Small Breed Dog Food??

**Content removed** rude behavior 

Wow. I have to say, you don't seem so amazingly knowledgeable to me, so for you to come here and tell our regulars, who generally know what they're talking about, to get out of a thread, is so far over the line I can't even stand it.

ORIGINAL: papillon806

I think that many people think that chicken meal is mostly muscle meat and a little bit of bone dehydrated, when in fact it is mostly the bones with fragments of muscle meat on them (like you mentioned). 

That is definitely news to me and it's not good news. [] I think the bulk of my dog's diet should be meat, not bones. [&o]

This is what Natura says about chicken meal:

Chicken meal is the dry rendered (cooked down) product from a combination of clean flesh and skin with or without accompanying bone, derived from the parts of whole carcasses of chicken -- exclusive of feathers, heads, feet, or entrails.

Chicken meal is considered to be the single best source of protein in commercial pet foods. Natura uses high quality, low ash chicken meal extensively. This ingredient is very digestible, very palatable, and very expensive.

I especially found "with or without bone" interesting. I do believe that USUALLY chicken meal is high in bone, but they're saying it's not ALWAYS. I personally don't have big concerns about ash. I always add water to Cherokee's food til it's soupy, whether it's kibble or homeprepared, so she's got the moisture to deal with the ash, and protein for that matter. That said, I don't think meat/poultry meals are ideal, but I think they're the best choice for kibble. I just don't think kibble is ideal. [] And with THAT, I have to say I just put Cherokee back on kibble, so I'm sure not throwing any stones.

ORIGINAL: chelsea_b

This is what Natura says about chicken meal:

Chicken meal is the dry rendered (cooked down) product from a combination of clean flesh and skin with or without accompanying bone, derived from the parts of whole carcasses of chicken -- exclusive of feathers, heads, feet, or entrails.

Chicken meal is considered to be the single best source of protein in commercial pet foods. Natura uses high quality, low ash chicken meal extensively. This ingredient is very digestible, very palatable, and very expensive.

I especially found "with or without bone" interesting. I do believe that USUALLY chicken meal is high in bone, but they're saying it's not ALWAYS. I personally don't have big concerns about ash. I always add water to Cherokee's food til it's soupy, whether it's kibble or homeprepared, so she's got the moisture to deal with the ash, and protein for that matter. That said, I don't think meat/poultry meals are ideal, but I think they're the best choice for kibble. I just don't think kibble is ideal. [] And with THAT, I have to say I just put Cherokee back on kibble, so I'm sure not throwing any stones.

lol I understand...if I had the time to cook for Wolfie I would in a heartbeat! (I don't even have any time to cook for myself) []

Yes, ash shouldn't be much of a concern for the average, healthy dog.   However, it is interesting to see that some companies actually prefer to use by-products because of the information above.  In some cases, by-product meals can contain more nutrients than a plain meat meal, so they can get the same amino acid profiles by using less of the ingredient, and spending less $ (with no intentions of just "going cheap" in regards to ingredients).   This is why some cheap foods can get away with using corn as the main ingredient when it's followed by a by-product or by-product meal.  However, some companies like Eukanuba & IAMS, Purina (the higher lines like Pro-Plan and ONE) who put the by-product meals and whole meat sources at the beginning of the list tend to exceed the amount of amino acids required (which is certainly a good thing).  I do want to add that I am not saying that any of these foods are better or worse than higher quality foods (considering other ingredients, etc), but it does put some different ideas into perspective that you may not have considered before []

For those of you who have stuck to the topic and carried on the conversation, thank you!
 
There's mail from me for those who haven't..enjoy!

ORIGINAL: Luvntzus

ORIGINAL: papillon806

I think that many people think that chicken meal is mostly muscle meat and a little bit of bone dehydrated, when in fact it is mostly the bones with fragments of muscle meat on them (like you mentioned). 

That is definitely news to me and it's not good news. [] I think the bulk of my dog's diet should be meat, not bones. [&o]

I have no idea if the company I found makes quality meals or not. If you call the company that makes your dog food, they should be able to supply you with the exact information I linked to, and possibly tell you the ratio of bone to meat in the meal... It certainly never hurts to ask. The tough questions will give you the true measure of the company.

Its just my opinion that chicken meal can vary in quality just as much as the by-product meal can. Therefore, choose the food by the company and their quality controls, not based on ingredients alone.

ORIGINAL: Lilea

ORIGINAL: belgmal_girl

sorry, I wasn't on this thread for a while!


The Authority mini chunks have different ingredients from the normal, and even tho it doesn't say for small dogs, they recommend it for small to medium dogs.

Are you sure?  Because I looked at that dog food project site and it has them both listed under the same formula.  I'll double check next time I'm at petsmart.

Okay I checked both bags at Petsmart today and they both have the exact same ingredients and nutritional analysis.  The only difference is the size of the kibble.
 
I am definately going to try the royal canin I looked at it today too and it looks good even though it is quite a bit more expensive than Eukanuba.
Eukanuba small breed 6.5 pound bag $9.99
Iams small breed 7 pound bag $9.99
Royal Canin small breed 5 pound bag $13.99 (or maybe $12.99 I cant remember for sure now)

Thanks for the info Misskiwi. I didn't think of e-mailing the company to ask about the meat/bone ratio. Good idea!

Lilea- Good luck with the Royal Canin, although I personally believe that it is overpriced for the ingredients. Same with Eukanuba and Science Diet. Considering the ingredients, there's no reason for the price to be so high other than extra profit for the company.

ORIGINAL: Luvntzus

Thanks for the info Misskiwi. I didn't think of e-mailing the company to ask about the meat/bone ratio. Good idea!

Lilea- Good luck with the Royal Canin, although I personally believe that it is overpriced for the ingredients. Same with Eukanuba and Science Diet. Considering the ingredients, there's no reason for the price to be so high other than extra profit for the company.

I do agree that it is over-priced, but alot of the money is to fund their research facilities.  []

ORIGINAL: papillon806

ORIGINAL: Luvntzus

Thanks for the info Misskiwi. I didn't think of e-mailing the company to ask about the meat/bone ratio. Good idea!

Lilea- Good luck with the Royal Canin, although I personally believe that it is overpriced for the ingredients. Same with Eukanuba and Science Diet. Considering the ingredients, there's no reason for the price to be so high other than extra profit for the company.

I do agree that it is over-priced, but alot of the money is to fund their research facilities.  []

Their quality control is impeccable, the research is invaluable, and they give a lot to the veterinary profession as a whole. Maybe I see that as a bonus since its not coming out of my pocket, but in the end it really does benefit your pets, weather you buy their product or not.

ORIGINAL: papillon806

ORIGINAL: Luvntzus

Thanks for the info Misskiwi. I didn't think of e-mailing the company to ask about the meat/bone ratio. Good idea!

Lilea- Good luck with the Royal Canin, although I personally believe that it is overpriced for the ingredients. Same with Eukanuba and Science Diet. Considering the ingredients, there's no reason for the price to be so high other than extra profit for the company.

I do agree that it is over-priced, but alot of the money is to fund their research facilities.  []

 
 
Not to criticize any specific brand here - but something I've been wondering -
 
Why does there seem to be a direct correlation with the amount of $$ spent on research and the usage of cheap ingredients?

ORIGINAL: jenns

ORIGINAL: papillon806

ORIGINAL: Luvntzus

Thanks for the info Misskiwi. I didn't think of e-mailing the company to ask about the meat/bone ratio. Good idea!

Lilea- Good luck with the Royal Canin, although I personally believe that it is overpriced for the ingredients. Same with Eukanuba and Science Diet. Considering the ingredients, there's no reason for the price to be so high other than extra profit for the company.

I do agree that it is over-priced, but alot of the money is to fund their research facilities.  []

Not to criticize any specific brand here - but something I've been wondering -

Why does there seem to be a direct correlation with the amount of $$ spent on research and the usage of cheap ingredients?

Some of the brands (like Royal Canin) don't use cheap ingredients for the sake of making money...they use the ingredients they do because it is what works to make the food the way they want it (from their research). They analyze higher quality ingredients too (doing brand comparisons against foods like Innova, etc) and see no difference in nutrient analysis in regards to the way they want their food.  So of course the people running the $ aspect of the company don't see a difference in using one expensive ingredient over a cheaper alternative when they both have the same nutrient profile. 

ORIGINAL: jenns

ORIGINAL: papillon806

ORIGINAL: Luvntzus

Thanks for the info Misskiwi. I didn't think of e-mailing the company to ask about the meat/bone ratio. Good idea!

Lilea- Good luck with the Royal Canin, although I personally believe that it is overpriced for the ingredients. Same with Eukanuba and Science Diet. Considering the ingredients, there's no reason for the price to be so high other than extra profit for the company.

I do agree that it is over-priced, but alot of the money is to fund their research facilities.  []

Not to criticize any specific brand here - but something I've been wondering -

Why does there seem to be a direct correlation with the amount of $$ spent on research and the usage of cheap ingredients?

Cheap, like what, corn? The grain that is 91% digestable and has an excellent amino acid profile? Maybe the "un-named" company believes that science and quality control are more important than giving in to consumer fads. In my opinion, nutritionists should have just as much say about what goes into foods as the consumer. Thanks to consumers, the market is flooded with foods full of expensive ingredients that look pretty, but have no information about digestability. You see an ingredient list of a dozen fruits, I see a powder that smells nice, and is probably sprinkled over the mixing vat just to get it onto the ingredient list. Enzymes, what kind of ridiculous nonsense makes people think those help a functioning pancreas work better?  BHA and BHT have been replaced by mediocre antioxidants such as vitamin E. The bag says "a natural source of vitamin E" hoping people will forget that its an anti-oxidant, because for some reason chemicals are scary. Does anybody else care that less than 1/6 of that is actually absorbed by the body, and that just because its "natural" doesn't make it useful? You talk about corn being waste that the dog just poops out, but rave about mixed tocopherols replacing the evil cancer-causing chemicals when they're just waste too. Its all a bit hypocritical if you ask me.

Cheap, like what, corn? The grain that is 91% digestable and has an excellent amino acid profile? Maybe the "un-named" company believes that science and quality control are more important than giving in to consumer fads. In my opinion, nutritionists should have just as much say about what goes into foods as the consumer. Thanks to consumers, the market is flooded with foods full of expensive ingredients that look pretty, but have no information about digestability. You see an ingredient list of a dozen fruits, I see a powder that smells nice, and is probably sprinkled over the mixing vat just to get it onto the ingredient list. Enzymes, what kind of ridiculous nonsense makes people think those help a functioning pancreas work better?  BHA and BHT have been replaced by mediocre antioxidants such as vitamin E. The bag says "a natural source of vitamin E" hoping people will forget that its an anti-oxidant, because for some reason chemicals are scary. Does anybody else care that less than 1/6 of that is actually absorbed by the body, and that just because its "natural" doesn't make it useful? You talk about corn being waste that the dog just poops out, but rave about mixed tocopherols replacing the evil cancer-causing chemicals when they're just waste too. Its all a bit hypocritical if you ask me.

[sm=clapping%20hands%20smiley.gif]

Its all a bit hypocritical if you ask me.

This could be an interesting conversation if you weren't being so patronizing. Yes, we know you're a vet student. Honestly, it's obvious at this point because you have the "I know everything so don't question what I say" typical vet act down perfectly. I'm gonna try to answer your questions anyway, but I'm guessing they were more rhetorical than anything...

Cheap, like what, corn?

Cheap like corn fragments. I don't think many of us actually have a problem with corn itself, it's "corn gluten meal" that we mostly pick on, because the manufacturers that use it seem to only use it to bump up the protein percentage. (I do actually have problems with corn itself, but that's irrelevant, because if I see a food with whole corn, I think "Oh, I'm not feeding that to Cherokee." not "Oh, that's a terrible food.") Brewers rice is another, which isn't always a bad ingredient, but sometimes it is, and it's definitely cheap!

The bag says "a natural source of vitamin E" hoping people will forget that its an anti-oxidant, because for some reason chemicals are scary.

I don't think you'll find anyone here who says antioxidants are bad. That would be utterly ridiculous. It's artificial antioxidants that some of us have a problem with. Man-made chemicals ARE scary. Good gravy, every week we hear about some chemical that causes cancer, or birth defects, or whatever. We're just a little ahead of the game here and can predict what will be on the news in the near-future. []

but rave about mixed tocopherols replacing the evil cancer-causing chemicals when they're just waste too.

No, they preserve the food without causing cancer. I really don't get why this is so difficult to understand. [&:]