Natura uses feeding tests?

Hollysmom; aren't you the one who consulted with Monica Segal about a recipe for your dog? I hope it helps; keep us posted.

I think we should respect the decision of those who use these foods and not offer an unsolicited opinion. If someone asks for an opinion on a certain food they use or wants suggestions for "better" foods than I think it's fine to suggest foods which have in our opinion better ingredients.

 
That is exactly how I am approaching giving nutrition advice.

Does every food you eat agree with your stomach

 
I was talking about my dog, not my stomach.
 
You will have to admit that, at least here, Innova is considered top of the line, by many a valued opinion. Other premium holistics have similar formulas to them, though I'm sure each has a proprietary "natural flavors" ingredient they can't divulge. Perhaps, there is a "premium" (which by the way is not a legal definition but an advertising word) that would be similar but have a few different ingredients that might not create the reaction he had. So, let's define premium. Is it two more meat sources present and a load of apples and carrots? It doesn't matter how many meat sources you use, the GA will still only show protein in the 20's. What you can do is compare Innova LB to what I feed and tell me what is so wrong with what I feed, since it works.
 
My statement may have seemed like silly logic to you, but it is no more silly than constantly changing his food to follow someone else's paradigm so that I can "hold my head up proudly" when posting in this forum. My dog doesn't particularly care for carrots. I've tried. He looks at it like "What's that? A doorstop?" I'm not sure what was the issue for him in Innova. It could be one of the multiple meat sources. More than likely it was the barley, which in the real world, is more consistent allergen than corn or rice. The food I feed him uses lamb meal and rice and rice fragments and the rest are necessary supps. It's a very simple food, which is what his metabolism seems to do best on. Plus, I feed him bits of cooked meat now and then.

I guess I touched a nerve there. Yikes.
 

I guess I touched a nerve there. Yikes.

Speaking for me, nah.  It was just a strange assertation to make, especially from someone who just detailed a great deal of pride in disciplined thought.  And also completely unnecessary - I really, really, really think you have no need to defend what you feed Shadow. 

Believe it or not, I've suggested Nutro products to many a rescue adoptive family - many BCs have garbage guts and actually need the fractions to keep things a-movin'.  My Maggie ate it for the first three years of her life.

To me, if anyone knocks a particular product, a gentle reminder that "It works for my dog" is plenty good enough without elaborate explanations.

I agree with you.
 
So, let me try my statement one more time, perhaps with a variation.
 
I feed what I feed him because it works. I tried Innova, considered by many fine people to be the best, and it didn't work. Should I keep trying others that are similar to Innova, only to possibly have the same reaction due to similar ingredients, such as barley or whatever? Or stick with what works and worry about changing to another brand if his needs or health changes?
 
Does that scan better?
 
One word can make a difference.
 

ORIGINAL: ron2

I think we should respect the decision of those who use these foods and not offer an unsolicited opinion. If someone asks for an opinion on a certain food they use or wants suggestions for "better" foods than I think it's fine to suggest foods which have in our opinion better ingredients.

That is exactly how I am approaching giving nutrition advice.

 
To me, that doesn't seem to be the case. Almost every nutrition post of yours that I've read comes across more as venting about people and their opinions on foods/nutrition (how no matter how much logic you present, people will still have the same opinions that "premium" foods are better). And your other posts I've read have been you defending why you think Nutro is good.....

If it is true that dogs fed Purina get cancer and dogs fed holistic foods don't, or even have a reduced risk, that would be noble prize winning stuff

I think if a dog is prone to cancer than he should get the best and most natural food possible,not a food with by-products and chemicals which have been linked to cancer.

I'm sure a cancer patient would have a better chance if he ate healthy natural foods rather than living on junk,dont you think?

Good,wholesome food fuels the body,without it,it just cant run efficiently on all cylinders. I would not call unknown by-products,grain fractions,synthetic chemicals,BHT,BHA or ethoxiquin good,wholesome nutrition. As we all know cancer cells feed off of carbs,what is the main ingredient in all of the lesser foods? GRAINS which equals carbs,i think this gives cancer a head start in taking hold. JMHO however []

As we all know cancer cells feed off of carbs,what is the main ingredient in all of the lesser foods? GRAINS which equals carbs,i think this gives cancer a head start in taking hold. JMHO howeve

 
I don't  necessarily totally disagree, I guess where I have a problem is when some of the information that is repeated as fact is not necessarily true, for instance IAMS, has substantially lower carbs than a food like California Natural, but a lot of  eople continually state the opposite as fact.

 No, I'm not venting. 

To me, that doesn't seem to be the case. Almost every nutrition post of yours that I've read comes across more as venting about people and their opinions on foods/nutrition (how no matter how much logic you present, people will still have the same opinions that "premium" foods are better). And your other posts I've read have been you defending why you think Nutro is good.....

First point. I'm not saying "premium" foods are not better. Some of the them look good enough for me to eat. And you would be the third person, so far, to throw my statement about logic back in my face.

Second point, believe it or not, when someone asks for advice about what to feed, I do not "push" Nutro and the only reason I defended it recently here is because a few people took issue with my use of the colloquial "wannabe." I have since offered a re-phrasing in order to be less offensive. In fact, you won't find in any thread here where someone asks what to feed where I have suggested using what I feed, unless I am directly asked. I let everyone else suggest all the premiums and I have done so, too, usually mentioning the favorite names here, such as Innova, and where you can find it in my general area of the state, and about how much it will cost.
 
There is a difference between disagreeing on semantics, the use of logic as applied to the scientific method in determining what is the best nutrition for a pet, and offering to someone a choice in what they might feed. Once again, though I feed Nutro, often I will offer first, the favorite brands here or, believe it or not, stay out of it. Or offer support for what they are feeding. This debate we are having is not how I offer feeding advice. So, I can stand by my reply to which you took offense.
 
I think, perhaps, you have an issue with me or have taken something I said in general, personally.
 
 

To illustrate my point about carbs, Eukanuba Premium Performance has 29% carbs and Cal Nat Chicken and Rice has 45.90 percent carbs.  If someone came on this forum or most any other, asking which one they should feed, all of us "nutrition experts" would read the ingredient lable and say Cal Nat, has less fillers and more meat and then would continue to bash the Euk as being all corn food and very little meat. As a matter of fact, Innova is 41% carbs and Iams is 38%. Now don't get me wrong I like some of the Natura products and EVO is very low in carbs and at least they post there nutrient profile on there website so a true comparison of foods can be made.  But my main point is many of these companies that get bashed for high carbs in reality are not high carb foods at all.
 

I'm not of the camp that carbs are bad per se.  I don't like to feed my dogs corn (or my ducks or sheep, for that matter) - that's a personal thing and I've explained that ad nauseam.  I feed carb-heavy foods to my high performance dogs purposely, to supplement their raw meals, because I've noticed it helps keep them in condition.

I've noticed that the simple ingredient foods tend to be lower in protein (and therefore higher in carbs).  I think it's a very good point that if you are looking for a food that will help your dog build muscle mass or lose weight, you might pay careful attention to the carb percentage of the total energy provided - it DOES make a difference - as illustrated above. 

We do the same thing when we are manipulating condition in sheep - protein levels must increase as a percentage of energy as we approach breeding season, so the ewes and rams will be "tricked" into higher production.  They build lean muscle,  reproductive rates go up, and they have more energy to, you know, do their thing.  It's higher protein, not more calories or carbs, that does this (we do not increase total energy levels).  Carbs just put on fat, which is never desireable with sheep - their meat is fatty enough as it is.  Later, we will increase total energy with carbs for the ewes, when their lambs are taking up so much energy and abdominal space, that they need concentrated feed to get the energy they need to sustain life (they will maintain their lambs even if starving).  In the wild, nature does the same thing - early spring grass is very high carb, late summer/fall grass is very high protien.

More than you ever wanted to know about livestock reproductive cycles!

More than you ever wanted to know about livestock reproductive cycles

 
Actually I found it very interesting and informative.  I did not know that about spring grass! 

Actually I found it very interesting and informative. I did not know that about spring grass!

 
Actually, I was thinking the same thing, does that make us pathetic??