New High Protein Kibbles; Good for Your Dog?

It's the undigestable fiber that dogs can digest, not the other nutrients in it.
?

Ooops, that should have read CAN'T. My bad []

  True but the point I was trying to make (admittedly not too clearly) is that the roportion of grain in most kibbles far exceeds  what wild canines would consume from the digestive tracts of their prey or from other sources. 

While there may be some truth to that statement, our dogs are not wild canines. If they were left to hunt on their own, they would probably NOT get the amount of grains (and other carbs) in their diet as kibble fed dogs, BUT they would also not live as long in the wild. Dogs these days are living longer than ever due to science and technology. Companies that are formulating diets that are providing all the nutrition most dogs need. Granted, some dogs need a special diet, but for the most part, dogs are living longer because of proper nutrition and vet care.

Using the bear as an example of an OMNIVORE that is listed (taxonomically) in the order of carnivora, like dogs.

This was my main point. Sure diet will vary by species, but that doesn't change the fact that bears AND dogs are omnivorous creatures.

Has Abady ever had a Lab. Retriever? They are chow hounds, many of them.

kennel_keeper:

Just to clear something up...

The crude protein % on a dog food label has nothing to do with the amount of Nitrogen multiplied by any factor...."crude" means the amount of protein period in the food (vegetable and animal proteins).  Yes, that does have to do with Nitrogen in the food, but that is not how it is calculated.  The problem with crude protein is that it does not tell you how much of that protein can be digested, and how much is tied up in unavailable forms...

ORIGINAL: kennel_keeper

If they were left to hunt on their own, they would probably NOT get the amount of grains (and other carbs) in their diet as kibble fed dogs, BUT they would also not live as long in the wild. Dogs these days are living longer than ever due to science and technology. Companies that are formulating diets that are providing all the nutrition most dogs need. Granted, some dogs need a special diet, but for the most part, dogs are living longer because of proper nutrition and vet care. 

Dogs do indeed live longer than their wild ancestors, but that is not due to science and technology.  Wild canids live very hard lives.  They are ridden with parasites, and often sustain fatal injuries just hunting for food. There are periods of food and water scarcity in which death due to starvation or dehydration may occur.  The daily struggle to survive puts a toll on their health and well being, and their bodies give out. 
 
Our domestic companions live safe, comfy lives in comparison! 

Even cooking it does not necessarily make it as digestible as that which would be partially digested in a prey animal

 
Rice in the cooked dog food is 90 % digestible, considerably more digestible than partially digested grains in the entrails of a kill. That is because the grain, such as rice, has been ground, as are all the ingredients, to a fine particle prior to the extrusion process. The tubes through which the food is extruded are heated enough to also provide the cooking of the food. All grains, including rice, contain protein, fiber, carbs, and minerals.
 
No matter what brand you buy, the GA will list the crude protein but does not differentiate between animal and plant protein. So, even a 30 % bag may not be 30 % animal protein. As of this date, food companies are not required to differentiate.

I think what Kennelkeeper was trying to say was that you can roughly find the amount of animal protein by using the nitrogen multiplier.
 

Rice in the cooked dog food is 90 % digestible, considerably more digestible than partially digested grains in the entrails of a kill.

ORIGINAL: ron2

The only rice based food I've tried with my dog (California Natural) gave very undesirable results.  I cannot say for sure it was not one of the other ingredients, though there aren't many, but both their chicken and their lamb kibbles gave me very lousy output so I've concluded that my dog does not digest rice well.  She would not be in that 90% digestible group.

ORIGINAL: papillon806

kennel_keeper:

Just to clear something up...

The crude protein % on a dog food label has nothing to do with the amount of Nitrogen multiplied by any factor...."crude" means the amount of protein period in the food (vegetable and animal proteins).  Yes, that does have to do with Nitrogen in the food, but that is not how it is calculated.  The problem with crude protein is that it does not tell you how much of that protein can be digested, and how much is tied up in unavailable forms...

 
Just to clarify....
 
According to my animal nutrition textbook "Applied Animal Nutrition" by Peter Cheek,
"Crude Protein is defined as the nitrogen content of the feed multiplied by a factor of 6.25. This factor is derived from the generalization that most proteins contain 16% nitrogen. Nitrogen is measured by the Kjeldahl procedure, which is named after the Danish chemist who developed it. ... It is important to recognize that the crude protein procedure measure nitrogen. THus, it does not distinguish between high quality and poor quality protein, or protein and nonprotein nitrogen."
 
Just wanted to clear that up []

Dogs do indeed live longer than their wild ancestors, but that is not due to science and technology. Wild canids live very hard lives. They are ridden with parasites, and often sustain fatal injuries just hunting for food. There are periods of food and water scarcity in which death due to starvation or dehydration may occur. The daily struggle to survive puts a toll on their health and well being, and their bodies give out.

Our domestic companions live safe, comfy lives in comparison!

 
"ridden with parasites" - Science has developed drugs to eliminate these. 
"often sustain fatal injuries" - Science has also made treating injuries possible.
"periods of food and water scarcity " - science and technology have eliminated the need for dogs to starve and dehydrate.
"daily struggle to survive" - Technology makes a nice comfy home possible.
 
And your point was?

ORIGINAL: kennel_keeper

Dogs do indeed live longer than their wild ancestors, but that is not due to science and technology. Wild canids live very hard lives. They are ridden with parasites, and often sustain fatal injuries just hunting for food. There are periods of food and water scarcity in which death due to starvation or dehydration may occur. The daily struggle to survive puts a toll on their health and well being, and their bodies give out.

Our domestic companions live safe, comfy lives in comparison!

"ridden with parasites" - Science has developed drugs to eliminate these. 
"often sustain fatal injuries" - Science has also made treating injuries possible.
"periods of food and water scarcity " - science and technology have eliminated the need for dogs to starve and dehydrate.
"daily struggle to survive" - Technology makes a nice comfy home possible.

And your point was?

 
My point was.....that we humans care for and provide necessities for our pets so they do not have to struggle every day for their survival.  I was referring to a wild vs. sendentary, domestic lifestyle. 

ORIGINAL: kennel_keeper

ORIGINAL: papillon806

kennel_keeper:

Just to clear something up...

The crude protein % on a dog food label has nothing to do with the amount of Nitrogen multiplied by any factor...."crude" means the amount of protein period in the food (vegetable and animal proteins).  Yes, that does have to do with Nitrogen in the food, but that is not how it is calculated.  The problem with crude protein is that it does not tell you how much of that protein can be digested, and how much is tied up in unavailable forms...

Just to clarify....

According to my animal nutrition textbook "Applied Animal Nutrition" by Peter Cheek,
"Crude Protein is defined as the nitrogen content of the feed multiplied by a factor of 6.25. This factor is derived from the generalization that most proteins contain 16% nitrogen. Nitrogen is measured by the Kjeldahl procedure, which is named after the Danish chemist who developed it. ... It is important to recognize that the crude protein procedure measure nitrogen. THus, it does not distinguish between high quality and poor quality protein, or protein and nonprotein nitrogen."

Just wanted to clear that up []

What you just stated (from your textbook) was how you find specific crude protein amounts using the Kjeldahl procedure for a general feed mix sample (such as timothy hay + corn meal, etc)....generalizations (like 16% nitrogen in most proteins) is usually from plant proteins like hays and grain products (when feeding market animals) or mixes that may contain fish meal as an animal protein source (when things like meat meal can't be used for cattle because of BSE, etc).  When you are analyzing (Kjeldahl or not) for a specific meat meal like chicken meal, etc, the amount of nitrogen isn't generalized (because it is already known depending on the species of meat meal...kind of like how different meats have different digestibilities) so there is no need to multiply by 6.25...

From yet another one of my reference books on canine nutrition:
 
"They use the terms "crude" because laboratory tests rarely measure actual nutrients. The "crude" protein is approximated by measureing the amount to nitrogen in the ration"
 
When analyzing individual ingredients (ie: chicken meal), sure, the nitrogen content has already been determined (is known), but once you start mixing things up (adding alot of different ingredients), the total nitrogen may not be known. As far as the "factor" (6.25) that may or may not apply in every case.

ORIGINAL: jojo the pogo

I've always questioned high protien/no grain foods.  I would not feed my dog a high protien/no grain diet, until someone with a degree in veterinary nutrition can prove to me that such an extreme diet is good for my dog for long periods of time.

 
How did those poor doggies get along for so long before the vets came around?
 

Yes I know that dog's do not eat grain in the wild, but the rabbit and rats he would eat do and it is proven that the first thing a dog rips into once it's made a kill is the guts, where all the grains that that critter ate are undigested.

 
You think they#%92re ripping into the underbelly first because it is easy to get to meat or you think the main attraction here is the possible grain matter contained within?  I have heard mention of studies done indicating wolves vigorously shake the stomach in their mouths to remove stomach contents.

And, to a reasonable point, I do believe that dogs have been living along side humans long enough that their bodies have evolved to better digest grains, not better than meat, but better than a wolf can digest grains.

Don't misunderstand me.  I do believe that dogs should eat more meat than grains.  But I'm one of those people that do not believe that dogs are true carnivors.  They are omnivors that need more meat than grains in their diet.

 
Do you know of any listed minimum daily requirements of carbs for dogs…anywhere?  Is it maybe listed somewhere on the side panels of dog food?

ORIGINAL: kennel_keeper

 If they were left to hunt on their own, they would probably NOT get the amount of grains (and other carbs) in their diet as kibble fed dogs, BUT they would also not live as long in the wild.

 
I pose to you the same question for JoJo.  Where is the minimum daily requirement for Carbs listed?  I can't find it anywhere?
 

 Dogs these days are living longer than ever due to science and technology. Companies that are formulating diets that are providing all the nutrition most dogs need. 

 
Very true!
 
 

Using the bear as an example of an OMNIVORE that is listed (taxonomically) in the order of carnivora, like dogs. This was my main point. Sure diet will vary by species, but that doesn't change the fact that bears AND dogs are omnivorous creatures.

 
I like berries, apples, some herbs, etc., could I be considered a ruminant type creature?
 

ORIGINAL: cyclefiend2000

the dogs in this study must be a lot different than most of the dogs people i know have as pets. the dogs i know (mine included) will gorge themselves on food if given the opportunity. there have been several people posting on this forum who have commented that their dog got into their bag of kibble and gorged themselves.

 
I think the principles apply to all dogs, including those chow hound labs.  My 12 Yorkie does fine on the same feed as my Setter.
 
This is what my dogs hunting schedule looks like. Small game season goes from 3rd Sat in Oct to second Sat in Jan.  That would equal 13 Saturdays in a row out hunting.  Through in a one week November vacation (next week...yea) so tack on another 4 days out of that week in the field.  Up to 17 so far...Now figure say at least 3 days hunting in areas known as "Preserves" (300 acres+) which have extended seasons, their season ends sometime in March.  Ok, so figure if I'm lucky, each hunting season I make about 20 trips in the field with my dog to hunt birds.  What's the rest of the year like...couch potato.  Now, that is an extremely light schedule for an working birddog.  I do the best I can as time allows.
 
Overriding point here folks is both my dogs, the Field Setter and Yorkie consume the same food (almost 800 Cals per cup),
and despite some periods of increase work, my dog will regulate her own intake!  I noticed she will eat slightly more during the periods of work, but not much.  If she eats a cup per day, then maybe she consumes 1.3 cups on days after working.  The increase is not much at all.  When I notice the bowl is empty I replenish and they consume their food at their leisure, whenever they desire.
 
I know it may be hard to believe dogs only consume what is needed accordingly to their caloric intake needs and they do not get fat from an over-ingestion of caloires...but yet I witness it everyday...it's hard to explain.
 
Anyway, I think they same would hold true for high protein kibbles assuming they are structured properly, they include by-products to ensure animal source protein is adequate and it is low carb/fiber.  It has to hold true, it is logical. If I fed my Yorkie 1 cup per day of Kibbles and Bits, I would only need 1/5 a cup or less of sleddog feed per day.  The better it is, the less they need, it does not mean automatic weight gain IMO.