Just talked to Purina

I agree with you, but...

 urina also makes foods like Beneful, Moist and Meaty, and Kibbles and Chunks (not the same as Kibbles and Bits) which may contain human grade edible hot dog meat, but also contain more sugar and salt than a dog should eat in a day. 

Plus, dyes, which are suspected carcenigetics.

Further, with the exception of Pro Plan and maybe Purina One, Purina's dry diets contain loads of useless grains, which won't necessarily harm a healthy dog, but are wasteful: one way and right out the other.  Further, when the dog becomes elderly and is no longer "healthy," which could simply be due to age, the dog will need something more than some meat and lots of grains, but the average grocery store buying person doesn't know this and continues to buy the food that is now hurting their dog. 

On the other side of the coin....do dogs NEED the fruits and veggies in Innova for example?  That too is arguable.

I look at it like, they don't directly add these things, therefore don't have to disclose it.

Some of the ingredients Purina uses are beef and bone meal, animal digest, beef tallow, poultry by-product meal and animal fat. These items are produced by rendering plants. [linkhttp://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch09/final/c9s05-3.pdf ]Rendering plants[/link] "obtain animal by-product materials, including grease, blood, feathers, offal, and entire animal carcasses, from the following sources: butcher shops, supermarkets, restaurants, fast-food chains, poultry processors, slaughterhouses, farms, ranches, feedlots, and animal shelters". So even though Purina doesn't directly add these things, they could still end up in the food. 

I just know my dogs do great on what they eat so have no problem with it.

 
OK, so why start this thread?  It sounds to me like you're either looking for approval, or an argument.  In either case, you're not going to change your mind or your dog's food.
 
OK, I'll bite..
 
From a practical point of view, you say your dogs do well on Purina.  This says nothing of the actual quality of the food, only your dogs' reaction to it.  Ultimately, we measure quality (objectively) based on some set of predictable and measurable indicators, like named ingredients and the quatities in which they appear in the formula, metabolic indicators (calories, fat, protein etc), and other such measures.  A side by side comparison on any subset of these indicators often puts Purina in the 'inferior' category.
 
So what are we debating here?  Whether or not your dogs will thrive on a measurably inferior product, or whether your measures of an inferior product are different than mine?  In the latter debate, you will be arguing a losing position.

Not looking for debate, approval, disagreement.  I am simply doing what so many others have done--talked the maker of their dogs' brand  of food and posted what they were told.  Were they looking for debate, approval or disagreement?  I don't think so, just posting what they were informed of.  It has been suggested many times that companies like purina use only animal parts that are diseased or full of cancer, that they use meats that are unfit for human consumption etc, etc.  They tell me that  is not true.  They use human quality meats.
 
And the best ingredient list in the world means nothing if that food makes your dog throw up, have watery poops, allergy flare.  I go more by how my dogs look, act, their over all health rather than by ingredient lists, and that includes even the Purina list.

Were they looking for debate, approval or disagreement?

 
Probably all of the above. []
 
In any case, you won't know how well your dogs do on any food until you try it.  In my mind, the question is 'how do I decide what to try?'. 
 
Do you just pick a food at random?  Probably not. More likely, you set a budget and compare brands within your price range.  What do you compare? Anecdotal evidence?
 
Further, once you decide on a food, how do you determine what 'doing well' means?  Is an obese 5 year old boy (human) 'doing well' if his hair is thick and shiny, his teeth are pearly white, he has a big appettite, and has a calm temperament?  Some might say yes.
 
Again, this goes back to the point of these posts.  You are either providing anecdotal evidence, or debating facts.  In the latter case, Purina products will lose almost every time.
 
And, I doubt that most people put much stock in the presence of roadkill in pet food.  As you said, there comes a point at which you have to believe something, or nothing at all.

Given the frequent negative posts about Purina products, I believe Sandra thot she'd just go to the horses mouth for the info.  And then posted what they had told her.  Why does everyone have to have a nefarious reason for every post they start?

ORIGINAL: chinook

I just know my dogs do great on what they eat so have no problem with it.

OK, so why start this thread?  It sounds to me like you're either looking for approval, or an argument.  In either case, you're not going to change your mind or your dog's food.

OK, I'll bite..

From a practical point of view, you say your dogs do well on Purina.  This says nothing of the actual quality of the food, only your dogs' reaction to it.  Ultimately, we measure quality (objectively) based on some set of predictable and measurable indicators, like named ingredients and the quatities in which they appear in the formula, metabolic indicators (calories, fat, protein etc), and other such measures.  A side by side comparison on any subset of these indicators often puts Purina in the 'inferior' category.

So what are we debating here?  Whether or not your dogs will thrive on a measurably inferior product, or whether your measures of an inferior product are different than mine?  In the latter debate, you will be arguing a losing position.

My mentor is an animal nutritionist and animal science professor.  One thing I remember from his class is that ingredients are not the most important thing in a dog food.  Just because a dog food has a few ingredients YOU don't like(excluding allergy dogs) does not mean your DOGS won't do well on it.  I think when choosing a food, one needs to be more open minded.  There may be grains in some foods that people don't like, but what about stuff like blueberries and carrots in the "premium" foods.  Neither grains or blueberries are something that dogs would regularly eat.  So, in the end, they are the same in my opinion.

ORIGINAL: sandra_slayton  My attitude on that is if you can believe what the makers of your dog food say, why shouldn't i believe what the makers of my dog food say.  And on the other hand maybe NONE are telling the exact truth. 

For me, its not an issue of believing what they say.  The issue is the fillers and synthetic supplements they use.  They could use "whole grain corn" that I would have no trouble eating - doesn't mean that it should be in a dog or cat food since its not digestable and causes allergies. They could use lamb that is fit for human consumption, doesn't make the menadione safe.
 
I do not trust what dog food companies tell me, I trust what I have read, researched and experienced with dog food, homecooked and raw food from a variety of sources. Even if they had the best manufacturing practices in in the world with the highest quality ingredients, it doesn't mean that the ingredients they choose to add are right IMO.

ORIGINAL glenmar On the other side of the coin....do dogs NEED the fruits and veggies in Innova for example?  That too is arguable.

Interesting point! I incorporate fruits and vegetables into my dog's diet as a way of giving him natural vitamins and minerals, instead of buying capsules or powdered supplements at health or pet food stores.  I am not convinced that he needs them (in that he would die without them) but I do think he benefits from them.

Ouch, Chinook.  Best quality food in the world is not good if the dog cannot process it.  Anyways, I have more trust in a huge company like Purina for quality control then one of the smaller companies.  I have tried better foods and they just made my dog sick.  If he could eat better then Purina one then I would do it but he can't...and there is no point in him being sick.
I am doing the best I can for him right now.  Besides the fact of having to order dog food from a catalog is just a pain.
In the end who is to say what food is better?  What works with one dog does not with all.  It seems that alot of people on here get real touchy on the feeding topic.  If you dont feed Innova or Eagle Pack or whatever the top of the line feed is in that person's opinion is the you are abusive to your dog and a horrible person.  I personally think that that kind of an attitude sucks.  We should be here to share our experiences and learn and be kind to each other and not take each and every person down because they choose to feed Purina if that is what works for their dog.
These dog food debates may as way be lynch mobs. 
Whats next Sandra and me standing on the scaffold waiting for the floor to drop out and swing in the breeze?[&:]

Actually I chose Purina because of watching my dad's bird dogs do so great on it many, many yeas ago.  We had no health problems, they lived long, active lives.
 
I judge my dog's health on their looks, actions, mostly what my vet says about their health and their yearly (bi yearly for my old golden who will be 12 Feb. checkups, lack of illnesses etc.  And an obese dog or child is not healthy regardless of hair, teeth, etc.  It would not just be the obesity, but also the dog would not have the energy nor stamina.
 
And no, my choice of Purina is not due to cost or budget.  I also feed home cooked and i suspect it costs more for me to buy the meats and veggies than if I were buying top of the line dog food.  Sweet potatoes 88c a pound, apples $.1.29-49 a pound, chicken legs, calf liver, ground turky, frozen green beans, canned salmon, etc.   I did try a better food once, only it made my golden throw up every meal, so back to Purina.  I use Purina because it works for my dogs.
 
And no, I do not believe the others posting their talks or e-mails from Eagle Pack, TWO, etc were looking for approval, agreement or debate.  They were posting these things they had learned in answer to other posts.

Let's not forget Loosinsusan.....she (gasp) actually WORKS for Purina......
 
And ya might as well put me up there too.....not that I feed Purina, but seems like every time I post here lately someone wants to hang me too......

LOL, Firestorm.  [sm=rofl.gif]
 
I have become a studier of dog foods d/t I had a dog that was ill.  Seemed like the food change was important.  The more I learned, the more I became more sensative to what ever is going into this food and who grades and monitors what. 
 
It is kind of  an odd thing that they will hook you into buying food, calling it with Tuna, meaning it has only a little tuna in it.  But if it is labelled Tuna with...___. Then it is mostly Tuna.  I put the FDA guidlines on dvet's thread titled lead balloon- It is actually very good.

And ya might as well put me up there too.....not that I feed Purina, but seems like every time I post here lately someone wants to hang me too......

I think that's because you "stick up" for Sandra, Dvet, and so on.  Everyone is capable of fighting their own battles.  Getting involved has its risks, especially if you're not a Mod or Admin.

Back to the topic at hand, I think there are better foods than others, but I am not going to slam someone for feeding Purina, Ol' Roy, Pedigree, or whatever.  That's out of line.  People do what they can for their dogs.  Some have no clue about dog food ingredients, some simply don't have the money, and some don't give a hoot.  We should Sandra and others credit for actually giving a hoot about their dogs' food.  At least they care and want their dogs to be healthy and happy.