure protein. If the ingredient list mentions corn glutin...its a protein source. But corn as a whole grain isn't.

I stay away from soy, peas, corn glutin, rice glutin and even oats....as those are probably used as plant protein sources.

Eukanuba research has shown that meat sources of protein result in better coat and skin for the dog. And they use only meat sources for protein. The corn and sorgum is carbonhydrate.

Also....Eukanuba has found through research that a mixture of corn and sorgum results in a better metabolism which means the dog stays at a better weight. They patented that finding.

Lucky does best so far on Iams/Eukanuba. And I trust the company.


----------



## Garfield

Lucky's mom said:


> Corn isn't a protein source. Corn Glutin and rice Glutin can be. They are processed with the starch removed which leaves pure protein. If the ingredient list mentions corn glutin...its a protein source. But corn as a whole grain isn't.
> 
> I stay away from soy, peas, corn glutin, rice glutin and even oats....as those are probably used as plant protein sources.
> 
> Eukanuba research has shown that meat sources of protein result in better coat and skin for the dog. And they use only meat sources for protein. The corn and sorgum is carbonhydrate.
> 
> Also....Eukanuba has found through research that a mixture of corn and sorgum results in a better metabolism which means the dog stays at a better weight. They patented that finding.
> 
> Lucky does best so far on Iams/Eukanuba. And I trust the company.


While Eukanuba fortunately does not use grain protein concentrates and the corn and sorghum in their formulas is in forms that are more digestable than forms in some other foods, they are each in form that indeed _does_ include protein components that, in the large quantities used, _does_ contribute to a signficant amount of the protein makeup (while the starch component of each goes toward the carb count). It's also important to note how much of said protein part can be utilized by the dog - that of corn is on the lower end. Sorghum is higher in protein and may biologically compliment the corn and other ingredients to best meet their food's nutritional objectives - each company has there own and formulation means of achieving them. _FEI, there's a nutritional breakdown of whole grains commonly found in dog food here (__http://www.dogfoodproject.com/downloads/grain_comparison.pdf__) and DFP also cites the following utilization of proteins often seen in dog foods:_

_Egg whites and whey protein 100% _
_Muscle meats (chicken slightly higher than beef or lamb) 92% _
_Organ meats (heart, kidney, liver) 90% _
_Fish, whole soybeans (not leftover fragments!) 75%, _
_Rice 72% _
_Oats 66% _
_Yeast 63% _
_Wheat 60% _
_Corn 54% _


From my experience, I generally see dogs on a diet where animal muscle meat and organs constitute the majority of their protein intake to maintain better weight and muscle mass which is partly why I make the starting recommendations I do (in conjunction with other reasons prevoiusly touched upon). But again, many dogs do just fine on Euk/foods containing similiar ingredients and I don't begrudge anyone from feeding any food that works well for their dog made by a company that they trust.


----------



## Garfield

tippykayak said:


> Pretend, for a moment, that I'm a complete moron* and break down the math for me. Since chicken meat is the heaviest single component of the LBP food, I don't see how one could figure out with any degree of surety that it comprises less than 50% of the protein content, particularly since the grains don't provide that much protein by weight.


*Prefer not to even entertain such a false notion/keep with reality, a positive tone and simply address your question: Pet food ingredients are listed by weight before manufacturing processes occur. Once you factor out the ~70% water removed from the chicken in processing, it becomes a much more minimal ingredient in the food (whereas grains don't have much moisture to lose, moving them to the head of the ingredient list, so you really don't know how much they are using without researching). Again for surety, I encourage all owners to directly contact their pet food company to learn the _guaranteed_ % of the food's protein that is derived from animal sources/delve into the quality and batch consistency of those sources (the corresponding carb count can also be an indication of how much grain based protein is featured too).


----------



## tippykayak

Garfield said:


> _FEI, there's a nutritional breakdown of whole grains commonly found in dog food here (__http://www.dogfoodproject.com/downloads/grain_comparison.pdf__) and DFP also cites the following utilization of proteins often seen in dog foods:_
> 
> _Egg whites and whey protein 100% _
> _Muscle meats (chicken slightly higher than beef or lamb) 92% _
> _Organ meats (heart, kidney, liver) 90% _
> _Fish, whole soybeans (not leftover fragments!) 75%, _
> _Rice 72% _
> _Oats 66% _
> _Yeast 63% _
> _Wheat 60% _
> _Corn 54% _


The "science" here is simply atrocious. "Digestibility" is measured in a number of ways, so there's no way to arrive at a simple percentage number for protein's "digestibility." These numbers come from an article by Dr. T J Dunn Jr., in which he actually indicts "all meat" diets as unhealthy, and the table includes a disclaimer that "Values in table are approximate, as they have been taken from several nutrition sources and personal communications with nutrition experts." Personal communications aren't exactly hard science, eh?

These fairly random numbers appear to be very similar to biological value measurements for protein sources, which are not a measurement of digestibility but rather a measurement of what accessible amino acids they provide, and BVs are usually expressed in ratios of up to 1. They're based on the nutritional needs of a five year old human child. That's why egg whites and milk proteins are the highest, not because dogs can digest them well, but rather because they provide the most complete set of aminos for little kids.

Their relevance to dog food? Minimal. Beef muscle meat has a protein digestibility score of 92% because of the accessible amino acids it provides to humans, not because it's 92% "digestible" to a dog. What would that kind of "digestibility" even mean in practical application? That if you give a dog a steak, he digests 92% of it? His body accesses 92% of the proteins in it and passes the rest? That 92% of the protein types are digestible by the dog and 8% aren't? That it provides 92% of the amino acids a dog needs? I'll give you a hint: you have no idea, and neither does anybody else. Beef gets a PDCAAS score of .92 because, compared to egg whites, it is 92% as good for a child's protein needs as an egg white is.

Besides, if we followed your chart, we should feed our dogs egg whites and nothing else, right? They would be able to use "100%" of the proteins.

Sites like dogfoodproject provide lots of rumors and lots of reasons to panic, but very, very little real nutritional science.


----------



## MyBentley

tippykayak said:


> The "science" here is simply atrocious. "Digestibility" is measured in a number of ways, so there's no way to arrive at a simple percentage number for protein's "digestibility." These numbers come from an article by Dr. T J Dunn Jr., in which he actually indicts "all meat" diets as unhealthy, and the table includes a disclaimer that "Values in table are approximate, as they have been taken from several nutrition sources and personal communications with nutrition experts." Personal communications aren't exactly hard science, eh?
> 
> These fairly random numbers appear to be very similar to biological value measurements for protein sources, which are not a measurement of digestibility but rather a measurement of what accessible amino acids they provide, and BVs are usually expressed in ratios of up to 1. They're based on the nutritional needs of a five year old human child. That's why egg whites and milk proteins are the highest, not because dogs can digest them well, but rather because they provide the most complete set of aminos for little kids.
> 
> Their relevance to dog food? Minimal. Beef muscle meat has a protein digestibility score of 92% because of the accessible amino acids it provides to humans, not because it's 92% "digestible" to a dog. What would that kind of "digestibility" even mean in practical application? That if you give a dog a steak, he digests 92% of it? His body accesses 92% of the proteins in it and passes the rest? That 92% of the protein types are digestible by the dog and 8% aren't? That it provides 92% of the amino acids a dog needs? I'll give you a hint: you have no idea, and neither does anybody else. Beef gets a PDCAAS score of .92 because, compared to egg whites, it is 92% as good for a child's protein needs as an egg white is.
> 
> Besides, if we followed your chart, we should feed our dogs egg whites and nothing else, right? They would be able to use "100%" of the proteins.
> 
> Sites like dogfoodproject provide lots of rumors and lots of reasons to panic, but very, very little real nutritional science.


I thought the following was a good example of nutritional science that identifies a meat-based protein (poultry by-product) as having a higher dry matter digestibility and energy than a plant-based protein (soy). Apparently, supplements did not improve the digestibility of the plant-based proteins. The bolding is my own.

Abstract
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association
January 15, 2006, Vol. 228, No. 2, Pages 235-235
doi: 10.2460/javma.228.2.235

In vivo measurement of flatulence and nutrient digestibility in dogs fed poultry by-product meal, conventional soybean meal, and low-oligosaccharide low-phytate soybean meal

Ryan M. Yamka David L. Harmon William D. Schoenherr Christina Khoo Kathy L. Gross Stephen J. Davidson Dinesh K. Joshi

Objective—To determine an optimal window for determining peak flatulence and evaluate the effects of oligosaccharides and supplemental β-mannanase in soybean meal–based diets on nutrient availability and flatulence.

Animals—6 dogs.

Procedures—Dogs were used in a 2 × 3 factorial arrangement of treatments in a 6 × 6 Latin square experiment to evaluate the digestibility, flatulence, and fecal odor metabolites of low-oligosaccharide low-phytate soybean meal (LLM), conventional soybean meal (SBM), and poultry by-product (PBP) meal diets with or without supplemental β-mannanase (5 g/kg).

Results—Enzyme supplementation had no effect on total tract dry matter (DM), nitrogen digestibility, or digestible energy; however, *differences between protein sources did exist for total tract DM digestibility and digestible energy. The PBP meal had higher DM digestibility and digestible energy (mean, 0.913 and 4,255 cal/g), compared with soy-based diets *(mean, 0.870 and 4,049 cal/g). No differences were detected for any treatment regardless of protein source or addition of supplemental enzyme for any flatulence components analyzed. No differences were detected for all fecal odor metabolites regardless of addition of supplemental enzyme; however, differences between protein sources were detected. The PBP meal had lower concentrations of carboxylic acids and esters and higher concentrations of heterocycles, phenols, thio and sulfides, ketones, alcohols, and indoles than LLM and SBM.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Diets containing < 22.4 g of stachyose/kg and < 2 g of raffinose/kg did not alter digestibility or increase flatulence in dogs. (Am J Vet Res 2006;67:88–94)
PDF (69.089 KB) PDF Plus (69.959 KB)


----------



## Garfield

tippykayak said:


> The "science" here is simply atrocious. "Digestibility" is measured in a number of ways, so there's no way to arrive at a simple percentage number for protein's "digestibility." These numbers come from an article by Dr. T J Dunn Jr., in which he actually indicts "all meat" diets as unhealthy, and the table includes a disclaimer that "Values in table are approximate, as they have been taken from several nutrition sources and personal communications with nutrition experts." Personal communications aren't exactly hard science, eh?
> 
> These fairly random numbers appear to be very similar to biological value measurements for protein sources, which are not a measurement of digestibility but rather a measurement of what accessible amino acids they provide, and BVs are usually expressed in ratios of up to 1. They're based on the nutritional needs of a five year old human child. That's why egg whites and milk proteins are the highest, not because dogs can digest them well, but rather because they provide the most complete set of aminos for little kids.
> 
> Their relevance to dog food? Minimal. Beef muscle meat has a protein digestibility score of 92% because of the accessible amino acids it provides to humans, not because it's 92% "digestible" to a dog. What would that kind of "digestibility" even mean in practical application? That if you give a dog a steak, he digests 92% of it? His body accesses 92% of the proteins in it and passes the rest? That 92% of the protein types are digestible by the dog and 8% aren't? That it provides 92% of the amino acids a dog needs? I'll give you a hint: you have no idea, and neither does anybody else. Beef gets a PDCAAS score of .92 because, compared to egg whites, it is 92% as good for a child's protein needs as an egg white is.
> 
> Besides, if we followed your chart, we should feed our dogs egg whites and nothing else, right? They would be able to use "100%" of the proteins.
> 
> Sites like dogfoodproject provide lots of rumors and lots of reasons to panic, but very, very little real nutritional science.


No need to be so hostile. First of all, that list is not mine, simply cited by an informative site from a person with experience and study in the field (and you'd have to talk to Dr. Dunn to verify precisely where he derived each of those numbers - I think his beef - no pun intended  - with the "all meat" diet is that it lacked truth in advertising - while I'd prefer he cite his sources as well, he does have some very valid points in the need for better regulation and disclosure within the pet food industry). I do see these biological values (defined as usable amino acids of digestable protein - yes, often benchmarked against the egg, which has optimum bioavailability for just about many species, though for best balance, it's important to provide diverse proteins/essential amino acid profiles) commonly referenced in veterinary resources pertaining to dogs :

Egg: 100
Fish meal: 92
Milk: 92
Beef: ~78
Soybean meal: ~67
Meat/bone meal: 50 
Wheat: ~50
Corn: 45 

Granted, these are estimates (not exact - but hardly atrocious - science) as research is ongoing to learn more and honestly it will be several years before definitive findings on different types of diets will be achieved (heck, these figures can vary even within the same ingredient within the same species, which is also why I advocate more industry oversight and going directly to the food manufactures for specific nutritional info). But this is at least a starting point and it seems there is more & more scientific evidence from credentialed sources suggesting accuracy - even Euk, Hills, Iams, etc have moved to formulate some foods with more prominent meat animal protein. And there is also what I've witnessed in many dogs myself which, along with industry research, is what I base recommendations on, not internet flight and fancy.


----------



## Lucky's mom

The simple fact is that no dog food company will use whole corn as a protien source because it is to inefficient--starch to glutin ratio. A company will use corn glutin and mix it with bone meal for a complete protein. 

Soy can be used as a protein.

This is from the dog food project which....I don't agree with EVERYTHING on the website, I do this

►Corn often gets an undeserved bad reputation. While it is not acceptable as a main source of protein in a dog food (as it is used in combination with corn gluten), as a source of carbohydrates it is no better and no worse than other grains in terms of nutritional value and digestibility. 

If you look at any low grade dog food you will see corn glutin mixed with soy or and bone meal. That's the protein source.

Ah well....we all have our own opinion.


----------



## Ash

LOL and I used to think the ProPlan feeders were the most "passionate" when discussing food


----------



## tippykayak

Garfield said:


> No need to be so hostile. First of all, that list is not mine, simply cited by an informative site from a person with experience and study in the field (and you'd have to talk to Dr. Dunn to verify precisely where he derived each of those numbers - I think his beef - no pun intended  - with the "all meat" diet is that it lacked truth in advertising - while I'd prefer he cite his sources as well, he does have some very valid points in the need for better regulation and disclosure within the pet food industry). I do see these biological values (defined as usable amino acids of digestable protein - yes, often benchmarked against the egg, which has optimum bioavailability for just about many species, though for best balance, it's important to provide diverse proteins/essential amino acid profiles) commonly referenced in veterinary resources pertaining to dogs :
> 
> Egg: 100
> Fish meal: 92
> Milk: 92
> Beef: ~78
> Soybean meal: ~67
> Meat/bone meal: 50
> Wheat: ~50
> Corn: 45
> 
> Granted, these are estimates (not exact - but hardly atrocious - science) as research is ongoing to learn more and honestly it will be several years before definitive findings on different types of diets will be achieved (heck, these figures can vary even within the same ingredient within the same species, which is also why I advocate more industry oversight and going directly to the food manufactures for specific nutritional info). But this is at least a starting point and it seems there is more & more scientific evidence from credentialed sources suggesting accuracy - even Euk, Hills, Iams, etc have moved to formulate some foods with more prominent meat animal protein. And there is also what I've witnessed in many dogs myself which, along with industry research, is what I base recommendations on, not internet flight and fancy.


Sorry for the hostility. This kind of junk science creeps into these discussions all the time, and it's typically cited by people who don't really understand biochemistry and the hard science behind nutrition. I apologize for assuming you were a member of that group, though I have to be honest in saying that I haven't yet seen anything from you that really differentiates your claims from others blindly cited off the internet without much real understanding. People constantly tell others what to feed their dogs, but they do so without really grasping the fundamental science.

For example, the egg isn't the most "bioavailable" food for "just about many species." It ranks at 100 (or, more commonly, 1) because it provides the amino profile that the WHO thinks is most suitable for children. We have to be careful not to overestimate those values' application to dogs. It's not the estimates that are junk science: it's their uncritical application to dog food recommendations that's my, pardon the pun, beef.

I guess my point is that "digestibility" is a word we often hear in these discussions, but not one people can easily define. How does one measure "usable amino acids of digestible protein?" And again, why not feed the dog eggs only if they score 100 and beef only scores a 78? In reality, we can measure what aminos are in a particular type of food, and we can rate that against what we think a human needs. It's dramatically harder, though, to chemically measure a dog's digestive tract in order to figure out what's absorbed and what's passing through, or to analyze all parts of a dog's body to figure out what aminos are being used and which are less necessary. 

The fact is that BV or "digestibility" numbers are only a tiny part of how we decide what to put in a dog's food, and in no way do they tell us that dogs should only eat meat or that a dog should not have wheat, corn, or any other ingredient. Nobody will likely dispute that meat and organs are the best sources for most of the aminos a dog needs, but these numbers do not tell us that grains are inappropriate nor that they shouldn't make up a substantial portion of a dog's caloric intake.


----------



## inge

I feel really dumb after reading this thread...I don't understand half of what you're saying....It also has me worried a bit...my breeder feeds Eukanuba and her dogs look fantastic, but should I go on with that brand or not when I get my puppy?? I hoped to be able to make up my mind after your discussion, but that hasn't really helped...


----------



## tippykayak

MyBentley said:


> I thought the following was a good example of nutritional science that identifies a meat-based protein (poultry by-product) as having a higher dry matter digestibility and energy than a plant-based protein (soy). Apparently, supplements did not improve the digestibility of the plant-based proteins. The bolding is my own.


I do think it's probably true and verifiable that meat sources provide a more varied protein profile than plant sources and that dogs can generally access more protein from meat than from plants. It's not that dense in plants anyway. 

We have to be careful, though, to avoid the simplistic judgment that meat is better just because of its protein profile and availability. Meat is a really important component of a dog's diet, but that doesn't tell us that grains or bad or even that they're unnecessary.


----------



## msdogs1976

inge said:


> I feel really dumb after reading this thread...I don't understand half of what you're saying....It also has me worried a bit..*.my breeder feeds Eukanuba and her dogs look fantastic*, but should I go on with that brand or not when I get my puppy?? I hoped to be able to make up my mind after your discussion, but that hasn't really helped...


I think you answered your own question.:agree:


----------



## tippykayak

inge said:


> I feel really dumb after reading this thread...I don't understand half of what you're saying....It also has me worried a bit...my breeder feeds Eukanuba and her dogs look fantastic, but should I go on with that brand or not when I get my puppy?? I hoped to be able to make up my mind after your discussion, but that hasn't really helped...


Just in terms of my two cents, all the anti-grain rants I've seen are based on thin science or misinterpreted science. Eukanuba has operated for a long time as a reliable, reputable maker of dog food, and they've done countless studies in order to develop a food dogs thrive on.

Many of the so-called "premium" foods are formulated according to theories about dog nutrition, like those you've read in this thread, rather than on hard data where the actual food is given to real dogs and the results are studied. I am hardly wealthy, but I could easily afford a more expensive food, and I live in CT, where the local pet boutiques carry every fancy food you could want. Still, I feed Eukanuba because I think it's the best all-around food maker and my dogs are shiny and driven.


----------



## Swampcollie

inge said:


> I feel really dumb after reading this thread...I don't understand half of what you're saying....It also has me worried a bit...my breeder feeds Eukanuba and her dogs look fantastic, but should I go on with that brand or not when I get my puppy?? I hoped to be able to make up my mind after your discussion, but that hasn't really helped...


You have the answers to your own question.

The Breeder is the most familiar with their dogs and what works for them. You've seen their dogs and their condition on Eukanuba. Talk to the breeder and get their input about what works for their puppies.

You'll read a lot of junk on this site about various foods. A lot of it is unsubstantiated rubbish. In the end, what really matters is the results a food delivers. Are the dogs healthy? Do they look great and perform well?

I've fed a lot of retrievers over the last thirty years. I have found a number of foods that are far more expensive than Eukanuba, some deliver as good results as Eukanuba, but none that have delivered better results than Eukanuba. 

Eukanuba and Pro Plan take a lot of abuse on this board, but they are the most widely used foods by Professional Trainers, Handlers, Serious Breeders and Fanciers in the United States. For many of these people their living depends upon maintaining the dogs in their care in peak condition. 

I would hate to try to keep a competition dog in top form feeding one of these designer grain free diets. :no:


----------



## rappwizard

Does the breeder also recommend a particular type of food that has done well with his/her lines? IMHO, that would be the route you should try first. My breeder provided me with information on feeding, and what kibble was recommended and when to transition totally to adult food.

I agree with those who say that you shouldn't go by what anyone has to say about a particular food or food because what works for one person, might not work for another. But I would think the breeder would be able (and want) to steer you in the right direction and provide you with info as to what has worked out well in the past.


----------



## MyBentley

tippykayak said:


> Just in terms of my two cents, *all the anti-grain rants I've seen are based on thin science or misinterpreted science.* Eukanuba has operated for a long time as a reliable, reputable maker of dog food, and they've done countless studies in order to develop a food dogs thrive on.
> 
> Many of the so-called "premium" foods are formulated according to theories about dog nutrition, like those you've read in this thread, rather than on hard data where the actual food is given to real dogs and the results are studied. I am hardly wealthy, but I could easily afford a more expensive food, and I live in CT, where the local pet boutiques carry every fancy food you could want. Still, I feed Eukanuba because I think it's the best all-around food maker and my dogs are shiny and driven.


For some of us, its not ranting or being "anti-grain", but believing that kibble high in carbohydrates is not beneficial for dogs. I haven't found any information identifying that high carb diets are better for the average dog compared to diets higher in meat-based protein and fats. Most kibbles high in carbohydrates (which is over 40%, IMO) happen to include lots of grain; but a non-grain carb can just as easily make a kibble high in carbohydrates - one example is Natural Balance Potato and Duck (no grain, but low in protein and high in carbs). It's grain-free, but I'd have no interest in feeding it. Now if some company made a formula with 35% meat-based protein and low in carbs using something like oatmeal (a grain), I'd love to try it.

So while I agree that some dog food companies are on the bandwagon with the popular notion that kibble should be grain-free, I think there is validity to feeding kibble that is lower in carbohydrates than many of the kibbles available. I just wish more people would realize that that can be accomplished both with and without grains. 

Also, I believe that Natura (EVO, Innova, California Natural, Healthwise) does do actual feeding studies with dogs. I imagine that most people identify EVO as a premium formula.


----------



## tippykayak

MyBentley said:


> For some of us, its not ranting or being "anti-grain", but believing that kibble high in carbohydrates is not beneficial for dogs. I haven't found any information identifying that high carb diets are better for the average dog compared to diets higher in meat-based protein and fats. Most kibbles high in carbohydrates (which is over 40%, IMO) happen to include lots of grain; but a non-grain carb can just as easily make a kibble high in carbohydrates


40% of what? I don't disagree with the basic premise of your post, that it's possible have a diet that derives too may calories from carbohydrates, but I'm curious as to what that 40% means and how you arrived at it.



MyBentley said:


> Now if some company made a formula with 35% meat-based protein and low in carbs using something like oatmeal (a grain), I'd love to try it.


Again, 35% of what? Are you talking about guaranteed analysis numbers?



MyBentley said:


> So while I agree that some dog food companies are on the bandwagon with the popular notion that kibble should be grain-free, I think there is validity to feeding kibble that is lower in carbohydrates than many of the kibbles available. I just wish more people would realize that that can be accomplished both with and without grains.
> 
> Also, I believe that Natura (EVO, Innova, California Natural, Healthwise) does do actual feeding studies with dogs. I imagine that most people identify EVO as a premium formula.


I wasn't really pooh-poohing all the foods that are packaged as premium. I was mostly pointing out that "premium," "holistic," "natural," and "human-grade" are all terms that have no legal definition on a dog food bag and don't really tell us much about whether the food is any good for dogs.

And is the main point of your post that most dog foods have less protein than they should, and that you're advocating for more protein-rich diets in general?


----------



## T&T

Hey Procter & Gamble (Iams/Eukanuba) !

What's up with ethoxyquin ? (Monsanto product)
It's been banned for humans but ok for pets ?
http://www.truthaboutpetfood.com/ar...ents-Not-Listed-on-Pet-Food-Labels/Page1.html

And why give consumers the run around when asked if you use genetically modified corn (GM corn) (Monsanto product) ?

What do you mean "it's possible that ..." ???
You DON'T know ? 

Would it have anything to do with the fact that over & over again Monsanto's GM corn tested on lab animals has shown to cause allergies & health issues ?

Interesting that some pet food companies are able to give you a straight answer & others not ...


----------



## msdogs1976

T&T said:


> Hey Procter & Gamble (Iams/Eukanuba) !


Another reason to own it. I'm a stock holder.:


----------



## MyBentley

tippykayak said:


> 40% of what? I don't disagree with the basic premise of your post, that it's possible have a diet that derives too may calories from carbohydrates, but I'm curious as to what that 40% means and how you arrived at it.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, 35% of what? *Are you talking about guaranteed analysis numbers?
> *
> 
> 
> I wasn't really pooh-poohing all the foods that are packaged as premium. I was mostly pointing out that "premium," "holistic," "natural," and "human-grade" are all terms that have no legal definition on a dog food bag and don't really tell us much about whether the food is any good for dogs.
> 
> *And is the main point of your post that most dog foods have less protein than they should, and that you're advocating for more protein-rich diets in general?*


Yes, I'm referring to guaranteed analysis numbers.

My main points:
Not everyone feeding grain-free kibble is anti-grain. They may just be trying to feeding a lower carb diet and the grain-free is what's available on the market to arrive at it. Also, some dogs may have intolerances to some grains so the owner may need to try some grain-free kibbles.

A kibble's guaranteed analysis shows percentages which add up more or less to 100%. The lower the carbohydrate % is, then by default something else has to go up which is usually the protein and often times the fat percentages. So, I suppose in a backdoor kind of way you could say that I believe a dog food higher in meat-based protein is more beneficial than a kibble high in carbohydrates from grains and/or vegetables. 

The "not more than 40%" (GA) carb number is basically my own comfort level. Actually, I try to feed foods with a lower percentage than that. I just haven't found with my own dogs or from any material I've come across that heavy carbohydrate eating provides any benefits in energy level, coat, skin, longevity, or muscle tone. I'm not saying that there's irrefutable proof that lower carb diets will absolutely bring the results I want; but I haven't come across anything that says heavy carb diets provide any benefits either.

And on a final note, I do agree with you that the labeling on the front of dog food bags (and unfortunately many human packaged foods) is entirely misleading. "Natural", "holistic", etc. are meaningless terms. You have to begin with carefully reading the back of the bag and the companies web site - then compare formulas and brands. Or, some folks have no idea there are differences in dog food and blissfully grab the bag off the shelf that has the cute dog photo and a good price. Those were the easy days.


----------



## tippykayak

MyBentley said:


> A kibble's guaranteed analysis shows percentages which add up more or less to 100%. The lower the carbohydrate % is, then by default something else has to go up which is usually the protein and often times the fat percentages. So, I suppose in a backdoor kind of way you could say that I believe a dog food higher in meat-based protein is more beneficial than a kibble high in carbohydrates from grains and/or vegetables.



Quoted from the USDA site on pet food labels.



> Guaranteed Analysis
> At minimum, a pet food label must state guarantees for the minimum percentages of crude protein and crude fat, and the maximum percentages of crude fiber and moisture. The "crude" term refers to the specific method of testing the product, not to the quality of the nutrient itself.
> Some manufacturers include guarantees for other nutrients as well. The maximum percentage of ash (the mineral component) is often guaranteed, especially on cat foods. Cat foods commonly bear guarantees for taurine and magnesium as well. For dog foods, minimum percentage levels of calcium, phosphorus, sodium, and linoleic acid are found on some products.
> 
> Guarantees are declared on an "as fed" or "as is" basis, that is, the amounts present in the product as it is found in the can or bag. This doesn't have much bearing when the guarantees of two products of similar moisture content are compared (for example, a dry dog food versus another dry dog food). However, when comparing the guaranteed analyses between dry and canned products, one will note that the levels of crude protein and most other nutrients are much lower for the canned product. This can be explained by looking at the relative moisture contents. Canned foods typically contain 75-78% moisture, whereas dry foods contain only 10-12% water. To make meaningful comparisons of nutrient levels between a canned and dry product, they should be expressed on the same moisture basis.
> 
> The most accurate means of doing this is to convert the guarantees for both products to a dry matter basis. The percentage of dry matter of the product is equal to 100% minus the percentage of moisture guaranteed on the label. A dry food is approximately 88-90% dry matter, while a canned food is only about 22-25% dry matter. To convert a nutrient guarantee to a dry matter basis, the percent guarantee should be divided by the percentage of the dry matter, then multiplied by 100. For example, a canned food guarantees 8% crude protein and 75% moisture (or 25% dry matter), while a dry food contains 27% crude protein and 10% moisture (or 90% dry matter). Which has more protein, the dry or canned? Calculating the dry matter protein of both, the canned contains 32% crude protein on a dry matter basis (8/25 X 100 = 32), while the dry has only 30% on a dry matter basis (27/90 X 100 = 30). Thus, although it looks like the dry has a lot more protein, when the water is counted out, the canned actually has a little more. An easier way is to remember that the amount of dry matter in the dry food is about four times the amount in a canned product. To compare guarantees between a dry and canned food, multiply the guarantees for the canned food times four first.
> 
> It is especially important to look at the moisture guarantee for canned foods, even when comparing a canned food with another canned. Under AAFCO regulations, the maximum percentage moisture content for a pet food is 78%, except for products labeled as a "stew," "in sauce," "in gravy," or similar terms. The extra water gives the product the qualities needed to have the appropriate texture and fluidity. Some of these exempted products have been found to contain as much as 87.5% moisture. This doesn't sound like much difference until the dry matter contents are compared. For example, a product with a guarantee of 87.5% moisture contains 12.5% dry matter, only half as much as a product with a 75% moisture guarantee (25% dry matter).


I included this because I want to clarify some of the things you're saying about carbohydrate contents. Guaranteed analysis numbers often don't quite add up to 100%, because they're guaranteed minimums and maximums, not actual measurements of contents. Take Eukanuba Premium Performance. It has guaranteed analysis crude protein of 30% (min), and 20% (min) of crude fat. It also has a GA value of 10% (max) for moisture. Does that mean the other 36% of the food is carbs? Not exactly. There's a crude fiber content of 4% (min), which is, depending how you define it, a carb, and one so important that people often have to add pumpkin when they feed grain free or high protein diets. 

Does that leave us with a 32% carb food? Not necessarily. Should we measure just the dry weight and exclude the moisture? Then it's a 35.5% carb food. Frankly, since we can't simply assume all the undefined weight is carbohydrates, even that 35.5% number is a little shaky. It can't be any higher than that, but it could be a bit lower.

The most important thing to note here is that those percentages _aren't caloric percentages_. They're percentages of matter by weight. There's no breakdown on AAFCO packaging about percentages of calories derived from each source. So if a food has 36% of its weight coming from dry matter carbs, that doesn't mean that 36% of its calories are coming from carbs. I'm willing to take correction on this claim, because I can't find positive confirmation of that on the FDA website. Still, if a food has a GA of 10% for moisture, it doesn't seem to be a measure of calories, since water has no nutritional caloric value.

So where are we left? Looking at feeding studies and a company's reputability and research. And, of course, looking at our dogs. If you look at the people on this forum who've fed and bred for decades, you'll see that a lot of them go with the companies with the long track records.


----------



## tippykayak

PS - I do agree with you that there's probably an amount of carbohydrates that's unhealthy, and if you look at cheap foods and the unhealthy dogs who are on them, that could be a major cause of trouble. Still, when you push the protein numbers too high, there are other effects, particularly on puppies, that can be troubling as well. That's why I prefer foods with track records over philosophies about food.


----------



## MyBentley

tippykayak said:


> PS - I do agree with you that there's probably an amount of carbohydrates that's unhealthy, and if you look at cheap foods and the unhealthy dogs who are on them, that could be a major cause of trouble. Still, when you push the protein numbers too high, there are other effects, particularly on puppies, that can be troubling as well. *That's why I prefer foods with track records over philosophies about food.*




Many foods have track records, but that doesn't necessarily mean that everyone agrees with the philosophy behind those records. It also doesn't mean that any company does exhaustive third-party independent feeding studies comparing their own specific formula to another company's specific formula over a number of years. Who would really pay for that? Which leaves all of us with finding a company that we have a reasonable amount of trust in and choosing formulas to try that fit with what makes sense to us about nutrition.

I include one example of one company's published response (Natura) on their web site. The information may or may not satisfy a prospective consumer, but that's up for each individual to decide. Natura has been in business for 20 yrs. - that may or may not be long enough of a track record for some people. Natura products have been in my dogs' kibble rotation, but it's definitely not the only brand I feed.

What type of testing does Natura do? 

Natura Pet Products believes strongly in the importance of nutritional testing to validate our products and to support the development of new, innovative and healthful diets. However, we have never been comfortable with the care and treatment of animals at most independent facilities. As a result, we realized that the best way to reconcile both issues was to build our own facility and manage the care and treatment of the animals ourselves.

The Belfield Pet Food Research & Development Center is a humane, non-invasive testing facility which was built near our manufacturing plant in Nebraska. All residents of the Belfield Center have regular play time and frequent interaction with the staff. Toys of all kinds, cat scratching posts and cat furniture is available for all residents. Animals living at the Belfield Center come to us from a variety of sources, including rescue groups, breeders and private homes.

All animals in the facility are cared for humanely and it is important for our customers to know that all spaces far exceed the minimum requirements set by the USDA. It is also important for everyone to know that all work done at the Belfield Center is non-invasive; the dog and cat residents serve us by eating pet food, period. A practicing local veterinarian has been contracted to provide regular health care to all animals. The animals are cared for by a conscientious staff of 4 full time staff members, including staff members with veterinary technician experience.

TESTING POLICIES

1. All testing will be non-invasive to the animals and will consist only of palatability, digestibility, stool quality, AAFCO protocol feeding studies or other similarly designed studies for nutritional substantiation.
2. All animals will be cared for as if they were pets in our home, including interaction and socialization.
3. We will always far exceed minimum standards established by the Animal Welfare Act of the US, the US Department of Agriculture.
4. We will not conduct any study requiring or resulting in the euthanasia of cats or dogs.
5. We will ensure the humane treatment of cats and dogs that reside in the facility and provide for animal well-being, socialization and husbandry in a manner compatible with our own philosophy and conscience.
6. We will require that all residents have regular and timely veterinary check-ups. Any animal that shows signs of illness will be provided veterinary care immediately.
7. Resident animals will be adopted-out to private homes following their retirement from the Belfield Center. The adoption process will begin while the animals are still well within their productive and active years.
8. Natura will continue to keep an interest in our "retired" residents, and will support their feeding and health care for a period of time after adoption. Natura employees and members of the local community will be given first priority to adopt these animals.
9. The Belfield Center will have an advisory panel made up of pet care professionals, community representatives, and veterinary practitioners for the purpose of routine facility tours and oversight. The Animal Care & Use Committee will meet at least semi-annually.
10. Extra care will be taken with all new animals upon their arrival at the Belfield Center to minimize the stress of their relocation and to encourage quick socialization with the other animals and Natura staff. Each animal at the Belfield Center will have a name, not a number.


----------



## tippykayak

MyBentley said:


> [/B]
> 
> Many foods have track records, but that doesn't necessarily mean that everyone agrees with the philosophy behind those records. It also doesn't mean that any company does exhaustive third-party independent feeding studies comparing their own specific formula to another company's specific formula over a number of years. Who would really pay for that? Which leaves all of us with finding a company that we have a reasonable amount of trust in and choosing formulas to try that fit with what makes sense to us about nutrition.
> 
> I include one example of one company's published response (Natura) on their web site. The information may or may not satisfy a prospective consumer, but that's up for each individual to decide.


It looks like Natura is a good example of a company that combines philosophy with hard testing. While I generally don't like the idea of animal testing, I think when it comes to food, it makes a lot of sense to measure a food by how well dogs thrive on it.


----------



## EukanubaEmily

msdogs1976 said:


> Lot's of people recommends Natura and it may be the best company out there, but it's not sold everywhere. For me the closest store that sells it is 100 miles away. Having it shipped would make it one of the more expensive one's.
> 
> I'm happy with Iam's. It has worked for me, but I do have a question for the food guru's here. Iam's mini chunks has a calorie count of 426kcal/cup where as Iam's large breed has a 374kcal/cup. The protein and fat levels a little higher in the mini chunks resulting in a higher kcap/cup, I guess. Is there any reason why you would not want to feed the mini to a golden or lab as opposed to the large breed? Seems like you get more bang for the buck with the mini as you could feed less, in theory. At least I always see people make this argument for feeding certain brands over others, because of the higher cal count.


I work for Iams & Eukanuba and I would be happy to answer your question about the difference between the Iams Minichunks & Large Breed products. 

Either one is fine to feed to your Golden. In addition to the difference in calories, protien, and fat, there is a difference in the size of kibble (Large Breed is a bigger kibble) and there is guaranteed levels of Glucosamine in Large Breed. 

If you want to feed the Minichunks, you will not have to feed as much food since the product is more nutrient dense than the Large Breed formula. I would suggest keeping an eye on the amount of food you are feeding and weight to make sure your angel doesn't start gaining weight. If your Golden is anything like mine, he/she is an eating machine


----------



## EukanubaEmily

Kahlua Golden said:


> want to hear some thoughts on this brand as ive never used it. i am trying to stay as natural as possible, but still be in my price range. the Eukanuba is a bit out of my price range, but if its really worth it, ill spend the extra bucks. it seems to be pretty decent, any advice? also when we get Kahlua home, she will be around 10 weeks, how much should i feed her, and is it better to do two meals a day, or three? thanks!
> 
> EDIT: also, i forgot to ask, is large breed the right formula? im also looking at Iams, as they are cheaper, but still seem to have pretty good quality. thanks again


Hi there! I'm new to this forum and sorry to interrupt your conversation. 

Congratulations on your new puppy, Kahlua!! I recently joined this forum because I own and LOVE Goldens!! I've used Iams/Eukanuba for over 12 years, which is long before I started working for the company 2 years ago. 

When looking at our products, it is important to feed your new Golden a large breed puppy diet. Your puppy will grow as much in the first 1-2 years as you grew in your first 14 years! The large breed puppy formula contains balanced levels of calcium, phosphorous, protein and fat to support healthy bone growth and development of Kahlua.

When my Murphy was a puppy, I fed him 3 times a day until he reached 5-6 months. Then I switched to twice a day. That seemed to work well for him. I think he would eat around the clock if I let him 

After reading the discussion threads, it looks like there has been a lot of discussion around Eukanuba. There are a few topics that I wanted to provide more info......

1. Chicken By-Products
Our chicken by-product meal is muscle and internal organs (including intestines) that have been cleaned, dried, cooked, and ground. By industry definition, chicken by-product meal can contain the feet of the chicken – but that’s not an acceptable source of protein for us. In addition to the high quality specifications we set for our suppliers, we take additional steps to ensure our chicken by-product meal is the best. We put it through a proprietary screening process to further improve its protein quality. This quality assurance process costs more, but it's part of what makes our chicken by-product meal different. 

2. Corn
We use corn in our products as a carbohydrate source, not a protein source. We believe that dogs are best fed as carnivores so that is why we use high quality animal based proteins in our products. You will see corn meal, sorghum, barley, etc as carb source to provide energy for our four legged pals.

3. Preservatives
Our products do not contain any artificial coloring, artifical preservatives, or fillers. We do not use Ethoxyquin in our formulas. 

I hope this has been helpful to you. I’m looking forward to meeting fellow Golden owners and reading about their adventures! If I can help, just let me know. 

Emily :wave:


----------



## Ljilly28

Hi Emily, It is great to have you on the forum, as I am constantly wresting between Eukanuba Premium Performance Sporting dog and Canidae or Innova. I tried Eagle Pack Holistic but my goldens are very active and don't keep enough weight on with Eagle Pack. 

I fed my first generation of goldens Eukanuba and they lived to be 15 1/2, 13 and 9. I became swayed by the idea of natural foods like Innova in the high hopes of preventing cancer. My vet lost her 5 year old Viszla and two friends lost goldens recently at 6 and 4- all three of these dogs ate Eukanuba, though it probably was just a coincidence.

I'd like to know if Eukanuba has any in-house statistics about cancer and nutrition/ preservatives?


----------



## Florabora22

Flora's breeder uses Eukanuba Performance on all of his dogs, and they are gorgeous, happy, healthy (as far as I know) dogs. He said to me that he personally did a LOT of investigations into all the foods out there and decided for himself that Eukanuba was the healthiest for his dogs. He said over the years he's been approached to try different, more "premium" foods, but his answer was, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"

I was dumb and switched Flora to a "premium" food shortly after getting her, which may have contributed to the troubles we had with her colitis. I keep thinking I would like to get her back on Eukanuba, but since all their formulas are made from chicken, which is an ingredient that supposedly has made Flora sick, and I'm wary about their use of ethoxyquin, I just can't bring myself to make ANOTHER switch. I may try it when Flora is a little older.


----------



## Ljilly28

EukanubaEmily said:


> Hi there! 3. Preservatives
> Our products do not contain any artificial coloring, artifical preservatives, or fillers. We do not use Ethoxyquin in our formulas.




I guess this is the crux of the questions, or one of them? Does Eukanuba contain this/ Do all dog foods? Very confusing!


----------



## tippykayak

EukanubaEmily said:


> We do not use Ethoxyquin in our formulas.


You had me until right here. I feed Eukanuba and often find myself defending it on the forum against anti-corn biases and other claims I don't think are based in science.

However, there's a lot of literature in Iams/Eukanuba product materials defending the use of Ethoxyquin. Why is that the case if it's not in the food? For example, here's a quote from the Iams website: "The ethoxyquin in Eukanuba Veterinary Diets protects fats, fatty acids, and fat-soluble vitamins, which are necessary for the well-being of dogs and cats. If these nutrients degraded, the pet's health may suffer."

So, it seems pretty clear that it _is_ in some or all Eukanuba and Iams formulas. Could you clarify?


----------



## damita

EukanubaEmily said:


> 3. Preservatives
> Our products do not contain any artificial coloring, artifical preservatives, or fillers. We do not use Ethoxyquin in our formulas.
> 
> Emily :wave:


Hi Emily! Welcome to the forum.

My question is - while Eukanuba does not use Ethoxyquin can they guarantee that the suppliers they purchase from do not use it. It is my understanding that as long as the manufacturer does not add it it does not need to be added to the list of ingredients but that many suppliers add it while ingredients are still in their possession. Can eukanuba make the claim that thier foods are ethoxyquin free?

Thanks!

PS - Anyone out there that can give me the scientific data on the digestiblity of grains for canines VS digestablity of meats?


----------



## Taz Monkey

Kahlua Golden said:


> lots of great info there, i believe ive made my choice to start on Eukanuba and see how she likes it. if she wont eat it, i may switch to pedigree. as long as i can find a food that she likes and that isnt el-cheapo bottom-of-the-pot , i will be happy, and so will she. thanks, folks, for helping out a retriever rookie!!!


Well, if you're looking to stay away from el cheapo bottom of the pot, you're definitely headed in the wrong direction with Pedigree. I know there are dogs who do well on Eukanuba and Purina One and Pro Plan and other foods that I consider gross, but Pedigree is one I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole. I equate that to Ol' Roy. Nasty.


----------



## EukanubaEmily

tippykayak said:


> You had me until right here. I feed Eukanuba and often find myself defending it on the forum against anti-corn biases and other claims I don't think are based in science.





tippykayak said:


> However, there's a lot of literature in Iams/Eukanuba product materials defending the use of Ethoxyquin. Why is that the case if it's not in the food? For example, here's a quote from the Iams website: "The ethoxyquin in Eukanuba Veterinary Diets protects fats, fatty acids, and fat-soluble vitamins, which are necessary for the well-being of dogs and cats. If these nutrients degraded, the pet's health may suffer."
> 
> So, it seems pretty clear that it _is_ in some or all Eukanuba and Iams formulas. Could you clarify?


I'm sorry for the confusion on this one. Our Iams and Eukanuba over-the-counter products do not contain ethoxyquin as a preservative. The products are naturally preserved with a source of vitamin E. There was also a question about our suppliers and the preservatives that they use…….we hold the same standards for our suppliers in regards to using a natural preservative. If we received ingredients preserved with ethoxyquin, we are required to report that on the ingredient panel.

Some of our Iams Veterinary Formulas, which are sold exclusively through veterinarians, do contain ethoxyquin as a preservative. As you mentioned above, these diets are important for the nutritional management of certain conditions and that is why it is important that the fats, fatty acids, and fat soluble vitamins in the diet are properly preserved so our pets can obtain the full benefit.

I hope this helps clear things up


----------



## MyBentley

kdmarsh said:


> Flora's breeder uses Eukanuba Performance on all of his dogs, and they are gorgeous, happy, healthy (as far as I know) dogs. He said to me that he personally did a LOT of investigations into all the foods out there and decided for himself that Eukanuba was the healthiest for his dogs. He said over the years he's been approached to try different, *more "premium" foods*, but his answer was, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"
> 
> *I was dumb and switched Flora to a "premium" food *shortly after getting her, which may have contributed to the troubles we had with her colitis. I keep thinking I would like to get her back on Eukanuba, but since all their formulas are made from chicken, which is an ingredient that supposedly has made Flora sick, and I'm wary about their use of ethoxyquin, I just can't bring myself to make ANOTHER switch. I may try it when Flora is a little older.


It's unclear as to what your criteria are for the term "premium" food. Are you referencing: price, ingredients, brand name, nutritional analysis, place of purchase, etc.? I'm interested in your comments, but there is no reference points as to what you think were the problems with other formulas.


----------



## Bock

EukanubaEmily said:


> 2. Corn
> We use corn in our products as a carbohydrate source, not a protein source. *We believe that dogs are best fed as carnivores* so that is why we use high quality animal based proteins in our products. You will see corn meal, sorghum, barley, etc as carb source to provide energy for our four legged pals.
> 
> 
> 
> Emily :wave:


If Eukanuba believes dogs are best fed as carnivores, why are you guys not making and promoting grain-free foods? The first 2-3 TRUE (after cooking chicken will undoubtedly move down on the list) ingredients are all grains in the Eukanuba Large Breed adult food. I'm not saying this is bad, just want to see your response.


----------



## tippykayak

EukanubaEmily said:


> I hope this helps clear things up


It does. Many thanks!


----------



## tippykayak

Bock said:


> If Eukanuba believes dogs are best fed as carnivores, why are you guys not making and promoting grain-free foods? The first three TRUE ingredients are all grains in the Eukanuba Large Breed adult food. I'm not saying this is bad, just want to see your response.


Can you define a "true" ingredient?


----------



## msdogs1976

EukanubaEmily said:


> I work for Iams & Eukanuba and I would be happy to answer your question about the difference between the Iams Minichunks & Large Breed products.
> 
> Either one is fine to feed to your Golden. In addition to the difference in calories, protien, and fat, there is a difference in the size of kibble (Large Breed is a bigger kibble) and there is guaranteed levels of Glucosamine in Large Breed.
> 
> If you want to feed the Minichunks, you will not have to feed as much food since the product is more nutrient dense than the Large Breed formula. I would suggest keeping an eye on the amount of food you are feeding and weight to make sure your angel doesn't start gaining weight. If your Golden is anything like mine, he/she is an eating machine


Thanks for the info. Actually I have a 71lb lab mix. He is 14 months old and gets 2, 45 minute walks per day, sometimes more. I feed him 2.25 cups a day and have only had him on Iams for a couple of weeks as I just adopted him. Does 2 cups a day sound about right? Or maybe I should ask.....how many calories a day do you recommend based on his age and activity level? Of course he gets a couple of treats per day too.


----------



## Bock

tippykayak said:


> Can you define a "true" ingredient?


What I meant by that is after the chicken is cooked it will not be the first ingredient-it will probably drop to somewhere near 3 or 4 on the ingredient list, therefore the first 2-3 true ingredients (after cooking) will be grains.


----------



## Lucky's mom

I, personally don't think dogs are true "carnivores" Besides, meat, Lucky craves apples, bread, potatos, broccolli and carrots.....I think a true carnivore wouldn't be so excited over the variety of foods he'd love to get his teeth into.

I think cats are true carnivores.


----------



## tippykayak

Bock said:


> What I meant by that is after the chicken is cooked it will not be the first ingredient-it will probably drop to somewhere near 3 or 4 on the ingredient list, therefore the first 2-3 true ingredients (after cooking) will be grains.


Interesting theory. One could make that argument about all foods that aren't grain free, I think. Also, we do know what the GA number is for protein, and we know that Euk doesn't rely on gluten for protein numbers, so we have some idea of what composition the meat is in the food.


----------



## missmarstar

tippykayak said:


> Interesting theory. One could make that argument about all foods that aren't grain free, I think..



Not if the first listed meat ingredient is a meat MEAL. Then it truly is the 1st ingredient by weight even after being cooked/moisture removed.


----------



## jmc

I fed Euk LBP when we first got our pup but he didn't like it and will walk away from his bowl. Artemis LBP gave him diarrhoea. He has been doing brilliantly on Pro Plan - bright eyes, beautiful coat and is in great condition. Every dog is different. I support an all natural diet and that is what our 6 year old is on but our pup's breeder advised us that it is hard to get the ratios right on a natural diet and to stick to a commercial diet until he is fully grown. We follow Rhonda Hovan's feeding plan.


----------



## tippykayak

missmarstar said:


> Not if the first listed meat ingredient is a meat MEAL. Then it truly is the 1st ingredient by weight even after being cooked/moisture removed.


Interesting, given how much flak the meals and by-product meals get in many of these discussions. If a food goes chicken, then corn meal, we don't know whether or not the chicken is the heaviest ingredient without moisture or not. If it says chicken, chicken by-product meal, corn meal, then we know the by-product meal is a major component, but the chicken is still a mystery? Oi.


----------



## Bock

tippykayak said:


> Interesting, given how much flak the meals and by-product meals get in many of these discussions. If a food goes chicken, then corn meal, we don't know whether or not the chicken is the heaviest ingredient without moisture or not. If it says chicken, chicken by-product meal, corn meal, then we know the by-product meal is a major component, but the chicken is still a mystery? Oi.


I will take a named meat meal over a meat any day, solely for the fact that I know the named meat meal WILL be the first ingredient after it's all said and done. Can't say the same for a meat that contains moisture.


----------



## missmarstar

I have never had an issue with named meat meals being present in food, as they are no different than meats, just the cooked dehydrated product. I don't think most people who are informed about dog foods would think that NAMED meat meals are a bad thing. 

And by named I mean "chicken", "turkey", "lamb", etc... not "poultry" or even just "meat".


----------



## T&T

EukanubaEmily said:


> ... There was also a question about our suppliers and the preservatives that they use…….we hold the same standards for our suppliers in regards to using a natural preservative ...


What preservative(s) do your fish meal suppliers use ?


----------



## Florabora22

MyBentley said:


> It's unclear as to what your criteria are for the term "premium" food. Are you referencing: price, ingredients, brand name, nutritional analysis, place of purchase, etc.? I'm interested in your comments, but there is no reference points as to what you think were the problems with other formulas.


I put her on Solid Gold Wolfcub as well as Solid Gold Hundernflocken puppy foods, and she had bad stools with both of them. Bad as in... her stools, at best were at a mashed potato consistency, at their worst, were water. I swtiched her from Euk because Carmella had done so well on SG and of course Flora's breeder had no idea what he was talking about (*sarcasmsarcasm*), but that did not work out. Then I tried Blue Buffalo puppy food b/c I'd heard so many great things about it, but her diarrhea, if anything, got worse.

The moment I switched her onto a fish-based adult formula, her stools were amazing. I think it probably has a lot more to do with getting her on an adult formula, so I'm thinking in a year or so I may try her on chicken again and see how that goes.

And by "premium" food I just meant stuff that everyone else thinks is premium, not what actually IS premium, if there is such a thing as a premium dog food - CN, Innova, Acana, Orijen, Solid Gold, Blue Buffalo, etc. My criteria probably involve price more than anything else, since it seems like what people consider higher quality food are also considerably higher in price. And I'm not saying that those foods aren't premium food - for Carmella, Solid Gold WAS a premium food because she did so well on it. For Flora... it was not. I hope I make sense.


----------



## Lucky's mom

From what I have read, fresh named meat is an important part of a good formula....and very expensive to process which makes it hard for smaller companies. Meat meals are prone to have a less quality protien...as the stuff is cooked to death and you don't know what quality you are getting.


----------



## Bock

Lucky's mom said:


> From what I have read, fresh named meat is an important part of a good formula....and very expensive to process which makes it hard for smaller companies. Meat meals are prone to have a less quality protien...as the stuff is cooked to death and you don't know what quality you are getting.


From what I've read, named meat meals are actually better than fresh meats because of the fact that it will actually be the first ingredient (considering it is listed first). I have no read that meat meals are prone to be of a lesser quality-I have read that they are basically the same thing in a different form, just with meal you know, for sure, how much you're getting in comparison to the rest of the ingredients. 

Also, I would hardly call Naturapet a small company (they use meat meals in a few of the formulas)


----------



## Lucky's mom

Bock said:


> From what I've read, named meat meals are actually better than fresh meats because of the fact that it will actually be the first ingredient (considering it is listed first). I have no read that meat meals are prone to be of a lesser quality-I have read that they are basically the same thing in a different form, just with meal you know, for sure, how much you're getting in comparison to the rest of the ingredients.
> 
> Also, I would hardly call Naturapet a small company (they use meat meals in a few of the formulas)


Natura uses fresh meat with the meal within some of their more expensive formulas. Eukanuba uses meals in combination with fresh meat also. I worry about the formulas where meat meal is the only protien source, unless I could "trust" the company. 
I think companys "market" the concept of the benefits of meat meals without talking about the downside. From what I read its just plain expensive and requires recourses to include fresh meat because it has to go through an extensive process to ship, package and keep fresh.

Their are studies on meat meal protien quality but its real dry reading.


----------



## Ljilly28

The fertility/breeding specialist Tally's breeder uses writes about veterinary issues in show dogs. She is a big believer in Eukanuba, http://www.showdogsupersite.com/kenlclub/breedvet/dogdiets.html



> The next dog food company that presented new information in 2002 was Iams/Eukanuba. In a study of 1500 dogs (most studies are run on much lower numbers) the newly formulated 'Eukanuba Premium Performance' kibble produced an average of two more puppies per litter. Once again, we're not talking subtleties here. In urging my clients with bitches being bred to change to this, I've had anecdotal and visual evidence of many unexpected benefits of this ultimate dog food. Instant change in coat condition in short haired dogs where you can observe this easily and reduced coat loss in the bitch after weaning a litter. Being a concentrated food you might expect a tendency for weight gain; instead we seem to be seeing a better utilization of the food and more muscle than fat being laid down, and even old neutered dogs coming into wonderful coat. I don't think I'm going out on a limb when I speculate that if you get extra puppies per litter, improved coat and improved muscle mass, this food must be meeting a great many nutritional needs that the previously used high quality food didn't meet.
> 
> I've always contended that the larger the pet food manufacturer, the better and more frequent quality control and more research they will run, eventually benefiting you and your dog. One very important factor to consider in purchasing dog food is freshness. Don't buy your food at a low volume boutique pet store; you want a place where the food flies off the shelves. Don't buy more than a month's supply at a time of any dry food.


----------



## AquaClaraCanines

I would not consider anything full of grains to be premium.

I won't feed my dogs anything with corn in it at all, since I have had so many problems with it with Goldens in the past. I also don't like picking up after dogs that eat grain-based diets. YUCK!


----------



## Penny & Maggie's Mom

Ljilly28 said:


> The fertility/breeding specialist Tally's breeder uses writes about veterinary issues in show dogs. She is a big believer in Eukanuba, http://www.showdogsupersite.com/kenlclub/breedvet/dogdiets.html


 
WOW, I found that article to be surprisingly harsh. Raw feeders are considered "uneducable" and grocery store brands are the way to go. The large mega companies are the ones with superb quality control????? If I remember right, most of the recalls involved big mega companies. In fact, didn't Nutro just have a plastic workers helmet ground up, packaged and delivered to consumers? I know she is a vet, but is she also a degreed nutritionist like she asks of her clients??


----------



## tippykayak

Ljilly28 said:


> The fertility/breeding specialist Tally's breeder uses writes about veterinary issues in show dogs. She is a big believer in Eukanuba, http://www.showdogsupersite.com/kenlclub/breedvet/dogdiets.html


My ER vets went through all these same issues with me when we discussed different kinds of potential diets. They were a little more gentle about alternative methods of feeding, but they were very clear about the issues they were seeing with designer foods and particularly raw diets.


----------



## Ljilly28

Lol, I think I would be too scared to use her as my vet, especially since my vet and I both add fresh food to our dogs' kibble- a nono on her bad list, and because I love it when someone comes out swinging with a strong opinion. I do believe Eukanuba Premium Performance gave Tally his first perfect CBC/Anemia test of his life. I just posted it as FYI. I havent really made up my mind about any of this- what to feed, though I lean to Innova personally.


----------



## MyBentley

Ljilly28 said:


> The fertility/breeding specialist Tally's breeder uses writes about veterinary issues in show dogs. She is a big believer in Eukanuba, http://www.showdogsupersite.com/kenlclub/breedvet/dogdiets.html


Obviously, with such a writing style as well as the content of Mary C Wakeman's stated beliefs, there are qualified people who take issue with many of her statements. Apparently she owns the web site her article appears in. Not that it pertains to this discussion, but I found it odd when I googled her that she features her own online articles as somewhat of a quasi-expert in human gastric by-pass operations. Anyway, I include a link to a point-by-point rebuttal to the other link: http://www.rawlearning.com/responsetomary.html


----------



## Ljilly28

I'm not either defending or slamming Dr. Wakemen bc I am not sure if I agree or disagree with her and I have never met her, but I don't think she tried to conceal that the site is hers. The coulmn appears as part of a larger site[URL="http://www.showdogsupersite.com/index.html"[/URL]]. The only thing I know about her personally is that a few breeders around here think she is awesome helping dogs get preganant who have been having trouble and drive all the way down to her.


----------



## msdogs1976

Ljilly28 said:


> The fertility/breeding specialist Tally's breeder uses writes about veterinary issues in show dogs. She is a big believer in Eukanuba, http://www.showdogsupersite.com/kenlclub/breedvet/dogdiets.html


"The most frustrating problem with these patients, however, is the cult-like belief of their owners."

I almost fell out of my chair on that one.


----------



## Penny & Maggie's Mom

Just a personal aside, when Cody came into rescue he was diagnosed with AIHA and had an initial hct of 16.4. He's been med free for 2 1/2 years and maintains a perfect CBC on what I assume would be considered "designer" foods..... Eagle Pack Holistic duck, Fromm 4 star duck or the Innova large breed. And for the golden girls, they've never (knock on wood) had any medical issues in their 6 1/2 years.


----------



## tippykayak

MyBentley said:


> Obviously, with such a writing style as well as the content of Mary C Wakeman's stated beliefs, there are qualified people who take issue with many of her statements. Apparently she owns the web site her article appears in. Not that it pertains to this discussion, but I found it odd when I googled her that she features her own online articles as somewhat of a quasi-expert in human gastric by-pass operations. Anyway, I include a link to a point-by-point rebuttal to the other link: http://www.rawlearning.com/responsetomary.html


Jane Anderson's not a vet, right? Also, the "rebuttal" is outright nasty. Why is that?

Updated to add: I found out myself. From her site: "Please also be aware, I am not a vet. I am not a nutritionist."


----------



## tippykayak

msdogs1976 said:


> "The most frustrating problem with these patients, however, is the cult-like belief of their owners."
> 
> I almost fell out of my chair on that one.


Me too. I do sometimes feel like I'm discussing religion in these nutrition threads.


----------



## AquaClaraCanines

Well the original article is ignorant and pretty nasty. Her entire point was feeding low quality food is better. Uh? Not to mention, her complaint about obesity, which almost never occurs in raw fed dogs, along with allergies, ear infections, and other problems dogs that eat junk kibble often suffer from, and dogs which eat raw almost never have to deal with.


----------



## fostermom

I can see how some dogs do not do well on a raw diet. I don't think it has anything to do with the actual feeding raw, but more to do with people not realizing that they need to supplement the diet with the proper nutrients, which can come from specific foods or actual supplements. I know I don't trust my knowledge enough to try feeding raw.

Regarding the premium foods in general, I have 3 dogs who are on a premium diet. I used to feed California Natural and I love it, but I have a local distributor that provides a holistic blend that my dogs have thrived on. They look and feel better than they ever have. It is very close to CA Natural. I always compare the GA on any food I feed. I base my choices on the GA and the ingredients, just like other people here.

I have fed other premium foods in the past that my dogs have not thrived on. Taste of the Wild, Wellness, Pinnacle and Innova did not do well for my dogs. I have also fed Purina One, Nutro Max, Iams and Eukanuba, none of which did well for my dogs either.

It's a personal choice of what to feed. I am happy with my food and recommend it to anyone who asks what I feed. The majority of the people I meet who do not feed a premium food do not do so because of the cost. The majority of the people I meet think Beneful is a healthy food for their dogs because there are pictures of vegetables on the front. And Beneful markets to the people who think that way. Just watch the commercials. The fact that you can get a 20 lb bag for $10.99 is a bonus. If that's what they want to feed their dogs, that's their choice and I am not going to go on and on about how important the ingredients and the GA is to someone who doesn't want to hear it. And if you like Beneful and your dog does well on it, that's great.


----------



## moverking

tippykayak said:


> Me too. I do sometimes feel like I'm discussing religion in these nutrition threads.


Or politics, lol


----------



## AquaClaraCanines

Beneful makes my skin crawl!


----------



## tippykayak

AquaClaraCanines said:


> Well the original article is ignorant and pretty nasty. Her entire point was feeding low quality food is better. Uh? Not to mention, her complaint about obesity, which almost never occurs in raw fed dogs, along with allergies, ear infections, and other problems dogs that eat junk kibble often suffer from, and dogs which eat raw almost never have to deal with.


The original article was clearly frustrated with raw feeders and somewhat insulting to their intelligence. The "rebuttal" was vitriolic and personal in a very strange way.

I think Wakeman was arguing against the whole idea that these purported "low quality" foods are actually low quality. Certainly there are kibbles that aren't healthy and are made with cheap ingredients. But does that mean all kibbles or all foods with grain are unhealthy? Certainly not. So how are we judging so called "low quality" food? Cost? Lack of grain? The fact that it isn't available at Stop & Shop? None of those seem to be useful criteria for judging something as "low quality."

I do take issue with the idea that Eukanuba is "junk kibble." Frankly, I find it kind of insulting. My dogs also don't have allergies, ear infections, obesity, or any of the other problems I hear slung around by raw and "premium" feeders. Comet repeatedly receives comments on his coat's shine and his lean muscle mass. At his last visit, both the vet and somebody in the waiting room independently commented on how muscular a dog he was. He's on the formula Wakeman discusses, the Premium Performance 30/20 from Eukanuba.

I do tend to get going pretty strongly when somebody puts down the way I take care of my dog, particularly when most of the claims aren't grounded in a body of science. I challenge anybody to present a series of peer-reviewed studies that show a correlation between corn and ear infections in dogs or any other of these claims about how we're killing our dogs with kibble.

If you want to feed your dogs raw, that's fine. If you want to feed them grain-free, that's fine. But to belittle those of us who use a more traditional kibble and see excellent results is not just rude but not based in science. I feed my dog high quality food, and while I don't think Wakeman was particularly kind in her article, I fully believe that Eukanuba is the best food I can give my dogs. If I didn't, I would purchase or make something else. I don't feed it because I'm stupid or poor or don't care enough.


----------



## MyBentley

tippykayak said:


> The original article was clearly frustrated with raw feeders and somewhat insulting to their intelligence. The "rebuttal" was vitriolic and personal in a very strange way.
> 
> I think Wakeman was arguing against the whole idea that these purported "low quality" foods are actually low quality. Certainly there are kibbles that aren't healthy and are made with cheap ingredients. But does that mean all kibbles or all foods with grain are unhealthy? Certainly not. So how are we judging so called "low quality" food? Cost? Lack of grain? The fact that it isn't available at Stop & Shop? None of those seem to be useful criteria for judging something as "low quality."
> 
> I do take issue with the idea that Eukanuba is "junk kibble." Frankly, I find it kind of insulting. My dogs also don't have allergies, ear infections, obesity, or any of the other problems I hear slung around by raw and "premium" feeders. Comet repeatedly receives comments on his coat's shine and his lean muscle mass. At his last visit, both the vet and somebody in the waiting room independently commented on how muscular a dog he was. He's on the formula Wakeman discusses, the Premium Performance 30/20 from Eukanuba.
> 
> I do tend to get going pretty strongly when somebody puts down the way I take care of my dog, particularly when most of the claims aren't grounded in a body of science. I challenge anybody to present a series of peer-reviewed studies that show a correlation between corn and ear infections in dogs or any other of these claims about how we're killing our dogs with kibble.
> 
> If you want to feed your dogs raw, that's fine. If you want to feed them grain-free, that's fine. But to belittle those of us who use a more traditional kibble and see excellent results is not just rude but not based in science. I feed my dog high quality food, and while I don't think Wakeman was particularly kind in her article, *I fully believe that Eukanuba is the best food I can give my dogs. If I didn't, I would purchase or make something else. I don't feed it because I'm stupid or poor or don't care enough.*


And that is fine, because that is your philosophy and your belief . . . just as there are other beliefs and philosophies about dog nutrition and pet food manufacturers.


----------



## AquaClaraCanines

I never mentioned Euk or any other food by name except Beneful. 

My views are based on pure experience. I can't tell you how many dogs I have pulled that ate real junk like Pedigree, and what a vast and massive improvement happened just weeks at my house. No doubt grooming and exercise play a part, too.


----------



## tippykayak

AquaClaraCanines said:


> I never mentioned Euk or any other food by name except Beneful.
> 
> My views are based on pure experience. I can't tell you how many dogs I have pulled that ate real junk like Pedigree, and what a vast and massive improvement happened just weeks at my house. No doubt grooming and exercise play a part, too.


You responded to Wakeman by calling the food "low quality kibble," and she mentions a brand and variety specifically. That's why I thought you were referring Euk that way.

Grooming, exercise, and appropriate amounts have huge effects on a dog's health, as does feeling fulfilled and part of a group.


----------



## missmarstar

MyBentley said:


> And that is fine, because that is your philosophy and your belief . . . just as there are other beliefs and philosophies about dog nutrition and pet food manufacturers.



Exactly.. and thank you for posting that rebuttal article.. 

I feed a raw diet because that is what Sam did the best on.. when Dillon arrived, he was switched to raw immediately and while I know his improvements have been a combination of diet and much-needed exercise and grooming I do know that he came to me with gunked up disgusting smelling ears and a dry dull coat, and now has a glossy shine and hasn't had an ear infection in forever. 

I feel the raw diet is working well for him, so he's staying on it. Had it not worked for him, I would have fed him a kibble diet. I am not going to be snobby about it.. I of course just want the best for them.

I DO believe though, and this may be seen as food snobbish, that a kibble should be OBVIOUSLY predominantly meat based. If there is any question in my mind on an ingredient list that grains are heavier than the meat content.. then I will not touch it. While I'm sure many dogs would do fine on it.. that's just not an appropriate diet IMO for a dog, and not one I would feel comfortable feeding my dog. 

And when you add in cancer-contributing preservatives, artificial coloring and flavoring, and the like... no thanks.

(The above is not about any kibble in particular, just many "grocery store" brands as a whole)


----------



## EukanubaEmily

Bock said:


> If Eukanuba believes dogs are best fed as carnivores, why are you guys not making and promoting grain-free foods? The first 2-3 TRUE (after cooking chicken will undoubtedly move down on the list) ingredients are all grains in the Eukanuba Large Breed adult food. I'm not saying this is bad, just want to see your response.


Wow! There are some really great questions on this forum…..

The reason that we use carbs in our diets is we have found that the slow, even breakdown of carbohydrate sources such as sorghum, corn, and barley results in moderate and stable blood glucose levels after a meal. By minimizing swings in the blood glucose, diets containing these carb blends supply sustainable energy for our pets. The protein source however is sourced from animal based proteins.

You mentioned the amount of chicken falling down on ingredient list after being cooked. It’s important to remember that the guaranteed analysis for protein printed on our bag is measured from our finished product, not the ingredients as they go into the mix. 

We take samples off the production line, after the food has been processed and cooked. So the amount of water in the chicken at the start doesn’t matter because we are measuring the protein in the finished product.

Hope this helps and thanks for the great question


----------



## sharlin

EukanubaEmily said:


> Some of our Iams Veterinary Formulas, which are sold exclusively through veterinarians, do contain ethoxyquin as a preservative. As you mentioned above, these diets are important for the nutritional management of certain conditions and that is why it is important that the fats, fatty acids, and fat soluble vitamins in the diet are properly preserved so our pets can obtain the full benefit.
> 
> I hope this helps clear things up


I was wondering what the rationale was behind adding ethoxyquin to a Vet formulated food. It would seem that if a dog is in need of a specially formulated food then the more "natural" the ingredients would be. Since it is used a perservative I can only assme that it is used for shelf life because of low demand. Is that correct?


----------



## damita

Hi Emily!

Are you saying that the GA only shows the protien sourced from animal bases?

Also hoping that you may have access to some numbers to show me the canine digestiblity of grains vs. animal protiens. It has been a long standing belief of mine that due to the shortness of a dogs digestive system and thier inability to break down the cellulose walls of vegatable matter that the digestiblity of grains was very low for canines? I know for me when I eat corn... well maybe you don't all want to read about that but I know I digest very little of it and would be very interested in reading any studies about the levels of digestiblity of grains and vegetables in dogs.

Thanks again!!!


----------



## damita

EukanubaEmily said:


> You mentioned the amount of chicken falling down on ingredient list after being cooked. It’s important to remember that the guaranteed analysis for protein printed on our bag is measured from our finished product, not the ingredients as they go into the mix.


GA is measured after production but the ingredient listing is comprised of ingredients in volume "before" processing not after so I do believe that Chicken would definetly fall further down the ingredient listing after the removal of the water during processing.

Guaranteed Analysis and Ingredient Listings are measured at different times during processing. Otherwise your GA would show WAY more moisture content than the max 10% most foods show if the ingredients listed "chicken" as a main ingredient.


----------



## damita

Was curious as to the actual formula ingredients so I checked out the Eukanuba website - just so everyone knows exactly what we are all discussing.

Large Breed Puppy - Chicken, Corn Meal, Ground Whole Grain Sorghum, Chicken By-Product Meal (Natural source of Chondroitin Sulfate and Glucosamine), Brewers Rice, Chicken Flavor, Dried Beet Pulp, Fish Meal, Dried Egg Product, Fish Oil (preserved with mixed Tocopherols, a source of Vitamin E), Brewers Dried Yeast, Potassium Chloride, Chicken Fat (preserved with mixed Tocopherols, a source of Vitamin E), Salt, Calcium Carbonate, Choline Chloride, Fructooligosaccharides, Minerals (Ferrous Sulfate, Zinc Oxide, Manganese Sulfate, Copper Sulfate, Manganous Oxide, Potassium Iodide, Cobalt Carbonate), DL-Methionine, Dried Chicken Cartilage (Natural source of Chondroitin Sulfate and Glucosamine), Vitamins (Ascorbic Acid, Vitamin A Acetate, Calcium Pantothenate, Biotin, Thiamine Mononitrate (source of vitamin B1), Vitamin B12 Supplement, Niacin, Riboflavin Supplement (source of vitamin B2), Inositol, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride (source of vitamin B6), Vitamin D3 Supplement, Folic Acid), Vitamin E Supplement, Marigold, Beta-Carotene, Rosemary Extract.


----------



## EukanubaEmily

msdogs1976 said:


> Thanks for the info. Actually I have a 71lb lab mix. He is 14 months old and gets 2, 45 minute walks per day, sometimes more. I feed him 2.25 cups a day and have only had him on Iams for a couple of weeks as I just adopted him. Does 2 cups a day sound about right? Or maybe I should ask.....how many calories a day do you recommend based on his age and activity level? Of course he gets a couple of treats per day too.


I checked the calories a day that is suggested for Micah's age & weight on the Large Breed formula. This is ~927 to 1,020 calories a day. I should mention that this is a maintenance feeding suggestion. This translates to 2.25 to 2.5 cups a day of Minichunks. If your dog is more active, you may need to feed more based on body condition. It sounds like you are starting with the right feeding amount.

Let me know if you have any other questions. Woof woof from me & Murphy


----------



## MyBentley

damita said:


> Was curious as to the actual formula ingredients so I checked out the Eukanuba website - just so everyone knows exactly what we are all discussing.
> 
> Large Breed Puppy - Chicken, Corn Meal, Ground Whole Grain Sorghum, Chicken By-Product Meal (Natural source of Chondroitin Sulfate and Glucosamine), Brewers Rice, Chicken Flavor, Dried Beet Pulp, Fish Meal, Dried Egg Product, Fish Oil (preserved with mixed Tocopherols, a source of Vitamin E), Brewers Dried Yeast, Potassium Chloride, Chicken Fat (preserved with mixed Tocopherols, a source of Vitamin E), Salt, Calcium Carbonate, Choline Chloride, Fructooligosaccharides, Minerals (Ferrous Sulfate, Zinc Oxide, Manganese Sulfate, Copper Sulfate, Manganous Oxide, Potassium Iodide, Cobalt Carbonate), DL-Methionine, Dried Chicken Cartilage (Natural source of Chondroitin Sulfate and Glucosamine), Vitamins (Ascorbic Acid, Vitamin A Acetate, Calcium Pantothenate, Biotin, Thiamine Mononitrate (source of vitamin B1), Vitamin B12 Supplement, Niacin, Riboflavin Supplement (source of vitamin B2), Inositol, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride (source of vitamin B6), Vitamin D3 Supplement, Folic Acid), Vitamin E Supplement, Marigold, Beta-Carotene, Rosemary Extract.


All the dog food companies make it difficult to accurately evaluate the formulas; because even though they list ingredients by weight order, they don't tell the exact percentage of each. For example, a label on a bag could read: chicken meal, cornmeal, brewers rice, etc. Well, that could mean 70% chicken meal, 5% cornmeal, 5% brewers rice, and the remainder ingredients roughly adding up to 100%; OR it could mean 30% chicken meal, 25% cornmeal, 25% brewers rice, and the remainder adding up to 100%. In the 2nd example, the cornmeal and brewers rice combined account for much more than the first listed chicken meal. Some companies will share their percentages and others won't. That said, the ingredients listed in the copied post above leave doubt about the % of protein being meat-based.


----------



## MyBentley

damita said:


> Hi Emily!
> 
> *Are you saying that the GA only shows the protien sourced from animal bases?*
> 
> Also hoping that you may have access to some numbers to show me the canine digestiblity of grains vs. animal protiens. It has been a long standing belief of mine that due to the shortness of a dogs digestive system and thier inability to break down the cellulose walls of vegatable matter that the digestiblity of grains was very low for canines? I know for me when I eat corn... well maybe you don't all want to read about that but I know I digest very little of it and would be very interested in reading any studies about the levels of digestiblity of grains and vegetables in dogs.
> 
> Thanks again!!!


I'm not Emily obviously, but by the definition of Guaranteed Analysis, it measures the crude protein (from any and all ingredients) in a product. It is not a measurement, however, of how digestible or utilized the protein is. So, one formula could list 28% protein in the GA; while another formulas lists 22% protein in the GA. Depending on the ingredients and the proportion of them, the formula with the lower listed protein could actually be providing more utilized protein to your dog. 

You might find the following study of interest. The bolding is mine.

Another study *“Evaluation of Nutrient Utilization in the Canine Using the Ileal Cannulation Technique” by Julie Walker, et al, at the University of Kentucky and Published in The American Society for Nutritional Science’s Journal of Nutrition in 2004, was conducted to determine the effect of the carbohydrate source on starch and dry matter digestion.*

In this study, nine mixed breed dogs were fed a diet which contained 67% of a specified carbohydrate source and 33% canned meat calculated on a dry matter basis. The carbohydrate sources used were extruded corn, rice, barley or oats. For all grains, the starch digestibility was almost complete at 99.9% for rice and 99.8% for the corn, rice and barley. The dry matter digestion was at 91.5% the rice, 87.2% for the corn, 84.6% for the barley and 70.4% for the oats with the differential being the amount of fiber in the grain - rice being the lowest in fiber and oats, the highest.

Corn, then, is digestible when the starches are gelatinized by the extrusion process.

The nutritional value of corn is well known in both animal and human circles, and is easily documented (go to the USDA nutrient database at http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/.). At ~3.22% protein, it does contain all the essential amino acids and minerals. It does lack the vitamins Ascorbic Acid (Vitamin C), Folic Acid, and Retinol, and is an excellent source of Leutin and fatty acids. Just a “cheap filler? No … not really!

* If corn is digestible and if it does contain much of what is required, why is it not an ideal ingredient? The problem with corn is two-fold - the concentration of the nutrients and the fiber content.* Just as the case with humans, dogs require certain nutrient levels to remain in a state of health. Of the protein complement (~3.22%), less that half (~1.33%) is made up of Essential Amino Acids (those amino acids which the canine body can not manufacture on their own). A dog would have to eat quite a bit of corn to equal the protein levels in chicken (another very common dog food ingredient) which is ~21.39% protein per 100 grams and which 9.38% is made up of the Essential Amino Acids. Corn is, therefore, not an efficient delivery mechanism given the nutrient concentrations. (A practical example of this is the difference in feeding guidelines between a meat based food containing corn and a corn based food contain meat. Iam’s Chunks, for example, recommends 2 to 2.5 cups for a 50 pound dog. O’ Roy requires 2.75 to 4.25 for that same dog!)

*The fiber content of corn is also a concern when used as a pet food ingredient as is shown the above Walker study. The more fiber, the more waste! Couple this with the increased feeding requirements caused by the relatively low nutrient concentrations, and the problem with corn becomes apparent - more food, more waste, more yard clean up.

The argument against corn as a pet food ingredient is not so much one of nutrients and digestibility but, rather, efficiency and the fact that the initial lower cost of the corn based diets is not offset by its requirement for increased feeding amounts due to nutrient concentration and waste production due to fiber content.*


----------



## tippykayak

MyBentley said:


> *The fiber content of corn is also a concern when used as a pet food ingredient as is shown the above Walker study. The more fiber, the more waste! Couple this with the increased feeding requirements caused by the relatively low nutrient concentrations, and the problem with corn becomes apparent - more food, more waste, more yard clean up.
> 
> The argument against corn as a pet food ingredient is not so much one of nutrients and digestibility but, rather, efficiency and the fact that the initial lower cost of the corn based diets is not offset by its requirement for increased feeding amounts due to nutrient concentration and waste production due to fiber content.*


You oversimplified your conclusions a bit, I think. Based on the information you provided, corn and other grains are clearly a worthwhile component in dog foods. They provide energy and a good range of nutrients. Alone, corn would absolutely not be a satisfactory food for a dog, but as an appropriate part of the diet, it could be great. It can provide balance, fiber, and a range of nutrients that aren't available in pure meat.

Also, don't pan fiber. Check around the forum and see how many people who give raw, all-meat, or boutique dog foods also have to add pumpkin in order to get healthy stools. All pumpkin does is provide low-cal fiber. The 4-5% fiber in these well-formulated foods seems pretty appropriate. My dogs don't have huge, frequent, or otherwise problematic stools.

So yeah, too much corn would be a bad thing, but corn in itself is not a bad thing. And given that my dogs are obviously getting a good balance of nutrients and have healthy stools, I think the amount of corn and sorghum in the Euk PP is pretty ideal for them.


----------



## MyBentley

tippykayak said:


> *You oversimplified your conclusions a bit*, I think. Based on the information you provided, corn and other grains are clearly a worthwhile component in dog foods. They provide energy and a good range of nutrients. Alone, corn would absolutely not be a satisfactory food for a dog, but as an appropriate part of the diet, it could be great. It can provide balance, fiber, and a range of nutrients that aren't available in pure meat.
> 
> Also, *don't pan fiber*. Check around the forum and see how many people who give raw, all-meat, or boutique dog foods also have to add pumpkin in order to get healthy stools. All pumpkin does is provide low-cal fiber. The 4-5% fiber in these well-formulated foods seems pretty appropriate. My dogs don't have huge, frequent, or otherwise problematic stools.
> 
> *So yeah, too much corn would be a bad thing, but corn in itself is not a bad thing*. And given that my dogs are obviously getting a good balance of nutrients and have healthy stools, I think the amount of corn and sorghum in the Euk PP is pretty ideal for them.


I didn't make any conclusions or pan fiber. I simply included the results of a study in their words, not mine.

And I agree with your statement that corn, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. But I also agree with the study's findings that corn is an inefficient means of providing the primary protein nutrients for a dog's diet. My personal preference therefor, would be to not see corn in any form listed in the top 5 ingredients.


----------



## tippykayak

MyBentley said:


> I didn't make any conclusions or pan fiber. I simply included the results of a study in their words, not mine.
> 
> And I agree with your statement that corn, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. But I also agree with the study's findings that corn is an inefficient means of providing the primary protein nutrients for a dog's diet. My personal preference therefor, would be to not see corn in any form listed in the top 5 ingredients.


I think your preference is a little arbitrary, and while I respect your right to feed your dogs the way you wish, I do feel compelled to argue the point a bit when you seem to be advising others to do it your way. I think you're right that corn wouldn't be good as the main or sole source of protein, but by saying it should be sixth instead of, say, third by weight seems a little random. If a food had a ton of meat in it, corn could still be third or even second without being a main source of protein.

Now, seeing it first would make me think twice. Even second, though, doesn't necessarily mean that there's an unhealthy amount.


----------



## tippykayak

MyBentley said:


> I simply included the results of a study in their words, not mine.


Sorry - you didn't cite very clearly. The last paragraphs refer to "the Walker study" as if they're from something else even though the Walker study was what you said you were posting. Did you copy from a dog food website or something? Maybe that last paragraph is theirs and not from the actual study?

Edited to add: did you copy it from here? I believe the paragraph you bolded was written by "Dog Food Demo Girl," not the people from the Walker study. Unless she copied it without attribution too and it's from some unnamed source? Either way, it's not by the Walker people nor from any nutritional scientist or study.


----------



## msdogs1976

Here's another take on corn I found on a lab website. I don't have access to the source referenced so take it for what it's worth. Just something else to chew on.

Corn (Whole Ground)

Corn is an ideal ingredient when used correctly in a formula. It is 99% digestible, an excellent energy source, and one of the best natural Omega 6 fatty acid sources.

Carbohydrates are used in pet food primarily to provide energy. Energy is required for the central nervous system, normal and high levels of physical activity and is also needed when anabolic activities like gestation, lactation and growth are proceeding at a high rate. With little or no dietary carbohydrates available there is added strain on fat and protein. This extra burden on fats and proteins can cause serious problems at birthing time.(1) Judicious use of carbohydrates in a meat meal based formula, i.e. corn, not listed first on the ingredient panel is a nutritionally sound and healthy use of corn and other quality carbohydrates.

(1) Hypoglycemia prior to welping, reduced plasma concentrations, reduced number of live births, lethargy, reduced mothering ability, fetal abnormalities, embryo resorption and reduced milk production.

It Is Not A Filler...
While we believe in meat meal based diets, meaning meat meal should be listed first on the ingredient panel, corn makes an important nutritional contribution to the formula, as noted above; fillers, such as wheat mids and peanut hulls, do not.

Rarely Does Corn Cause Allergies...
A complete literature review shows that corn is rarely incriminated as causing allergies. "Small Animal Clinical Nutrition" addresses this twice: "There have been only six confirmed cases of allergy to corn in dogs reported in the veterinary literature out of 253 total cases." "Corn is a nutritionally superior grain compared with others used in pet foods because it contains a balance of nutrients not found in other grains. Corn provides a highly available source of complex carbohydrates and substantial quantities of linoleic acid, an essential fatty acid important for healthy skin. Corn also provides essential amino acids and fiber. In a survey of veterinary dermatologists, corn was not listed among the ingredients most often suspected to cause food allergies. A review of over 200 confirmed canine cases of food allergy in the veterinary literature revealed only three were caused by corn."

A Very Digestible Carbohydrate...
One pet food company that does not have ready access to corn states, rather crudely, that look how corn comes out after we eat corn on the cob and therefore it can't be very digestible. This company knows full well that corn is ground very finely before it is added to the pet food formula. According to "Small Animal Clinical Nutrition", 4th Edition, "Several reports (3) indicate that dogs and cats readily digest starches in commercial pet foods. In studies, dogs were fed foods in which 30 to 57% of the food came from extruded corn, barley, rice or oats. The starch was nearly 100% digested in the small intestine." 

It is difficult to do the math because some base numbers are not available, but probably only one dog out of several hundred thousand dogs are likely to be allergic to corn when used correctly in a Super Premium, meat meal-based diet. With an ingredient that quality research shows to be an excellent ingredient, why would you not want to feed it as the carbohydrate component in the diet?

*Sources: The information above was drawn from fifteen research studies as listed in Small Animal Clinical Nutrition 4th Edition.
*


----------



## T&T

Quote:
Originally Posted by *EukanubaEmily*  

_... There was also a question about our suppliers and the preservatives that they use…….we hold the same standards for our suppliers in regards to using a natural preservative ... _


What preservative(s) do your fish meal suppliers use ? 
Quote]


Emily,
Bumping up
In case you missed my 11/3 question/post


----------



## damita

Thank you Bentley for the research!!! Actual numbers to look at - that's what I was looking for!

Anyone know the required daily carbohydrate intake required for canines?


----------



## MyBentley

damita said:


> Thank you Bentley for the research!!! Actual numbers to look at - that's what I was looking for!
> 
> Anyone know the required daily carbohydrate intake required for canines?


As far as the AAFCO basic nutrient requirements referred to on bags of dog food, they state basic minimums (on a dry matter basis) of protein, fat, various minerals and vitamins to maintain life. But these minimums are so low that most dog food manufacturers recognize that the levels wouldn't promote optimal health. Carbohydrates is not on the list; so you then get into the area of researching other sources to form your own perspective about the role of carbohydrates and what general carbohydrate percentages are desirable. And, of course, individual dogs do better with varying levels. It's all about a balance. I haven't come across any information that points to carbohydrates being needed or utilized to a higher degree than protein for dogs; so I prefer foods where it's likely that the utilized protein is higher than the carbohydrates.


----------



## damita

MyBentley said:


> I haven't come across any information that points to carbohydrates being needed or utilized to a higher degree than protein for dogs; so I prefer foods where it's likely that the utilized protein is higher than the carbohydrates.


:thanks::dblthumb2


----------



## AquaClaraCanines

My dogs eat a low carb diet and are healthy, fit, and full of zest. That's just my experience, though. The only one getting carbs is Starlite, as I still want to add a couple pounds to him.


----------



## EukanubaEmily

T&T said:


> What preservative(s) do your fish meal suppliers use ?


Thanks for your question........Our suppliers freeze the fish immediately after catching on the ship to preserve the ingredient.


----------



## Penny & Maggie's Mom

EukanubaEmily said:


> Thanks for your question........Our suppliers freeze the fish immediately after catching on the ship to preserve the ingredient.


Can you state that you do not use any ethoxyquin in any of your fish meal, and also that your suppliers also do not use ethoxyquin????


----------



## The_Artful_Dodger

Penny & Maggie's Mom said:


> Can you state that you do not use any ethoxyquin in any of your fish meal, and also that your suppliers also do not use ethoxyquin????


This may answer your question...



EukanubaEmily said:


> We do not use Ethoxyquin in our formulas.


 


EukanubaEmily said:


> Our Iams and Eukanuba over-the-counter products do not contain ethoxyquin as a preservative. The products are naturally preserved with a source of vitamin E. There was also a question about our suppliers and the preservatives that they use…….we hold the same standards for our suppliers in regards to using a natural preservative. If we received ingredients preserved with ethoxyquin, we are required to report that on the ingredient panel.
> 
> Some of our Iams Veterinary Formulas, which are sold exclusively through veterinarians, do contain ethoxyquin as a preservative. As you mentioned above, these diets are important for the nutritional management of certain conditions and that is why it is important that the fats, fatty acids, and fat soluble vitamins in the diet are properly preserved so our pets can obtain the full benefit.


----------



## Lucky's mom

MyBentley said:


> I didn't make any conclusions or pan fiber. I simply included the results of a study in their words, not mine.
> 
> And I agree with your statement that corn, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. But I also agree with the study's findings that corn is an inefficient means of providing the primary protein nutrients for a dog's diet. My personal preference therefor, would be to not see corn in any form listed in the top 5 ingredients.


Are you saying any grain or carbonhydrate shouldn't be in the top five ingredients? Or only corn? All grains have protein...corn less so then Oats. This is why corn glutin is used as a protien source...its concentrated. 

I don't want Oat protein used for Lucky's protien. Since oats have so much protien that can be counted....it bothers me to have it in there...as well as Peas and definately soy. 

A very high protein diet will have meat meal. A lower protien diet will have corn, or rice, or Barley or potato as a second or third ingredient. So in short, if potatos and rice can be in the first five ingredients...why not corn?


----------



## T&T

Quote:
Originally Posted by *T&T*  
_What preservative(s) do your fish meal suppliers use ? _



EukanubaEmily said:


> Thanks for your question........Our suppliers freeze the fish immediately after catching on the ship to preserve the ingredient.


Sorry if I didn't make my question clear enough
Was not referring to raw fish
Was referring to *fish meal*, "the clean, rendered (cooked down), dried ground tissue of undecomposed whole fish or fish cuttings, either or both, with or without the extraction of part of the oil "


_What preservative(s) do your *fish meal* suppliers add to the *fish meal* prior to delivery to your manufacturing plant ? _


----------



## Penny & Maggie's Mom

Here is a basic article which may explain why ethoxyquin is such a sticking point to many. Dana (author) has a masters in animal nutrition from Cornell. The loophole that makes the issue so hard to pinpoint is that companies do NOT have to disclose on their bags or sites that Ethoxyquin is in their food if they themselves did not add it. So if in doubt, call like Dana has done and ask if there is ethoxyquin added by their fish meal suppliers, if it is used ANYWHERE in the chain.
http://www.swisslickswissies.com/index.php/archives/ethoxyquin


----------



## marleysmummy

Hi Emily,

I have to ask a question here, we live in South America and have always fed Marley on Eukanuba, both Puppy & Adult, he has done well on it, shiny coat etc.

I am paying 80 dollars for 15kgs (and that's on special offer!), which I didn't mind as he was getting a good quality food.

However I spoke to friend today who informed me that the ingredients in the food here is different to the US food, and chicken is not the first ingredient, so I thought I would ask you if you knew anything about this, as your website does not have the igredients listed for South America.

I am now torn as to whether or not to change Marley to Purina Pro Plan, as the formula of this is the same as in the US.


----------



## MyBentley

Lucky's mom said:


> Are you saying any grain or carbonhydrate shouldn't be in the top five ingredients? Or only corn? All grains have protein...corn less so then Oats. This is why corn glutin is used as a protien source...its concentrated.
> 
> I don't want Oat protein used for Lucky's protien. Since oats have so much protien that can be counted....it bothers me to have it in there...as well as Peas and definately soy.
> 
> A very high protein diet will have meat meal. A lower protien diet will have corn, or rice, or Barley or potato as a second or third ingredient. So in short, if potatos and rice can be in the first five ingredients...why not corn?


From a manufacturing standpoint, kibbles have to have a carbohydrate (rice, corn, potato, pea, tapioca, barley, etc. etc.) to serve as a binder and hold the product together. Also there is a nutritional need for carbohydrates.

I have never seen a formula that did not have a carb listed at least once in the top 5 ingredients by weight - while other formulas may have a meat listed once in the top 5 ingredients and the remaining 4 ingredients a type of carb.

A majority of companies do not list a carbohydrate percentage in any format on their bags or websites - some companies do. Others will provide it if asked. So, as a consumer, if the carb level is important to you, you're left with choosing a formula that has it listed at a level you prefer; or you can do your own rough calculations to arrive at a reasonable estimate. Some quick examples (and I'm sure there are others): Champion Petfoods (Orijen, Acana) lists carb levels; Natura (EVO, Innova, Healthwise, California Natural) lists carb levels for all formulas (EVO is very low while CN is high); Canidae lists carb level for one formula but not others; and many companies I can find no information. It isn't required. Again, it's my personal preference to know, because it effects what food I want to try. To others, it may not be an issue at all.

To get to your specific question regarding corn, I have not come across any formula that includes a form of corn which lists the overall carb level in the formula - maybe someone else has. My estimates for many of those formulas indicate a carb level higher than my preference. The same can be said about some other formulas with different carb sources. So, it's not that I'm viewing corn as a negative in an of itself, I just don't see it used in minor proportions in a kibble so it's not what I'm looking for.

I believe a company like Natura is doing a good job in making information available (like carb levels, minerals and much more) for all their formulas. I don't choose their California Natural line, because my dogs don't need a limited ingredient formula and I'm not looking for a formula high in carbs; but I do include their EVO line in my kibble rotation because it does have lower carbs and a heavy emphasis on meat-based protein.


----------



## MyBentley

EukanubaEmily said:


> Thanks for your question........Our suppliers freeze the fish immediately after catching on the ship to preserve the ingredient.


I'm curious. Are you posting in your official capacity as a Consumer Relations for IAM/s/Eukanuba employee as you list your occupation in your profile; or are you posting as an individual with your own perspectives? The first would imply that your remarks are approved as official IAMs/Eukanuba company policy line; the 2nd as remarks the company may or may not stand behind.


----------



## Penny & Maggie's Mom

The issue with using ethoxyquin as a preservative doesn't affect whole fish. It is used in fish MEAL. The website states it is in the prescription diets, but says THEY don't add it in the regular formulas. THat still does not answer the question if whether their SUPPLIER uses it. From a canine nutritionist that called last week, they said that their suppliers DID use it (see above article).


----------



## EukanubaEmily

MyBentley said:


> I'm curious. Are you posting in your official capacity as a Consumer Relations for IAM/s/Eukanuba employee as you list your occupation in your profile; or are you posting as an individual with your own perspectives? The first would imply that your remarks are approved as official IAMs/Eukanuba company policy line; the 2nd as remarks the company may or may not stand behind.


When talking about Iams/Eukanuba products, I'm here to represent the company and happy to help with questions or concerns that you have. I'm also a real person that happens to own and LOVE Goldens. So when I talk about what has worked for Murphy or suggest tips for training, etc......those are based on my personal experiences. 

Hope this helps clarify. On a personal note- your picture is so adorable on your profile


----------



## EukanubaEmily

T&T said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *T&T*
> _What preservative(s) do your fish meal suppliers use ? _
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry if I didn't make my question clear enough
> Was not referring to raw fish
> Was referring to *fish meal*, "the clean, rendered (cooked down), dried ground tissue of undecomposed whole fish or fish cuttings, either or both, with or without the extraction of part of the oil "
> 
> 
> _What preservative(s) do your *fish meal* suppliers add to the *fish meal* prior to delivery to your manufacturing plant ? _


Fish meal is preserved with mixed tocopherols, which is a source of vitamin E, by the supplier before we receive it. The ingredients that we use in our over-the-counter Iams and Eukanuba diets are not preserved with Ethoxyquin from our suppliers or by us.

Hope that helps. Have a great weekend :wavey:


----------



## Swampcollie

Well, Angel thinks Euk LBP tastes good and thats all she cares about!

I like the great health she enjoys, the rate of growth, nice coat, clear eyes and sparkling clean teeth. She's begining to make the transition to Premium Performance this week so that will make things easier for me with only one food to keep on hand for the whole crew.


----------



## tippykayak

Swampcollie said:


> Well, Angel thinks Euk LBP tastes good and thats all she cares about!
> 
> I like the great health she enjoys, the rate of growth, nice coat, clear eyes and sparkling clean teeth. She's begining to make the transition to Premium Performance this week so that will make things easier for me with only one food to keep on hand for the whole crew.


I've said it before, but PP is really a magical food for highly active Goldens. Comet got oohs and ahhs from the vet's staff last week over his muscles, of all things.


----------



## Jack's Dad

Our vet reccomended for us to use Nova Large breed puppy. Jack had some stomach issues before we switched him to Nova (orginal on COSTCO puppy food (kirkland)). Since the switch he hasn't had any stomach issues. He is now 6 1/2 months old and he loves NOVA. It is expensive though, I think that it is $54 for a 33 lb bag.


----------



## Swampcollie

tippykayak said:


> I've said it before, but PP is really a magical food for highly active Goldens. Comet got oohs and ahhs from the vet's staff last week over his muscles, of all things.


I have to agree. The dogs look great on PP and get rave reviews from the Vet.


----------



## Jack's Dad

Swampcollie said:


> I have to agree. The dogs look great on PP and get rave reviews from the Vet.


 
What is PP? We are feeding Jack Innova large breed puppy food. Where could we find PP? Jack is 6 1/2 months old. 

Thanks.


----------



## tippykayak

Jack's Dad said:


> What is PP? We are feeding Jack Innova large breed puppy food. Where could we find PP? Jack is 6 1/2 months old.
> 
> Thanks.


Sorry, PP is Eukanuba Premium Performance 30/20. You can get it at most pet stores.


----------



## nellie'smom

Kahlua Golden said:


> want to hear some thoughts on this brand as ive never used it. i am trying to stay as natural as possible, but still be in my price range. the Eukanuba is a bit out of my price range, but if its really worth it, ill spend the extra bucks. it seems to be pretty decent, any advice? also when we get Kahlua home, she will be around 10 weeks, how much should i feed her, and is it better to do two meals a day, or three? thanks!
> 
> EDIT: also, i forgot to ask, is large breed the right formula? im also looking at Iams, as they are cheaper, but still seem to have pretty good quality. thanks again


My Nellie is fed iams/eukanuba. I found it is what she does best on. She's led a pretty healthy 6 years so far


----------



## T&T

EukanubaEmily said:


> Fish meal is preserved with mixed tocopherols, which is a source of vitamin E, by the supplier before we receive it. The ingredients that we use in our over-the-counter Iams and Eukanuba diets are not preserved with Ethoxyquin from our suppliers or by us.
> 
> Hope that helps. Have a great weekend :wavey:


Why does Eukanuba not clearly state on their website that their product is ethoxyquin free ?

Stating that YOU are not adding ethoxyquin to your over-the-counter products does not guarantee your suppliers haven't added ethoxyquin to ingredients supplied.

Your customer service tends to give consumers the run around and does not return calls or reply to emails regarding this issue.


----------



## T&T

EukanubaEmily said:


> When talking about Iams/Eukanuba products, I'm here to represent the company and happy to help with questions or concerns that you have...


What telephone # /extension / email address can you be reached at ?


----------



## Ljilly28

Penny & Maggie's Mom said:


> Just a personal aside, when Cody came into rescue he was diagnosed with AIHA and had an initial hct of 16.4. He's been med free for 2 1/2 years and maintains a perfect CBC on what I assume would be considered "designer" foods..... Eagle Pack Holistic duck, Fromm 4 star duck or the Innova large breed. And for the golden girls, they've never (knock on wood) had any medical issues in their 6 1/2 years.


Thanks for this- it's really helpful to know your Cody's anemia is held at bay with Innova Large Breed.

It's hard not to cling to the anecdotal/personal experience even when it is not scientific. Since my golden Joplin lived 4/20/1987-9/14/2002 eating absolutely only Eukanuba with no brand changes, that gives me a belief in the food though maybe it was genetics or luck?

I dragged my feet for a year in following my vet;s plea to use Eukanuba Premium Performance rather than Eagle Pack Holistic Large Breed for Tally since his anemia caused by a tick borne disease had not resolved despite trying ten different things. My vet was absolutely right- Tally is shiney coated with his first ever normal CBC and the only thing different is the food. 

If I didnt have an (irrational!?!) connection between cancer and the preservatives in Eukanuba based on reading sources like the Whole Food Journal, peer pressure, common sense that fresh food must be best, and knowing three very young dogs who died from early cancers while eating Eukanuba(though again it is maybe genetics or luck?) I would stay put with the premium performance. As it is, I am feeding Innova in the hopes. belief it contains the fewest harmful ingredients. However, the goldens have never looked better than on the Eukanuba top formula. I am really torn & unsure of whose information is right. 

I do believe Dr. Wakeman, though offensive in tone to some, does speak to/for views of many excellent vets- including 6 of the 7 in the practice we use and my college roommate who is a DVM from Tufts vet school. In my mind, there's a chance that the boutique kibble I gravitate to are not regulated and tested enough in the long term. I would like to see 1000 13 year old dogs who all at Honest Kitchen over a life time so I could feed it with total peace of mind. When foods like Wysong get recalled and Canidae changes formulas without letting us know, I lose trust in the industry and want the brand I trusted for my long-lived last generation of goldens.

We all want the same thing for our goldens- long, healthy lives with no cancer or other ailments. I wish there was more agreement about how to achieve this.


----------



## msdogs1976

Swampcollie said:


> I have to agree. The dogs look great on PP and get rave reviews from the Vet.





tippykayak said:


> I've said it before, but PP is really a magical food for highly active Goldens. Comet got oohs and ahhs from the vet's staff last week over his muscles, of all things.


Question for you two. My lab is 14 months old and I currently feed him Iams mini chunks. It has a 26/15 ratio with 426 calories per cup. My dog is not a working dog or show dog, just a buddy and we go on a couple of long walks per day plus plenty of play time. Do you think the PP is suitable for a dog like mine or is Iams sufficient? I always thought PP was more for working dogs. I see where Euk has a 28/18 blend which might be a better fit. I like the better price with Iams but I'm not a pauper either.

Just would like your thoughts since you both have had a long history with Euk. Thanks.


----------



## Swampcollie

Ljilly28 said:


> It's hard not to cling to the anecdotal/personal experience even when it is not scientific. Since my golden Joplin lived 4/20/1987-9/14/2002 eating absolutely only Eukanuba with no brand changes, that gives me a belief in the food though maybe it was genetics or luck?
> 
> I dragged my feet for a year in following my vet;s plea to use Eukanuba Premium Performance rather than Eagle Pack Holistic Large Breed for Tally since his anemia caused by a tick borne disease had not resolved despite trying ten different things. My vet was absolutely right- Tally is shiney coated with his first ever normal CBC and the only thing different is the food.
> 
> If I didnt have an (irrational!?!) connection between cancer and the preservatives in Eukanuba based on reading sources like the Whole Food Journal, peer pressure, common sense that fresh food must be best, and knowing three very young dogs who died from early cancers while eating Eukanuba(though again it is maybe genetics or luck?) I would stay put with the premium performance. As it is, I am feeding Innova in the hopes. belief it contains the fewest harmful ingredients. However, the goldens have never looked better than on the Eukanuba top formula. I am really torn & unsure of whose information is right.


Genetics are key to much of the food debate.

There are a whole lot of people that don't want to admit to themselves that "Spot" wasn't born with the genetics to develop a normal fully functioning immune system. i.e. They don't have a normal healthy dog to begin with. So instead of selecting a food(s) that normal healthy dogs thrive on, they are in reality seeking foods to boost their dogs' weak or malfunctioning immune system without upsetting it or making things worse. 

Genetics are a far larger part of the equation than most people understand or want to believe. They don't want to accept the reality that "Spot" is less than he should be, so they start looking for other things to blame for his shortcomings.


----------



## Swampcollie

msdogs1976 said:


> Question for you two. My lab is 14 months old and I currently feed him Iams mini chunks. It has a 26/15 ratio with 426 calories per cup. My dog is not a working dog or show dog, just a buddy and we go on a couple of long walks per day plus plenty of play time. Do you think the PP is suitable for a dog like mine or is Iams sufficient? I always thought PP was more for working dogs. I see where Euk has a 28/18 blend which might be a better fit. I like the better price with Iams but I'm not a pauper either.
> 
> Just would like your thoughts since you both have had a long history with Euk. Thanks.


I feed PP to all of the adults regardless of age or activity level. All of the adult dogs here are training/working or they're semi-retired. It's easier to have just one food that everyone can eat, rather than keeping a bunch of different ones on hand. 

Mini-Chunks may work just fine for your dog and it's activity level. If it ain't broke don't fix it.


----------



## Ljilly28

Swampcollie, do you feel the high rate of cancer in goldens is mainly genetic, and not too responsive to food choices? Rhonda Hovan told me it is keeping them trim that matters more than the brand of food. Do you think that is true? Have you lost a golden to cancer or had one live longer than age 12?


----------



## Swampcollie

Ljilly28 said:


> Swampcollie, do you feel the high rate of cancer in goldens is mainly genetic, and not too responsive to food choices? Rhonda Hovan told me it is keeping them trim that matters more than the brand of food. Do you think that is true? Have you lost a golden to cancer or had one live longer than age 12?


I have had dogs that died as young as 10 1/2 and as old as 15 from cancer. 

I believe that genetics, lifestyle (that's where keeping them trim comes in), environment and diet all contribute to overall lifespan of the dog. I also believe that there are a lot of unreasonable expectations of longevity out there as well. 

Overall lifespan for the breed (between 10 and 15 years) hasn't changed very much in the last 75 years. If anything, it's getting longer due to better Veterinary care. Fifty years ago, any health concern that required more than a couple of stitches would have resulted in putting a dog down. 

Cancer in Goldens is a tough subject to deal with because there just isn't enough detail to the information we have to date. It's quite common to see cancer as the cause of death but why and when did the animal develop cancer. Were they young or was the onset really due to old age and the weakened immune system that comes with it. 

I do believe that genetics play a large role in early onset cancers at a young age. (Less than age 7) There are portions of the gene pool that I avoid because of early onset cancers and other immune related problems.


----------



## tippykayak

msdogs1976 said:


> Question for you two. My lab is 14 months old and I currently feed him Iams mini chunks. It has a 26/15 ratio with 426 calories per cup. My dog is not a working dog or show dog, just a buddy and we go on a couple of long walks per day plus plenty of play time. Do you think the PP is suitable for a dog like mine or is Iams sufficient? I always thought PP was more for working dogs. I see where Euk has a 28/18 blend which might be a better fit. I like the better price with Iams but I'm not a pauper either.
> 
> Just would like your thoughts since you both have had a long history with Euk. Thanks.


Depending on activity level and individual metabolism, a dog might gain weight on the PP. The Iams mini chunks is 426 cal/cup and is 26% crude protein by weight and 15% crude fat.

The PP is 431 cal/cup with a much higher ratio of protein and fat (30% and 20% respectively).

One thing about this comparison is a little misleading. When you measure calories per cup, a food with a smaller kibble size fits a whole lot more in that cup. The regular sized chunk version of that Iams food is 374 cal/cup.

So what am I saying? I think your dog will be consuming significantly less food for the same number of calories. You can still measure it with the same volume, but be aware that he might feel a difference. If you transition incredibly slowly, he might not really notice.

I've seen a lot of great results with the higher fat/protein concentration in the PP, but my only caveat in recommending it is that I fear the potential for the dog to become obese if the owner isn't careful about the amounts he's eating.


----------



## MyBentley

msdogs1976 said:


> Question for you two. My lab is 14 months old and I currently feed him Iams mini chunks. It has a 26/15 ratio with 426 calories per cup. My dog is not a working dog or show dog, just a buddy and we go on a couple of long walks per day plus plenty of play time. Do you think the PP is suitable for a dog like mine or is Iams sufficient? I always thought PP was more for working dogs. I see where Euk has a 28/18 blend which might be a better fit. I like the better price with Iams but I'm not a pauper either.
> 
> Just would like your thoughts since you both have had a long history with Euk. Thanks.


Hope you don't mind an additional reply even though you asked only for responses from two specific posters. 

Leaving brand names aside, your question centers around trying to feed kibble with slightly higher protein and fat levels than what you're currently feeding. The 28/18 blend is still very moderate among the whole array of formula profiles out there today. 

About 3 years ago I switched my moderately active (and now senior) Bentley away from formulas with fairly low protein and fat to formulas with moderate protein (34%) and 16-18% fat. He eats about 2 cups a day of kibble (440 - 490 kcal/cup) with a few fresh foods thrown in at times. As Tippykayak mentioned in an earlier post about his dogs have developing more lean muscle mass on a performance formula with 28/18, I too found my Bentley became more toned; plus he had better energy levels and overall health, IMO. I did not find weight gain to be a problem at all. I hope you find the same positive results if you decide to switch.


----------



## msdogs1976

Thanks for the replies. Actually, I haven't had him on Iams very long as he is a recent adoption. I'll probably continue with Iams for awhile and see how he does. But good info on Euk, might be something to consider down the road.


----------



## Ljilly28

Swampcollie;976461
Cancer in Goldens is a tough subject to deal with because there just isn't enough detail to the information we have to date. It's quite common to see cancer as the cause of death but why and when did the animal develop cancer. Were they young or was the onset really due to old age and the weakened immune system that comes with it.
I do believe that genetics play a large role in early onset cancers at a young age. (Less than age 7) There are portions of the gene pool that I avoid because of early onset cancers and other immune related problems.[/QUOTE said:


> Thanks for this post- it is so common sense and calm. It's easy to engage in magical thinking like if you just find that one perfect food your dogs will be safe from cancer, but I know you are right and we don't have enough information. Eukanuba Premium Performance makes my dogs glow and my vet extremely happy- maybe I will just stop the quest for the food that is a magic bullet for health, because it simply doesnt exist.


----------



## EukanubaEmily

T&T said:


> What telephone # /extension / email address can you be reached at ?
> 
> I'm so sorry to hear about your experience when contacting us. We certainly want to be a resource for you and help answer any questions you may have about our products. Please let me know if I can help........The easiest and quickest way to get in touch with me is my email address [email protected]. If you prefer to call, you can call our toll free number at 800-525-4267 and ask for Emily.
> 
> I would love to hear more about your dogs. How many do you have?
> 
> Emily


----------



## tippykayak

MyBentley said:


> As Tippykayak mentioned in an earlier post about his dogs have developing more lean muscle mass on a performance formula with 28/18, I too found my Bentley became more toned; plus he had better energy levels and overall health, IMO


Just to clarify, my dogs are on the 30/20, and they always have been since puppy food, so it's not an issue of more lean muscle, simply that they look great in that regard. Jax, who's still on the puppy food (26/14), also looks glossy and muscular, but we feed LBP for at least the first year.


----------

