Who regulates TO??

  I sent an e-mail to Mr. Brinkmann this evening and will let you know what the response is, although I see no reason to doubt the other letter; if Diamond made T.O. wouldn't they want to promote the product? More sales for T.O. means more production of the food for Diamond. The Diamond website was down when I went there this evening; I'll check it tomorrow and contact their customer service and ask about T.O.
    As far as feeding trials are concerned, besides the statement I quoted from my bag of T.O. Ocean Blue, if you go to the products and ordering page on their site;
        [linkg=ste_oform]http://www.timberwolforganics.com/cgi-bin/cp-app.cgi?&g=ste_oform[/link]#>http://www.timberwolforganics.com/cgi-bin/cp-app.cgi?&g=ste_oform]http://www.timberwolforganics.com/cgi-bin/cp-app.cgi?&g=ste_oform[/link]#
 
   and click a product such as the "nutrient dense lamb, barley, and apple", the same statement will be in the description of the product.


 

   

The AAFCO has 2 labeling standards that companies can use on their product:
Chemical analysis  which proves the food meets nutritional profile and feeding trials that show dogs eating the food are having their needs met.
Companies can't use these statements UNLESS they have used either one of these methods.
"Timberwolf Organics#%92s pet foods are both formulated to meet AAFCO nutrient profiles for all life stages and have met animal feeding tests using AAFCO procedures to substantiate that they provide complete and balanced nutrition for all life stages."
It clearly states that TO uses BOTH tests. So if they don't use these test (since they say they do), they are not only breaking the law, but they are also LIARS. Well, maybe that's a little harsh, but the companies integrity would really be put on the chopping block if they are advertising things that are NOT true!
According to the AAFCO, a company can use the "feeding trials....." statement only IF feeding trials were conducted on at least one of the formulations with in a formula family. So when reading the wording, it could be that they (TWO) did feeding trials on at least one formulation (or they didn't and are just using the statement falsely). Here again, they are using "wording" to give the impression that the food is something it may or may not be.
 
 
Yeah, I know I'd want to buy from such a company, lol.

According to the TO website, I couldn't find a direct statement that the food met AAFCO guidelines. Some people here (not me) have no desire to follow AAFCO guidelines and don't care if the food meets the the mins or not, as long as its got the right name, politics, or an ingedient list that looks good from a human perspective. Some people, not all.
 
On the Natura site for Innova, I can't find an AAFCO statement anywhere in the product description, though you will find nods to AAFCO in other pages.
 
OTOH, my lowly, mid-grade, grainy Nutro has the AAFCO feeding trial statement in the bag and in the product description on the website.
 
 As some people will put it, that just means that 6 out of 8 dogs didn't die while eating it for a certain amount of time. Such a statement is merely hyperbole to support a particular viewpoint so that they can continue to call any food that meets the mins crap. Semantical positioning, almost a sophistry. Technically, true, but the dogs are clinically watched to make sure their nutrient profiles are kept up. That is, they don't just rely on shiny coat and boundless energy. And of course, palatability. It doesn't matter if the formula fits your vision of dogdom or not, if the dog won't eat it, the dog won't get any benefit from it.
 
I'm not saying that Nutro is better than TO but it is labeled more clearly.

  Ron, I look for the statement that the food meets AAFCO guidelines and I think it's important. I probably wouldn't buy a food that doesn't say it meets the guidelines. However, the guidelines are controversial since they are minimum standards and companies can say they meet those guidelines and be making a food that is barely adequate to meet the nutritional needs of dogs. The company that makes the food I use for Jessie, Eagle Pack, said as much in an interview with Linda Arndt. Their products exceed the guidelines as do many good dog foods on the market.

According to the AAFCO, a company can use the "feeding trials....." statement only IF feeding trials were conducted on at least one of the formulations with in a formula family. So when reading the wording, it could be that they (TWO) did feeding trials on at least one formulation (or they didn't and are just using the statement falsely). Here again, they are using "wording" to give the impression that the food is something it may or may not be.

 
  As far as feeding trials go, some companies conduct them in a more humane manner that others. Innova says the animals are very well taken care of and adopted after the feeding trials. Chicken Soup said on their site that the dogs used for their feeding trials were allowed outside daily for exercise and adopted after completing the feeding trials; the problem is most companies don't disclose information about how the animals are treated and what happns to them afterward.

I, too, go by the AAFCO statement and prefer the "feeding trial" statement. When I have mentioned this before, someone would pipe up with "Well, that just means that 6 out of 8 dogs didn't die while eating this food for a certain time." It was to discredit my statement about it and value in the AAFCO guidelines and to support their position that my dog food is crap and their way is better.
 
Nutro L B Lamb & Rice is min 24 percent protein. According to the AAFCO guidelines, Large Breed maintenance is 18 percent. So, Nutro's protein minimum is exceeding the AAFCO minimum. And that minimum is just that. It cannot by law have less than 24 percent protein since it claims a minimum of 24. The more successful companies may actually have a little more, to ensure the level claimed and to guard against protein deterioration, if any, in shippiing and shelf time. Some companies may only provide the mimimum of 18 perecent and, by law, they can provide no less, since they claim at least 18 percent. Many foods provide more.

I'm glad you looked. The one and only bag I had didn't get finished and I donated the rest to the local animal shelter and I couldn't recall if a statement was on there. Though, I could have always looked the next time I visit Canine Commissary.
 

   I look at the AAFCO statement as an insurance policy that the food meets minimal standards at least and I think any responsible company will have that statement on the bag. It used to worry me if a company didn't do the feeding trials but after I learned what the standards for the feeding trials were it didn't seem like they were adequate so it's not important to me now. The idea of dogs being kept in cages or kennel like conditions for several weeks without regular exercise and affection seems inhumane.
  

ORIGINAL: jessies_mom

   The idea of dogs being kept in cages or kennel like conditions for several weeks without regular exercise and affection seems inhumane.
 

You are right on about that thought! [linkhttp://www.iamscruelty.com/]http://www.iamscruelty.com/[/link]

It clearly states that TO uses BOTH tests

 
It does NOT clearly state that TO uses both tests.  You really need to learn to read better. It says their food is FORMULATED to meet AAFCO the nutrient profiles.  All that means is that they know what AAFCO requires and they used that criteria in creating their recipes.    " have met animal feeding tests " does in NO way say that they are doing any animal feeding tests.  They have done the CHEMICAL ANALYSIS that meets already established feeding tests.
 
Get off it already.  You're just completely wrong and I don't understand what your problem is. You have a real problem with reading things out of context.

It does NOT clearly state that TO uses both tests. You really need to learn to read better. It says their food is FORMULATED to meet AAFCO the nutrient profiles. All that means is that they know what AAFCO requires and they used that criteria in creating their recipes. " have met animal feeding tests " does in NO way say that they are doing any animal feeding tests. They have done the CHEMICAL ANALYSIS that meets already established feeding tests.

 
OK, so let's assume I'm wrong, lol. It's not if they are doing feeding trials or not. Explain WHY they  are using these misleading statements (especially the feeding test statement) to make it APPEAR they are using feeding trials. The WORDING TO is using IS misleading and deceptive. How in the world can you use someone else's (another dog food companys) feeding trials to prove your (TWO) dog food is good for dogs?
Now, just to set the record straight, I like TO foods from what I have seen (haven't fed it yet).
 MY PROBLEM, lol, is with deceptive advertising, poor customer service, and the apparent lack of quality control. ersonally, I won't do business with ANY company that treats consumers in this way regardless of how good their products are.

And many food companies that do feeding trials are not evil abodes of abuse. The dogs are fed the food as they would be fed by an owner, and the blood profiles and general health are monitored throughout.
 
I realize that this may still count as abuse to PETA. I do recall the idea the PETA thinks all pets should be released to fend for themselves. I know, from near personal experience that a JRT is not going to hold up against a coyote. I know that mini-pins are going to have a logistical problem bringing down an elk. And a wolf can swallow a shih-tzu whole. But there has to be a balance. And I don't think modern feeding trials are the same as testing during the 70's.
 
For people such as myself, the feeding trials are a better guage of boiavailability than just the party line of whatever company that thinks its food will do well based on just calculations.
 
 

Who's doing that? If you're talking about Iams, Mic Foster has already stated to the contrary and he bases this on living nearly across the street from Iams research and knows several people that work there.
 
Again, though, I agree that the AAFCO statement is a guarantee of minimums when finding a food that meets your pet's needs.
 

  This is the answer I received from Mark Brinkmann about Diamond making Timberwolf products, it's the same as the message that sooner posted in another thread except for the last sentence;
         
I understand you had a question about whether or not Timberwolf products are manufactured by Diamond.
 As the Chief Operations Officer of the Diamond Pet Food Company, I assure you that we do make these foods, and that they are doing quite well. March was Timberwolf's biggest month in history and their business has grown over 400% in one year. The company's products are gaining popularity.
 Kind Regards,
Mark

Mark Brinkmann
Chief Operations Officer
Diamond Pet Food Company
573-229-4203 ext. 1136
573-229-4655 fax      Here is his response to my question concerning Timberwolf products being produced in an APHIS plant; 
 APHIS stands for Animal Plant Health Inspection Service.  It is a division of the US Dept of Agriculture.  APHIS is responsible to make sure that our plant conforms to the health standards required by the countries we export to all around the world. So, yes, our plant is APHIS inspected and approved. Mark Brinkmann    So it appears that Diamond has an APHIS plant and makes the Timberwolf products there. I did send an e-mail through the "contact us" link on the Diamond site asking if Diamond made products for Timberwolf Organics and was told I would have to contact Timberwolf for that information.        

Who's doing that

 
  Well, how else do you suppose a large company would do feeding trials? Dogs are kept in large cages or kennels for brief periods of time when they are at the vet, the shelter, or boarded, but I know I wouldn't want Jessie to be kept like that for several weeks. It may seem like a stretch to call it inhumane since they aren't being abused in the strict sense of the word but they must get frustrated and bored being kept that way.