# Orijen puppy food too high in protein?



## Claire's Friend (Feb 26, 2007)

Is it the large breed puppy formula?


----------



## Lilliam (Apr 28, 2010)

puppydogs said:


> My boy friend bought a bag already...but I'm thinking it may be too high in protein for a pup (8 weeks). It says 80% protein on the bag - puppy formula.
> 
> Has anyone tried this?


Orijen is a well respected food, very high quality. I checked the analysis and I read that it was 40% protein, not as high as 80%. However, I feel that even at 40% it is much too high in protein for a puppy. Also, both calcium and phosphorus were abot 1%. 
Max gets Innova Large Breed Puppy and since he's turning one today we ease him over to adult Innova. After eighteen months we'll ease him into Evo.

Food is a very hot topic. There are many opinions.


----------



## Stretchdrive (Mar 12, 2011)

Orijen uses high quality proteins which are easier to digest, and there shouldn't be a problem. Every puppy is different though, and you will have to try it out. I would not be worried at all though. As normail just make the transition slowly. What is he currently eating?


----------



## RKA (Sep 20, 2010)

You may want to leave the pup on whatever he's been on so far...wait until 5-6 months to transition him to something else. Puppy tummies can be sensitive and pottytraining a sick puppy is no fun at all. 

I spent 6 weeks transitioning mine to Orijen LBP. Everything seemed fine along the way with a few loose stools when I up'd the percentage and then a normalization in the following days. After a week on 100% Orijen, everything went south and he had the runs. We thought it could be something else, got him on medication, switched to chicken and rice and as soon as he was better, transitioned back to Orijen and got the same result. The food is a quality food, however it is on a list of foods that little pups have a tough time with.


----------



## MyBentley (May 5, 2009)

puppydogs said:


> My boy friend bought a bag already...but I'm thinking it may be too high in protein for a pup (8 weeks). *It says 80% protein on the bag - puppy formula.*
> 
> Has anyone tried this?


The bag does not say 80% protein. It says 80% of the ingredients are from meat and protein sources (such as eggs). Within that 80% is moisture, etc. which is cooked out. The remaining available protein is 38%.

I have a lab that I fed Orijen Large Breed Puppy formula to for the first 7 months and she did fine. There is a very fine line as to how much to feed - even a bit too much can result in loose stools. Also, it's a rather complex ingredient list that not all dogs do well on. You might be happier trying the same company's "all life stages" grain free formulas in the Acana line. The protein percentage is a little less and not quite so many ingredients.


----------



## HoloBaby (Mar 30, 2011)

Puppydog: I give Puppy Orijen LB as training treats to my puppy ever sense he was about 9 weeks old. He is normally on Innova LB Puppy and raw. Just recently (I would say about 12 1/2 weeks), I started to give him Orijen with his meals. I only do this because he has been having a small handful as treats everyday, plus I know he doesn't really have a sensitive tummy.
You won't know until you try. What did your breeder feed your puppy? Just take it slow and canned pumpkin helps with the poo.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Stretchdrive said:


> Orijen uses high quality proteins which are easier to digest, and there shouldn't be a problem.


Can you clarify what that means? How do you measure a protein's quality, and how does that make it easier to digest?


----------



## oakleysmommy (Feb 20, 2011)

Many of the more "premium" foods use high quality proteins as well..Too much protein is just too much. Too much protein on a human over works the kidneys, thats a fact as i have done an all protein diet very little carbs for 12 weeks for competitions. Not enough studies IMO.


----------



## cypress822 (Jun 3, 2011)

Orijen is a rich food, and high in protein. It is considered one the of highest quality kibble you can buy. Recent studies show that high protein is not at all detrimental to dogs (large breed or not), and is infact very good for dogs. It is the calcium (ratio to phosphorus) that one should be worried about--which orijen has a well controlled amount. All the research supports this. 
Agreed with the poster above that states an all protein diet is tough on kidneys--however, orien is not an all protein diet--no dog food is.

One poster had recommended EVO--this is/was also a very high quality kibble, that we used to use--up to a few months ago. EVO/Innova recently was taken over by Proctor and Gamble. Years ago, P&G took over IAMS, and changed the contents of the dog food without changing the product label. P&G was sued. Some high end dog food botiques around here have quit selling EVO/ Innova due to P&G's reputation. See link for more info: Natura Dog Food Ratings - Dropped from 10 Best Dog Food List - Downgraded to 2 Scoops!


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

cypress822 said:


> Years ago, P&G took over IAMS, and changed the contents of the dog food without changing the product label. P&G was sued.


Can you post any direct information on this? I hear this claim a lot, but I've never seen any scrap of direct evidence (e.g., a news article on the lawsuit or court documents from the lawsuit) that it's actually true.


----------



## Braccarius (Sep 8, 2008)

P&G's Iams unit faces lawsuit over nutrition

This is them being sued for overstating the foods nutritional value.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Braccarius said:


> P&G's Iams unit faces lawsuit over nutrition
> 
> This is them being sued for overstating the foods nutritional value.


Let's be clear. They were sued by a competitor (Nutro) because Nutro claimed the the serving recommendations on the Iams bag were too small and dogs would lose weight. That's the heart of the "reformulation" of the food and the lawsuit.

Your link also demonstrates that what cypress said is factually incorrect (if this is in fact the lawsuit he or she is referring to). It wasn't that they changed the ingredients without changing the bag. It was that they changed serving size on the bag and that Nutro claimed dogs would lose weight if fed the recommended amount on the bag. They claimed that Iams did it in order to make their food look like a better value.


----------



## Braccarius (Sep 8, 2008)

Since I'm stuck at work for another... ohhh... 13 1/2 hours I decided I would make it my mission to find out about the phantom lawsuit.... it took me some digging but this is what I've found out.

_On March 5, 2001,Wasserman, Comden, Casselman and Pearson filed a class action lawsuit against the P&G Company over Iams dog food, this was settled out of court. The lawsuit stemmed from the reformulation of the dog food that kept it from meeting AAFCO standards despite having the AAFCO seal of approval. As a result, the FDA sent a series of letters to P&G which are redacted but viewable if you file a petition under the freedom of information act._ 

If someone would like to dig deeper and contact that lawfirm to confirm this feel free. I can't do it from work.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Braccarius said:


> Since I'm stuck at work for another... ohhh... 13 1/2 hours I decided I would make it my mission to find out about the phantom lawsuit.... it took me some digging but this is what I've found out.
> 
> _On March 5, 2001,Wasserman, Comden, Casselman and Pearson filed a class action lawsuit against the P&G Company over Iams dog food, this was settled out of court. The lawsuit stemmed from the reformulation of the dog food that kept it from meeting AAFCO standards despite having the AAFCO seal of approval. As a result, the FDA sent a series of letters to P&G which are redacted but viewable if you file a petition under the freedom of information act._
> 
> If someone would like to dig deeper and contact that lawfirm to confirm this feel free. I can't do it from work.


That's the same lawsuit. Nutro started it and a person named Karen Pollack signed on. They claimed Iams had reduced serving sizes by 25% without doing a feeding study on the new amounts. Pollack claimed her dog lost four pounds. Iams said it reduced the sizes because of evidence that a typical housepet had a 25% lower caloric need than the typical kennel dog in their studies. 

You'll note the complete lack of evidence that any dogs were hurt or that the feeding amounts on the bags were actually a problem. Isn't the constant advice on this forum that the feeding guidelines on the bag are far too large?

The class action suit, btw, was settled by paying Pollack $10,000 and giving out coupons for $5 off Iams products.

Maybe Iams should have done a feeding study before publishing the new serving guidelines, but let's just be clear that the suit wasn't about P&G substituting shady ingredients or sickening dogs. It was a competitor claiming the Iams was advertising more servings per bag (and therefore a better value) than was realistic.


----------



## Braccarius (Sep 8, 2008)

tippykayak said:


> You'll note the complete lack of evidence that any dogs were hurt or that the feeding amounts on the bags were actually a problem. Isn't the constant advice on this forum that the feeding guidelines on the bag are far too large?


Actually, there is a complete lack of evidence that a lawsuit even occured. Most things I'm reading are hearsay and lead back to a PETA affiliate who has a beef with P&G over animal testing.


----------



## cypress822 (Jun 3, 2011)

Iams Update: Cruelty Charges, Lawsuit, What to Do | PETA.org

Crazy for Critters | Class Action Lawsuit About Pet Food

washingtonpost.com: Dog Food Makers, Hungry for a Fight

Natura Dog Food Ratings - Dropped from 10 Best Dog Food List - Downgraded to 2 Scoops!

just to list a few


----------



## cypress822 (Jun 3, 2011)

I think the issue with P&G also had to do with replacing chicken with chicken by-products---which obviously is very poor. This is very poor quality. This was not disclosed on their ingredient list from my understanding, and was part of the basis of the complaint. I disagree with the above poster (tippykayak) who states the ingredients were never altered in any way.

Here is a quote from an above link:

By early 2000, Iams reformulated its dog food ingredients "to enhance" the formula -- substituting chicken for "chicken by-products meal" and a "carbohydrate blend" of bran sorghum and barley for rice. It then adjusted its package instructions to reduce per-day servings by 25 percent to reflect scientific evidence, it says, that in-home dogs are 25 percent less active than kennel dogs -- the basis of most dog food formulations.

Regardless of which and what lawsuit it was, I think the whole point I was trying to make (my opinion) is that EVO/Innova is now owned by P&G, thus its quality may now be suspect. Two of our local pet boutique stores quit carrying Innova/EVO as a result of the P&G ownership--that is how we actually found out about this whole thing.


----------



## oakleysmommy (Feb 20, 2011)

if this is all true,it doesnt look as though they "enhanced" it in anyway, they downgraded if anything.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

cypress822 said:


> I think the issue with P&G also had to do with replacing chicken with chicken by-products---which obviously is very poor. This is very poor quality. This was not disclosed on their ingredient list from my understanding, and was part of the basis of the complaint. I disagree with the above poster (tippykayak) who states the ingredients were never altered in any way.


What is your criteria for saying byproduct meal is "very poor" as an ingredient?

And the lawsuit, including as it's reported in the articles you posted, was over serving size, not over the ingredient changes.




cypress822 said:


> Regardless of which and what lawsuit it was, I think the whole point I was trying to make (my opinion) is that EVO/Innova is now owned by P&G, thus its quality may now be suspect. Two of our local pet boutique stores quit carrying Innova/EVO as a result of the P&G ownership--that is how we actually found out about this whole thing.


If you believe that ownership by P&G automatically means a food is less good, then by all means, apply that logic to Innova. I just don't believe the first point is accurate.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

cypress822 said:


> Iams Update: Cruelty Charges, Lawsuit, What to Do | PETA.org
> 
> Crazy for Critters | Class Action Lawsuit About Pet Food
> 
> ...


You're confusing two lawsuits here. One is over the serving sizes (2001), the other is over the 2007 recall that affected many, many manufacturers.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Braccarius said:


> Actually, there is a complete lack of evidence that a lawsuit even occured. Most things I'm reading are hearsay and lead back to a PETA affiliate who has a beef with P&G over animal testing.


I did find court papers from the Nutro lawsuit and the settlement they paid out. It did happen, but it was about serving sizes.

And there was a class action in 2007 over all those companies that contracted out wet food to Menu Foods.


----------

