# Annamaet's Postion on Protein



## WasChampionFan (Mar 31, 2012)

artbuc said:


> I called Annamaet yesterday and had a long conversation with a very nice CSR. He seemed happy to talk with me but he couldn't answer any question without referring to his FAQ sheet. Regarding protein, he said Annamaet limits protein to 30% because normally active dogs cannot absorb more than that. Even their Ultra formula for performance dogs has only 32% protein. This concerns me because I feed Orijen 6Fish at 38% protein.
> 
> Can anyone confirm Annamaet's statement on maximum protein %? Thanks.


The Ultra formula you mentioned is considered one of three best foods on the market for sled dogs, field trial dogs and herding breeds, or any other dogs in very demanding situations. As you mentioned it has 32% protein. 

If you look at virtually every other performance food on the market they have about the same protein, 30 - 32%. Why?

The reason is that studies done since the 1970's have shown that even the most physically stressed dogs are not able to use much more than 32% protein for muscle repair and other metabolic processes. So either they literally urinated it out or it gets converted to energy in a very complex process that actually uses 30% of the calories it provides. This process also generates heat, which is generally not good for performance dogs. So what the guy was telling is you is that since protein is not needed for muscle repair above 32% and is not a very good source of energy, that other nutrients are used like fat and carbohydrates.

Protein that is too high also brings risks, like high levels of Ash. 

Annamaet, and other companies, could easily put more protein in the food but what is the point other than marketing.

Have you ever noticed that most foods have between 22 -25% protein? Including many puppy foods. Again, years have research have shown this to be the ideal range for the vast majority of dogs in the real world.

It is only recently that foods have been marketed to consumers with very high levels of protein with no benefit.

So the guy was telling you the truth. You shouldn't be concerned that you use a 38% food but it is just not needed. Changces are you were speaking to Kit Brown, he is far more than just a CSR. Knows his stuff, maybe he was in the middle something when you called.

I buy Ultra for $48 a bag, 40lbs. Great deal for one of the best foods around. I get it for a few bucks cheaper than most people but still it is a great deal at retail.

Last point, the percentage of protein is of less importance than how many grams of protein the dog receives, ie how much food is fed, and what the protein is. Fish is about a digestible as soy, far less than chicken, beef and egg, so crude protein does not tell the whole story.


----------



## coffenut (Jan 3, 2012)

WasChampionFan said:


> The reason is that studies done since the 1970's have shown that even the most physically stressed dogs are not able to use much more than 32% protein for muscle repair and other metabolic processes.


This is true for humans as well.


----------



## artbuc (Apr 12, 2009)

WasChampionFan said:


> Fish is about a digestible as soy, far less than chicken, beef and egg, so crude protein does not tell the whole story.


Thanks WasChamp - I have learned more from you in the last week than I have learned in a long time! Considering fish protein's low digestibility, maybe it is good that 6Fish is 38%? Rocky maintains his weight eating 380 grams/day of 6Fish. He does not get any treats or table scraps so he gets 144 grams/day of protein. He is VERY active. We walk about 3 miles/day and he runs like the wind in his 1 acre backyard. I would like to get him off fish protein but I don't know if will be allergic to other protein sources. I think some of his suspected food allergy issues were more stress related but I do know he can not tolerate eggs and perhaps oats. He has been doing very well for over a year. He didn't even have his normal winter meltdown which may be related to our unusually warm winter but who knows?


----------



## WasChampionFan (Mar 31, 2012)

artbuc said:


> Thanks WasChamp - I have learned more from you in the last week than I have learned in a long time! Considering fish protein's low digestibility, maybe it is good that 6Fish is 38%? Rocky maintains his weight eating 380 grams/day of 6Fish. He does not get any treats or table scraps so he gets 144 grams/day of protein. He is VERY active. We walk about 3 miles/day and he runs like the wind in his 1 acre backyard. I would like to get him off fish protein but I don't know if will be allergic to other protein sources. I think some of his suspected food allergy issues were more stress related but I do know he can not tolerate eggs and perhaps oats. He has been doing very well for over a year. He didn't even have his normal winter meltdown which may be related to our unusually warm winter but who knows?


If he is doing well don't make any changes. Fish is not low in digestiblity but the amino acids are not as available as other proteins. Fish is great for dogs. I was just comparing fish to other proteins. I didn't mean to trash it.

If you wanna switch a red meat GF might be a good idea.


----------



## T&T (Feb 28, 2008)

Most important to me is the protein source/quality (plant vs meat)
Orijen's white paper is an interesting read
http://www.orijen.no/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/ORIJEN_WHITE_PAPER.pdf


----------



## artbuc (Apr 12, 2009)

WasChampionFan said:


> Last point, the percentage of protein is of less importance than how many grams of protein the dog receives, ie how much food is fed, and what the protein is. Fish is about a digestible as soy, far less than chicken, beef and egg, so crude protein does not tell the whole story.


I just looked the Orijen White Paper mentioned by another poster. I read it several years ago but had forgotten about it. It talks about protein digestibilty but doesn't give quantitative data. It does quantify Biological Value. Fish protein BV is actually slightly better that beef and far better than soy. Do you have any data on digestibilty vs BV? To rank protein, do you have to consider both BV and digestibilty? Or, are BV and digestibilty synonymous, practically speaking?


----------



## WasChampionFan (Mar 31, 2012)

artbuc said:


> I just looked the Orijen White Paper mentioned by another poster. I read it several years ago but had forgotten about it. It talks about protein digestibilty but doesn't give quantitative data. It does quantify Biological Value. Fish protein BV is actually slightly better that beef and far better than soy. Do you have any data on digestibilty vs BV? To rank protein, do you have to consider both BV and digestibilty? Or, are BV and digestibilty synonymous, practically speaking?


I wouldn't put to much stock in the Orijen White Paper because it is just pure plaguerism with many things presented out of context. It is a marketing tool for Orijen. In fact, Kronfeld who is quoted worked on the first formulation of Annamaet Ultra at Penn.

One of the many problems with the concept of Biological Value is that it does not judge the digestibility of a protein. Also, keep in mind that as the amount of protein in a diet goes up, the biological value on average must come down. Also, no dog food has one source of protein, so when you combine sources of protein the BV goes up in a non-linear fashion. The BV of a complete dog food would be similar to egg.

The theory was developed nearly 100 years ago and is misused by some pet food companies to promote high protein diets and discredit the use of grains. I would be very skeptical of companies that make claims along those lines.

The theory of Biological Value has virtually no application in the real world and I wouldn't spend any time worrying about it.

Any All Life Stage food with chicken, turkey, beef, bison or lamb and some fish and/or egg will have all the amino acids in quantities much higher than any backyard GR will ever need.


----------



## MyBentley (May 5, 2009)

WasChampionFan said:


> I wouldn't put to much stock in the Orijen White Paper because it is just pure plaguerism with many things presented out of context. It is a marketing tool for Orijen. In fact, Kronfeld who is quoted worked on the first formulation of Annamaet Ultra at Penn.
> 
> One of the many problems with the concept of Biological Value is that it does not judge the digestibility of a protein. Also, keep in mind that as the amount of protein in a diet goes up, the biological value on average must come down. Also,* no dog food has one source of protein,* so when you combine sources of protein the BV goes up in a non-linear fashion. The BV of a complete dog food would be similar to egg.
> 
> ...


You do get pretty close to the one protein scenario with kibbles like California Natural Puppy formulas that truly have one meat source and the one carb source of rice. The protein coming from rice is pretty minimal compared to other grains.


----------



## WasChampionFan (Mar 31, 2012)

MyBentley said:


> You do get pretty close to the one protein scenario with kibbles like California Natural Puppy formulas that truly have one meat source and the one carb source of rice. The protein coming from rice is pretty minimal compared to other grains.


Especially Lamb, the chicken formula should be fine because chicken has generally higher and broader levels of amino acids. Lamb, well......not so much.

The adult formulas of CN, are pretty thin on protein, again the Lamb is something I wouldn't recommend.


----------

