Dog Community

Posted : 3/19/2007 8:44:05 PM

ORIGINAL: mudpuppy

the experience of dog owners is that you DO feed much less of foods with fewer fillers.
Those feeding instructions and calorie counts are highly inaccurate. They determine calorie content of food by burning it in the lab-- it doesn't take into account how much of the food the dog can actually digest. So you feed the dog 500 calories of poorly digested corn. He's not getting 500 calories. All that fiber and grain just makes the dog gassy and produce huge poops.
I haven't a clue how they generate those feeding instructions. Fantasy land maybe?

By burning it in the lab? Wherever did you hear that??

There are many many studies showing the digestability of different ingredients (chicken meal vs. beef meal etc) using dogs that have had their ileums surgically altered. Good ingredients and foods will have at least 80-85% digestability after extrusion. If you don't know, call the company and ask...

Xerxes

Posted : 3/19/2007 8:59:49 PM

Sooner, while those numbers are probably true, your post is a great example of how anyone can use any statistics to prove whatever they want.

Kcal figures can be modified by adding fat-the most kcal dense nutrient, or by adding sugars-yet another kcal dense ingredient.

How many of those kcals are available and easily unlockable by normal digestion?

It also leads to the question: Are kcals alone the main reason you feed your dog? If that was true, I'd buy lard and feed it to my dogs. (It's not and I won't.)

Nutrition is at best a delicate balance of kcals, nutrients, vitamins and minerals. At worst a count of only one or two of those necessities.

Think of it this way: I could eat a bunch of broccoli and probably not recieve the kcals I would if I were to eat a stick of butter. Which is better for me?

brookcove

Posted : 3/19/2007 9:28:49 PM

You actually need the broccoli with just a smidge of the butter (real butter). Plus some cheese would make it almost 100% complete. Sorry Ed, I couldn't resist. [

]

My normal dogs would eat nearly half what the recommended feeding requirements are, for almost all premium foods. But not foods with higher grain contents. They do seem to get more from the meat than from grain and fractions. Just anecdotal observation.

sooner

Posted : 3/19/2007 9:45:38 PM

Xerxes, I started to post feeding requirements rather than kcals, but the companies don't all use the same weights or weight ranges and activity levels in their requirement charts, so it's hard to compare, but they prove the same point. Kcals are easily available and easy to compare, and in fact most people here reference kcals when talking about foods. My only point was that it's often said that people will feed less of the more expensive foods, and that may not always be true.

Those kcal figures are all posted by the manufacturers, and they're all standardized by labeling requirements. Kcal = Metabolizable Energy whether it's Dog Chow or Innova.

My dogs would be balloons if I fed the recommended amount - but some companies will tell you not to feed less than a certain percentage of the recommended requirement, because they offer complete & balanced nutrition in that serving amount for that weight.

jennie_c_d

Posted : 3/19/2007 9:50:18 PM

Emma would starve to death, on the reccomended amount. I think that has more to do with her digestive abilities, than her activity level. She's very active for a pet, but she is just a pet. She isn't out there fighting bad guys and leading the blind.

Ed, I saw a bucket of lard at the local supermarket, and took a moment to pause[

] I almost considered it, but it had some BHA in it.

sandra_slayton

Posted : 3/19/2007 10:36:43 PM

Ed, I saw a bucket of lard at the local supermarket, and took a moment to pause I almost considered it, but it had some BHA in it.

When i was a kid my mom did use lard, Mrs. Tucker's to be exact. it came in a wax coated cardboard box type carton. I am not sure when Criso Shortening came along, may have even been around then, but mom was sure happy to get away from the lard.

JoAnnDe

Posted : 3/20/2007 10:32:17 AM

This thread had me thinking - if the recommended feeding amounts are based upon the amt of nutrients needed for a dog of a particular size (ie: most of my canned foods says *feed 1 can per 15 lbs of weight*) but in Kcals she only needs 1/2 of that amt, is it likely that she's going to miss the added vitamins / minerals she needs ?

I've read over and over that a vit / mineral supplement is NOT recommended when feeding a balanced food, but now I'm wondering ....

papillon806

Posted : 3/20/2007 11:18:42 AM

They determine calorie content of food by burning it in the lab

?

You must be confusing that with how they determine ash content....

mudpuppy

Posted : 3/20/2007 12:32:50 PM

nope. That's how they determine calorie content- burn it and see how much heat is released. [linkhttp://www.sciencebyjones.com/energy_content_of_food.htm]http://www.sciencebyjones.com/energy_content_of_food.htm[/link]
Then they do mysterious calculations to try to "adjust" it for the digestibility of the food.

Santino Rizzo

Posted : 3/20/2007 2:58:53 PM

ORIGINAL: mudpuppy

nope. That's how they determine calorie content- burn it and see how much heat is released. [linkhttp://www.sciencebyjones.com/energy_content_of_food.htm]http://www.sciencebyjones.com/energy_content_of_food.htm[/link]
Then they do mysterious calculations to try to "adjust" it for the digestibility of the food.

While that is technically how a calorie is measured, I'm pretty sure Kcal are determined by breaking the food down into grams of protein, carbs, fat, fiber, ash, and water. Each of those has (or lacks) a calorie value. Now whether they are using the digestable amounts of each component (though undigested carbs are usually considered "fiber"), I don't know.

Misskiwi67

Posted : 3/20/2007 3:24:59 PM

ORIGINAL: mudpuppy

nope. That's how they determine calorie content- burn it and see how much heat is released. [linkhttp://www.sciencebyjones.com/energy_content_of_food.htm]http://www.sciencebyjones.com/energy_content_of_food.htm[/link]
Then they do mysterious calculations to try to "adjust" it for the digestibility of the food.

That looks like an experimental plan layout like the one I used in biochemistry to learn about energy. Its a basic experiment, and actually lacks quality control in many forms. It does NOT mean that companies use these as appropriate measures of Kcals in food. Science has come a long way beyond burning pieces of popcorn under a coke can with a thermometer in it.

papillon806

Posted : 3/20/2007 4:47:15 PM

ORIGINAL: Misskiwi67

ORIGINAL: mudpuppy

nope. That's how they determine calorie content- burn it and see how much heat is released. [linkhttp://www.sciencebyjones.com/energy_content_of_food.htm]http://www.sciencebyjones.com/energy_content_of_food.htm[/link]
Then they do mysterious calculations to try to "adjust" it for the digestibility of the food.

That looks like an experimental plan layout like the one I used in biochemistry to learn about energy. Its a basic experiment, and actually lacks quality control in many forms. It does NOT mean that companies use these as appropriate measures of Kcals in food. Science has come a long way beyond burning pieces of popcorn under a coke can with a thermometer in it.

lol, my thoughts exactly. I have never used that method for caloric determination.

Xerxes

Posted : 3/20/2007 4:53:08 PM

ORIGINAL: sooner

Xerxes, I started to post feeding requirements rather than kcals, but the companies don't all use the same weights or weight ranges and activity levels in their requirement charts, so it's hard to compare, but they prove the same point. Kcals are easily available and easy to compare, and in fact most people here reference kcals when talking about foods. My only point was that it's often said that people will feed less of the more expensive foods, and that may not always be true.

Those kcal figures are all posted by the manufacturers, and they're all standardized by labeling requirements. Kcal = Metabolizable Energy whether it's Dog Chow or Innova.

My dogs would be balloons if I fed the recommended amount - but some companies will tell you not to feed less than a certain percentage of the recommended requirement, because they offer complete & balanced nutrition in that serving amount for that weight.

I understand totally. My dogs, though, are at the opposite end of the spectrum. During the active months (any consistent temperature over 55-60*F) my dogs need to eat way more than the recommended amounts for weight because of their activity level and their basal metabolic rate. I know dogs twice their size that would balloon were they to eat what my two can and do eat regularly.

Amy

Posted : 3/20/2007 5:15:06 PM

Maybe it's not so much as "feed less" but that the price difference isn't as great as it appears at first glance. The result is that it doesn't have to cost much more at all to feed a better food when you look at it as cost/day instead of just looking at the sticker price.

For example (to feed 1200 calories)
Purina- $17/38lbs. Feed 2.8 cups daily. Cost/day=$.30.
Kirkland- $18/40 lbs. Feed 3.5 cups daily. Cost/day= $.39
Pedigree- $19/44pounds. Feed 4.1 cups daily. Cost/day= $.46.
Canidae- $33/40 lbs. Feed 2.5 cups/day. Cost/day=$.54.
Beneful - $24/35lbs. Feed 3.7 cups. Cost/day $.63.
Innova EVO $44/29lbs. Feed 2 cups daily. Cost/day $.79.
Eukanuba $39/40#. Feed 3.4 cups daily. Cost/day $.82.
ProPlan Select $43/33lbs. Feed 2.6 cups. Cost/day=$.85.

tony

Posted : 3/20/2007 5:19:41 PM

At least where I live, Iams, Purina, Pedigree, Science Diet are always on sale I don't think anyone pays full price for them and we also get coupons for them weekly.

The "feed less" argument