Dog Community

Ingredients vs. End result.....

Posted : 4/7/2006 7:09:16 AM

I'm posting these thoughts for (civil) discussion.....I'm interested in how everyone else views this.

There is a veterinary nutritionist on one of my lists and from what I gather, her view (and I'm sure the general view of that area of science) is that the end result of a dog food is the most important thing and commerically prepared diets are very very trustworthly as they are complete, balanced and scientifically proven. We've also shared similar sentiments to others coming around for advice on both lists and forums. If it works for your dogs, if you see good results, then that is all that matters.

In general, those of us that enjoy the research into dog food and have chosen to feed high end products and/or raw diets or homemade, generally abide by the ingredients list as the first and foremost sign of the quality. And it certainly cannot be disputed that the higher the quality of ingredients the less volume we will feed to get the nutritional requirements. I don't think anyone on either side of the argument can argue that point. However that brings up my thoughts on this.

Grocery Chow #1 provides: X protien, X carbs, X fat, etc. - the ingredients being made up of both protien by-products and grain by-products - the feeding guidelines are 6 cups

Organic Chow #2 provides: X protien, X carbs, X fat, etc. - the ingredients being made up of all human grade whole products - the feeding guidelines are 2 cups

Homemade Chow #3 provides: same as above - the ingredients being made up of some human grade whole, some by-products of both meat and veggies (human grade but by-products none the less) - the feeding guidelines are 3 cups

Let's assume at this point that all 3 diets provide the same amount of protien, carbs, fat, vitamins, etc. The most obvious surface benefit to the homemade would be enzymes, but they can be added to the kibble. The argument I think most 'traditionalists' in the dog food industry make is that the end result will always be the same pending the balance is equal in all equations.

We (us enthusiasts) look at it as a common sense idea. If the ingredients are poor, the nutrition gathered is not as available, not as dense, etc. However, I often feel like scientists in this area feel we are really not looking at the obvious conclusion. I also think that companies like Hill's are constantly pumping the notion that they are very thorough in their scientific research of the end result. So although Hill's and Ole'Roy for example share similar ingredients lists, Hill's can boast that the end result of putting those ingredients together are solid, verified, proven, etc.

Part of the reason I'm interested in this is because this nutritionist has said outright that she feeds a food that turns out is corn based. She's also very much against adding things to kibble because it is complete and balanced. She's also, as you can imagine very much against a raw diet of any kind.

I find it interesting that often (because I've seen this before) the science folks do not feed a primarily meat based diet to what we consider carnivores. I really think it has to do with their belief in that end result. It doesn't matter where the X protien comes from as long as at the end it is there and available. They trust the science that provides that end result more than anything else. And why is it that they do not take vitality into account I wonder? Because as we've all witnessed at one time or another, a dog on a better diet typically has more energy, softer coat, etc. and 90% of the time it is a move to a more dense and typically higher quality food.

Thoughts on this? Opinions? (and no I don't think about this stuff often at all....LOL... [

])

papillon806

Posted : 4/7/2006 7:14:21 AM

It doesn't matter where the X protien comes from as long as at the end it is there and available.

That brings me to mention that not all of these sources of nutrients are "readily available" to the dogs...such as corn gluten meal. The amino acids are "there," but they are not utilized by the dog because of the form they are in.

dyan

Posted : 4/7/2006 7:18:24 AM

the end result of a dog food is the most important thing

Personally for me, I think how can the end result NOT be the most important? I am feeding better food because that is what I started with for Bubblegum, if it don't work I will move myself around and try one or the other, and if it ends up Old Roy that works best for her, then that is what she will get. That IS all that is important. I"m not going to make her have problems because I want her to eat a specific food. No different than talking about vaccinations or medicines....if your dog is going to be sick because you are over vaccinating them, then it is not worth it since you don't know that they were ever going to get the disease.

Gail

Posted : 4/7/2006 7:56:29 AM

I, too, believe the end result is what's important, however, not only the day to day end result. Healthy coat, energy, vitality - general overall wellbeing from day to day is an obvious benefit of a balanced diet. However, if that balanced diet contributes to degenerative, chronic or acute diseases that manifest after a few years of a great day to day end result, I don't want that end result. This is why we strive for a balanced, healthy diet comprised of natural and healthy ingredients.

dyan

Posted : 4/7/2006 8:17:43 AM

However, if that balanced diet contributes to degenerative, chronic or acute diseases that manifest after a few years of a great day to day end result, I don't want that end result.

No, of course not, me either. But how will you know that until years later. I think we should START with the good, well balanced food and work from there.   Hoping that we are doing the right thing.
Again, I fed one of my dogs (a pitty) anything I had a coupon for from the grocery store, and she lived to 16 yrs old, healthy the whole way except for hip displasia which she had surgery on when she was about 6 yrs. old, the other dog was a Dane mix, a giant breed and she lived to a healthy 13 except I have to admit we kept her going the last year,,,but she ate BilJac frozen.   They were healthy and lived a long life for their sizes,,,   How could I think I fed them anything wrong by the end of their lives?
Again, I'm sure not advocating the food I fed to them, obviously, I could still do that now with Bubby, but I if your feeding an expensive food and your dog is showing problems, you have to change to what ever makes them better and to me that change could go anywhere as long as they are showing improvent.

probe1957

Posted : 4/7/2006 8:57:27 AM

I would agree that the end result is what we are all after, but I think quality ingredients are important in attaining desirable results. Odie, my sample of one, for example, looks much better, fed a quality food, that he did when we adopted him. The shelter, I believe, fed mainly Science Diet but, I am sure, would feed whatever they had on hand.

Feeding a quality food has worked, for us, but it hasn't been without challenge. Odie has liked Canidae, and has done well on it, from the beginning. He is not terribly fussy, but I have pretty much decided not to buy any more Evo because, although he does well on it too, he really doesn't like it. Timberwolf Organics Southwest Chicken has been in our rotation for some time. He likes it and did well on it. This last time, when I ordered TO, I decided to try the bison forumla. Odie doesn't like it. I have to mix it with Canidae canned just to get him to eat it. And at $54 including shipping, he is damned well going to eat it. [

]

In the end, I do think it is results we are after and that most of us are not just going along with some kind of fad. But, to me, a quality food does appear to be important and is beneficial.

sandra_slayton

Posted : 4/7/2006 9:30:50 AM

I just went and checked my dog food bags--I ssave them, great for putting fish remains in, freeze and put into garbage on pick-up days. Ever smell a garbage can (especially in summer) with 4 day old fish remains that have been in it for 4 days!

Anway, Buck ( 86 pounds) eats the Purina Dog Chow (he got sick when I tried nutro)and it says for dogs 76 to 100 pounds give 3 1/3 to 4 1/4 cups per day. The Fit and Trim for my girls, both 70 pounds, say give 3 1/2 to 4 1/4 cups a day. However, i give them 1 3/4 cups in the morning with canned food meatballs with their suppliments in them. At night they all get another 3/4 cup (making 2 1/2 cups for the day) along with their cooked meat or fish and carrots and green beans.

Each dog gets an EsterC, a multivitamin, and a fish oil each day. I take the same fish oil and EsterC that they do, but I do take a human vitamin. KayCee also gets a SynoviG3 and one MSM/Gluco because of her knee surgeries, and Buck gets two MSM/Gluco because of his arthritis, and also his thyroid pill. At night he also gets anothe MSM/Gluco and another thyroid. Meanwhile, i take the very same MSM/Gluco as KayCee and Buck, and then I take a cranberry cap, a garlique tab and a couple of fiber tabs.

No matter what is printed on any food, dog or human, I just want to make sure we are all getting what we need. Even got my hubby to take all the things I take. It is fact rig drivers have their kidneys beat up. He always was having back pain. I got him to start taking the cranberry caps (which he pooh-poohed at first) and after he had been on them several weeks he said he didn't believe it, but his back was not bothering him as much. and just recently he said his back had not bothered him for a long time. Are the cranberry caps doing it, or one of the other things, or is it in his head. I dont' know but we are sticking to our sups, for us and for the dogs.

What works for each dog is what should be done. If my dogs were not healthy and were pitiful looking, there is no way i would go around saying I used purina. But that isn't the case with my dogs (could it be because goldens are natural garbage cans, LOL). I really suspect there are others on this forum that use Purina or pedigree or whatever and will not post in this topic for fear of being --well, you know. But truth is truth, my dogs are on it, their blood work is always perfect, they have beautiful coats, they re full of energy, and my vet says they are all in great condition and that is all i need to know. And to be perfectly honest, I am quite sure the fish and cooked meats, veggies and supplements is helpful in keeping them as healthy as they are.

Firestorm

Posted : 4/7/2006 9:42:04 AM

Simply put garbage in garbage out. Good in good on the outside.

glenmar

Posted : 4/7/2006 9:50:41 AM

Gosh, that's rather rude. Especially when someone has JUST posted about what THEY feed. It works for HER dogs. She isn't trying to force feed it to yours.

Perhaps that "garbage in, garbage out" extends to some folks brains and mouths as well.

starsenchis

Posted : 4/7/2006 11:10:58 AM

The way you get to that end result is very important to me.

You can train a dog by beating it or by clicker training. The end result will be a dog that follows commands!

I can't live with myself if I support companies that are getting rich by their slick marketing tactics while carnivorous animals subsist on corn.

Also, a lot of people/ vets don't associate many health conditions with diet that are in fact, linked closely to diet. They just figure if the dog is alive, looks pretty good and isn't vomiting that it's "doing great".

mudpuppy

Posted : 4/7/2006 11:24:33 AM

I strongly disagree with the notion that commerical diets have been "scientifically proven". The feeding trials used to "prove" these diets are "nutritionally complete" are a joke. If you look at the studies conducted by most dog food companies, you see disturbing trends: can cheaper protein sources substitute for meat? is the poop of a nice consistency so the owner doesn't get upset? will dogs gobble it up? No concern at all about long-term optimal health or prevention of diseases common to dogs.

mudpuppy

Posted : 4/7/2006 11:30:53 AM

also, sadly, I disgree with the notion that a dog owner is capable of assessing whether a food is "working" for their dog. Unless the dog is obviously ill, any food will appear to work. When the dog develops cancer at age 11, or kidney disease, again, you have no idea if your chosen diet delayed the disease onset, caused the disease, or was irrelevant. You don't know. Only properly conducted scientific studies can demonstrate optimal or inadequate diets. I read a lot of scientific studies, and I am forced to conclude most if not all commercial kibbles are not able to support a dog in optimal health, if fed as the only source of nutrition.

Jennifer

Posted : 4/7/2006 11:44:17 AM

Also, a lot of people/ vets don't associate many health conditions with diet that are in fact, linked closely to diet. They just figure if the dog is alive, looks pretty good and isn't vomiting that it's "doing great".

I agree.....and honestly isn't this astounding???...I mean seriously I am blown away sometimes by the views on nutrition by both human doctors and veterinarians. The only thing I can think of is that diet is not ever completely 100% static and the science of testing anything is that all variables are completely controlled. Therefore they discount it and would rather focus on the genetics side of things?!

Jennifer

Posted : 4/7/2006 12:09:56 PM

ORIGINAL: mudpuppy
Only properly conducted scientific studies can demonstrate optimal or inadequate diets. I read a lot of scientific studies, and I am forced to conclude most if not all commercial kibbles are not able to support a dog in optimal health, if fed as the only source of nutrition.

See with this, I'm going to play devil's advocate (even though I agree with you). These people that are involved with the testing, truly believe the product is in fact perfect by the end. That in their mind is the whole point to the testing. Since even they know going in, that nothing is guaranteed, their position is that the testing is possibly long term (probable with certain companies for sure), and very detailed. At the end they can say with certainty that this food has X amount of ingredient A and ingredient A is needed because of this reason. In their mind, it's proven and there is no disputing that.

We assume they are not out for profit and/or the demise of our animals (or at least let's not assume they all are at least for the sake of the discussion). And in this case I'm talking about someone who is not just a vet, but employed at one of the top vet schools specifically in small animal nutrition. Now I suppose some studies could be financially supported by companies....but again, why would a scientist not take that into consideration? Isn't the whole point to be unbiased when doing any scientific study?

I'm just trying to apply, what I assume by the interaction I've had, the logic on the other side of the coin just for the sake of discussion !

jennie_c_d

Posted : 4/7/2006 1:56:31 PM

I think it is very important what the results are, which is the reason I've fiddled with and switched around my dogs' diets on multiple occasions. I want to see dogs in PERFECT health. I want their teeth to be sparkling white, their breath to be inoffensive, their skin not itchy or flaky, and their coats to be thick and shiny. I want them to have good energy, not the crazy, hyperactive energy that they have when they're fed a grain based diet. I want them to be able to go out and run a couple of miles, or sit on the couch and snuggle. I also want to see them in excellent body condition, meaning that they will have very little fat, and cut muscles.

I think I've finally found the diets that work best for them. They're different for the two dogs. They receive different meals, and different supplements. Not everybody's willing to prepare a totally different meal for one dog than the other. I've had people tell me what a trial it was to scoop seperate kibbles into bowls! I don't mind preparing each dog's meal, seperately. I don't mind throwing supplements into bowls. It takes me all of an hour or two each weekend, and less than 15 minutes a day for their twice a day feedings (I sit and watch them eat).

Yeah, the end result is super important to me. If I fed Innova, at least one of my dogs would become violently ill. Same with EVERY kibble on the market, except for Natural Balance Sweet Potato and Fish, or Potato and Duck. The same dog has problems breaking kibble down, and was eating ridiculous amounts of the very expensive kibble, so I started making her dinner. That eventually evolved into them both getting a handful of kibble for training treats, twice a month at the most. One eats some raw meals and some homecooked. The other gets just homecooked. They both get recreational bones and occasional bully sticks. I've gotten everything I wanted.

I really don't think the general public knows what to look for in the end results. I don't think most vets really know what a super healthy dog should look like, either. The vets are shocked at the condition of my dogs. They don't understand how I've kept Emma alive, kept her coat attached to her body, and managed to keep her in good muscle mass (she has a nerve problem and had lost a lot of muscle at one point). They don't understand how my nine year old Dachshund, Teenie, went from a bog, fat, dragging on the ground blob of fat to a lean, muscular, energetic, sparkling coated dog with no prescription diet and no help from them. They're used to looking at sickly, overweight, under exersized dogs. I refuse to accept that for my dogs, or myself. I'm getting funnier and funnier about MY diet, too. There's just no reason to accept illness and disease, because it's "normal".