I need some help

ORIGINAL: jenns

Then why do they insist that they DO know all of these things?

Because when you spend your entire life busting your balls to be the jack of all trades, sometimes its hard to admit someone might know more than you. EVERYONE is guilty of this, myself included.

The veterinary profession as a whole has only begun to specialize in the past 10 years or so, and any vets who've been working longer than that may not know what is available to them, and may or may not have the networking contacts to suggest something better.

Mudpuppy,
 
How does one know how many grams of protein a dog should have, given normal health.
 
So, I've been homecooking and giving food in ounces - meat that has been cooked generally being 1/2 of food.  The raw amount of food would be the cooked amount times 1.3 to 1.5,depending on type of food.  In other words, when I cook the food, the moisture is mostly gone.   So, based on "raw" feeding, this would be somewhat equivilent to feeding 60% - 70% protein.
 
But, I know my dogs need more of something b/c of their need to gain weight and always hungry.  It is either fat, or protein.  So, going by what you said, maybe I can work out how close the amount of protein they are getting is accurate (again, assuming a healthy dog).
 
So, how do I know x amount of grams per lb. of weight?

ORIGINAL: Misskiwi67

thedogfoodjournal.com is NOT a nutritionist, and is jam-packed with misinformation and generalizations.

Um, do you mean dogfoodproject.com, or the Whole Dog Journal? thedogfoodjournal.com isn't a site.

ORIGINAL: janet_rose

I think carbohydrates are important for dogs.

Littlesaint, dogs do very well on a diet of only raw meat (whole prey).  What is in carbohydrates that you think dogs benefit from?

I didn't say the can't do well on an all meat diet.  I don't know enough about raw diets to comment, but I do have serious doubts that a domestic dog is perfectly healthy on an all meat unbalanced diet, particularly a growing puppy.  My point was they can do just as well on a diet that is as much as 50% carbohydrates.

ORIGINAL: Misskiwi67
thedogfoodjournal.com is NOT a nutritionist, and is jam-packed with misinformation and generalizations.

 
Assuming you mean the dogfoodproject.com....can you elaborate on this a bit?  I'm following a discussion on a list that is in line with this thread and I'd be curious to hear what you have to say. 

ORIGINAL: littlesaint

While it's probably best to just agree to disagree, it's not the math I disagree with.  I think carbohydrates are important for dogs.  I think the whole "dogs are carnivores only" is not as black and white as you make it out to be.  I think that if allergies are not an issue, good whole grains are a valid ingredient to a dogs diet.  I'm not saying a grain-free high protien diet is bad (that's what I'm feeding right now), but I don't agree that there is no place for whole grains and quality carbohydrates in general as well.

 
This makes me think back many years ago to my minor in Nutrition, or Dietetics as it's called as well.  Carbs provide a readily available source of energy for the krebs cycle.  Proteins also provide this energy, but more digestion has to occur first. 
 
As we all know there are three types of energy foods: Proteins, Carbs and Fats.  All three can provide energy to fuel the body.  The kicker is that carbs can't provide fatty acids to help maintain cell walls, nor can they provide the amino acids and other protein chains to help build, maintain and rebuild muscles.  Fatty acids can't build muscle either. 
 
So of what use is the carbohydrate?  It is easy to convert to energy that the body can use. 
 
I would think that in a non-working dog, proteins would be the better choice for fuel just because they are resting most of the day, digesting their food.

My vet will be 45 in Oct, and has been the vet in this small town for 14 years.  He knows my dogs inside and out.  He does believe in trying natural things when possible, like White Willow Bark for arthritis pain until you are forced into something stronger, etc.  He carries both Science Diet and Royal Canin but doesn't push either unless for prescription.  KayCee was on on the r/d for several months to lose 15 pounds and Buck was on it for 3 months following a kidney infection.  Rickey has never even suggested my dogs be on it full time, infact recommended purina One for mine.
 
I don't have any idea how much nutrition he has studied and frankly i don't care.  I think it more important that he sutdied enough to be the surgeon who could operate on kayCee's knees, and today she can run and jump and play without her kneecaps jumping out of place.  I am glad he has studied enough to know when he looked at my irish Setters let that it was bone cancer, even before x-rays and tests proved him right (I wish he had been wrong).  I am glad he could tell me watching KayCee walk that it was luxating patella, not bone cancer like hat taken Boots from me, and x-rays proved him right.  I am glad he studied enough to feel kayCee's "seizrure" was really a vertigo episode brought on by deep ear infection--and he was right.  I had been in a panic over something horrible and it wasn't. 
 
I know tha now we have all kinds of specialized vets from allery specialist to orthopedic, to cardiologist, etc.  Same with human doctors.  none can be expected to know it all.  Even tho my vet has done many, many knee surgeries, if he think something is beyond him, he will send the poeple to a orthopedic vet in Houson...example a rottie puppy in a car accident with a totally crushed leg. 
 
By the way he does feed his champion English Setter, almost 8 years old now, Science Diet, which he also fed to his irish Setter he lost at almost 14 years old.  Personally I do not like it, but would not hesitate to use any prescription version he wanted me to use.  My dogs did not like their prescription ones and probably won' like the regular either.  But it did work for them.

ORIGINAL: gr8pyrz

ORIGINAL: Misskiwi67
thedogfoodjournal.com is NOT a nutritionist, and is jam-packed with misinformation and generalizations.

Assuming you mean the dogfoodproject.com....can you elaborate on this a bit?  I'm following a discussion on a list that is in line with this thread and I'd be curious to hear what you have to say. 

My biggest complaint with the dog food project is their stance on by-products. By-products from quality sources are MORE nutritious than meat meals. Its unfortunate that instead of encouraging people to find out more about the quality of ingredients in foods from the companies themselves, websites like this are pushing to completely remove these ingredients from foods. They set the market standards, and companies everywhere are changing to meet what they say is true, and some of what they say isn't backed up by research. They say to avoid several fruit and vegetable sources of fiber. Instead of  using this as an ingredient to be avoided, they should say that its a source of fiber, and not to confuse it with whole vegetables. Fiber sources should be encouraged as they promote a healthy intestinal track.

Its just nitpicky stuff. I'm mostly annoyed that websites like these determine what consumers want, and therefore create a lot of market pressure. Nutritionists should be making dog foods, not ingredient lists, which can be incredibly misleading, as you see above. Is meat or by-products better? Is apple pomace a fruit or a fiber? It can vary widely depending on the ingredient source.

Fiber sources should be encouraged as they promote a healthy intestinal track.

 
Although too much fiber can hinder the absorption of nutrients. I don't and will never believe that, say, peanut hulls are a good ingredient. But they're a great source of fiber. Even dog foods that don't specifically have "fiber sources" are several percent fiber. I don't think there's a danger of not enough fiber in most dry foods.
 

By-products from quality sources are MORE nutritious than meat meals.

 
I honestly don't have a problem with by-products in dog food. What I do have a problem with is the specific ingredient "by-products" or "by-product meal". If it said "chicken liver" or "beef kidney", that'd be fine and dandy with me. Not as the first ingredient, because then I don't see how they could control heavy metal levels, but as a supplemental ingredient, GREAT! The problem is that's not what they say, and I don't trust a dog food that has "by-product meal" or some such ingredient, because I don't believe they're "high-quality", I think that is generally a low-quality ingredient. Always? Maybe not, but in general, I think it's wise to avoid. The definition is much too broad for my comfort.

My gripes with any of the dog food "ratings" are the same as Misskiwi's. Plus, I think they put too much emphasis on things like herbs, alfalfa meal, blueberries and all those things that are so far down the list that they are of minimal impact nutritionally. If those things are in there - great. But to think a food that has lentils listed AFTER an ingredient as proportionately small as taurine is going to be significantly better because of those lentils is a bit overly optimistic.

ORIGINAL: Xerxes

...  The kicker is that carbs can't provide fatty acids to help maintain cell walls, nor can they provide the amino acids and other protein chains to help build, maintain and rebuild muscles...

This is true of carbohydrates in their pure form, but grains can provide fatty acids (flaxseed) and they certainly provide proteins and amino acids.

ORIGINAL: chelsea_b


I honestly don't have a problem with by-products in dog food. What I do have a problem with is the specific ingredient "by-products" or "by-product meal". If it said "chicken liver" or "beef kidney", that'd be fine and dandy with me. Not as the first ingredient, because then I don't see how they could control heavy metal levels, but as a supplemental ingredient, GREAT! The problem is that's not what they say, and I don't trust a dog food that has "by-product meal" or some such ingredient, because I don't believe they're "high-quality", I think that is generally a low-quality ingredient. Always? Maybe not, but in general, I think it's wise to avoid. The definition is much too broad for my comfort.

Totally agree. I have no problem with organ meats and they are very nutritious.  But you know that any food that has just generic "by-product meal" can be just about anything.  I just want to know what it is.  And most foods that have by-product meal are using it as the sole source of animal protein b/c it's cheaper when it should be a supplement to muscle based protein.

But to think a food that has lentils listed AFTER an ingredient as proportionately small as taurine is going to be significantly better because of those lentils is a bit overly optimistic

 
Ha ha, how true.  If there is ONE lintil or blueberry, etc in the 20 pound bag they can list it.  And what the heck good is ONE bean, ONE blueberry, etc.  Just for show on the ingredient list.
 
And just how do you know there is even any of those products in the bag you buy?  Ever make blueberry muffins where you use a good percentage of  blueberries, and you mix well, BUT you still have to watch or you end up with 15 berries in one muffin and 2 in aother.  Same wich chocolate chip cookies.  Despite good mxing i often have to take som chips from some of the raw cookie drops to add to others.
 
I would say when the fruits and veggies are listed at the bottom of the ingredient list then there isn't more than a hand full in the entire batch of food.

I e-mailed Timberwolf about the amaranth in the Ocean Blue and was told it was part of their herb mixture which is less than 2% of the recipe. Amaranth was the 8th ingredient out of 55 on the ingredient list.

I usually don't look at much beyond the first few ingredients up to the first fat source.

ORIGINAL: sooner

I e-mailed Timberwolf about the amaranth in the Ocean Blue and was told it was part of their herb mixture which is less than 2% of the recipe. Amaranth was the 8th ingredient out of 55 on the ingredient list.

I usually don't look at much beyond the first few ingredients up to the first fat source.

 
Depends what the ingredient is though.  All the vitamins and minerals will be at the bottom of list but of course have a huge impact on the food.  As for fruits and things like that, I don't look for things like blueberries and all that stuff in a food, I find meat content and no harmful chemicals as first and foremost.