New Frontier Kibble

cc431

Abady protein-core hands down is the strongest in the industry.

That's what I don't understand. You believe this because Abady told you so??? What makes his word more reliable that any other company trying to sell a product?
 

cc431

He is a biochemist.

How does that make him more qualified than anyone else to formulate dog food? 

sooner

cc431

He is a biochemist.

 

How does that make him more qualified than anyone else to formulate dog food? 

Because it is the study of chemical processes and chemical transformations in living organisms....Bio is in the word because it involves animals (wikipedia)

sooner

cc431

Abady protein-core hands down is the strongest in the industry.

 

That's what I don't understand. You believe this because Abady told you so??? What makes his word more reliable that any other company trying to sell a product? 

Because he cares about the animals and first responsibility is to animal nutrition...not to the shareholders of a company.  And the results are indeed fantastic.

cc431

Because he cares about the animals and first responsibility is to animal nutrition...not to the shareholders of a company.  And the results are indeed fantastic.

The same could be said by any one of hundreds of dog food company employees and owners. I don't believe they're all in it out of the goodness of their hearts, but I don't believe he's the only one who cares either. 

Oh, and I know what a biochemist is, and I reiterate my question. 

cc431

Liesje

Simple math proves that wrong. 

I disagree.  Deception with a numbers game that throws the math in The Twilight Zone.  Commercial kibbles advertising 42% protein and leading people to believe it is animal based protein is criminal.  You're smarter than that, don't be fooled by these clever marketing schemes.  Abady protein-core hands down is the strongest in the industry.

On the sites you posted, it says 80% of Abady's protein comes from the meat sources.  The min. protein number they give is 26%.  That means, 80% of 26% of the food is from MEAT sources (I'm using the min. number b/c that's the only number we have.  If they were confident the protein content was actually higher, then the guaranteed analysis would have a higher number).  Orijen's protein is 70% from meat sources, so less protein from meat sources, BUT more protein in general b/c their guaranteed min is 42%, almost twice that of Abady.  70% of 42% protein from meat. Abady is 21% meat protein and Orijen is 29% meat protein.  Very simple math. 

As I said earlier, I do not read ANY kibble advertising, I got the numbers from the guaranteed analysis.  Nowhere did I read or argue that 100% of Orijen's protein is from meat.  You're right, I'm not that stupid.  I don't see how the numbers above are affected by commercial advertising.  I assume the guaranteed analysis numbers come from laboratory tests.
 

Liesje

On the sites you posted, it says 80% of Abady's protein comes from the meat sources.  The min. protein number they give is 26%.  That means, 80% of 26% of the food is from MEAT sources (I'm using the min. number b/c that's the only number we have.  If they were confident the protein content was actually higher, then the guaranteed analysis would have a higher number).  Orijen's protein is 70% from meat sources, so less protein from meat sources, BUT more protein in general b/c their guaranteed min is 42%, almost twice that of Abady.  70% of 42% protein from meat. Abady is 21% meat protein and Orijen is 29% meat protein.  Very simple math. 

As I said earlier, I do not read ANY kibble advertising, I got the numbers from the guaranteed analysis.  Nowhere did I read or argue that 100% of Orijen's protein is from meat.  You're right, I'm not that stupid.  I don't see how the numbers above are affected by commercial advertising.  I assume the guaranteed analysis numbers come from laboratory tests.

The number given is 83%.  Right 83% of the 26% is animal source.  I would argue this point.  Look at these 42% feeds, then looking at the ingredients, I can see 21% animal source and 21% coming elsewhere (fruits, veggies, plant, whatever).  You looking at 70% of 21% because the other 21% has little to no biological value to the dog.  That is why I feel people get mislead with these numbers.  My current feed is 31% protein, 93% animal source and puts out 870 cals per cup (Basic Maintenance Granular).

Liesje

You're right, I'm not that stupid.  I don't see how the numbers above are affected by commercial advertising.  I assume the guaranteed analysis numbers come from laboratory tests.

PS: I never said you were stupid....I seem to get myself in enough trouble around here...I don't need any help!  I didn't mean any possible construed implications either that you were stupid, PLEASE don't take it that way.

cc431

I think Orijen is on the same par with Purina "Come and Get It".

Two wrongs don't make a right (you know what I mean from a few weeks ago) and why I made the statement, so I retract that statement,  I take it back.  I think it is better than"Come and Get It".  Below Pro Plan, above Come and Get It.

cc431

  You looking at 70% of 21% because the other 21% has little to no biological value to the dog. 

If 70% is from meat source, 30% accounts for the non-meant source, doesn't it? Why would you have to halve the rest of it to account for non-meat source? Or am I missing something here? Where did you come up with the 21% having little to no biological value?

I haven't fed the abady kibble, but I am a big believer in their granular product. I like Abady for their low fiber levels and high animal protein content. I looked at the kibbles and I wasn't impressed enough to try them. They are high in cost and not that different from other premium feeds. The granular products are different than anything else in the dog food industry. My dogs put on lots of lean muscle mass on abady Classic and have great coats as well. They love the taste and lick the bowls clean. It is also very calorie dense so I can feed a low volune of food. I feel this helps prevent bloat.

There a re many great feeds out there. It all depends on what your hot buttons are. Some people want no by-products. Others want no grain. I personally look for low fiber. Each to their own. We are so lucky that there are so many choices now. 50 years ago it was dog chow or scraps from your own table.

cc431

Look at these 42% feeds, then looking at the ingredients, I can see 21% animal source and 21% coming elsewhere (fruits, veggies, plant, whatever).  You looking at 70% of 21% because the other 21% has little to no biological value to the dog.

But that's not correct.  70% of Orijen's protein is from MEAT sources.  You can't just say that only 21% is from meat b/c that's what you think.  That's not correct.   I'm not sure where you're even getting 21% from.  Orijen is guaranteed min. 42% protein and min. 70% protein from MEAT sources. 

Liesje

But that's not correct.  70% of Orijen's protein is from MEAT sources.  You can't just say that only 21% is from meat b/c that's what you think.  That's not correct.   I'm not sure where you're even getting 21% from.  Orijen is guaranteed min. 42% protein and min. 70% protein from MEAT sources. 

How come then New Frontier Kibble can put out 591 cals per cup and Orijen (reg adult) puts out 483 at best despite NF being 26% and the other 42 ???  There is a valid explanation but I it is not coming across.

Consider this, they state (Orijen):

CALORIE CONTENT & DISTRIBUTION - 4200 kcal/kg (483 kcal per 250ml cup) with 45% of energy derived from protein, 25% derived from fruit & vegetables and 30% from fat.

The reason is 25% lost to HIGH CARB fruit and vegetables, despite being cleverly advertised as low carb because people associate carbs with grains.  Clearly, there is a lot of carbs in those ingredients each w/ much smaller levels of protein in comparison to the carbs.

I'm sorry, but there is no way I can look at this Orijen and not think "smoke and mirrors".  The first clue is the nice write up on dogs and cats being carnivores but you are hit with the buffet of omnivore style ingredients.  Orijen therefore can only be "biologically appropriate" to those who truly feel their dog is an omnivore, not a carnivore.  IMO Orijen it is not biologically appropriate for dogs.  I realize you mentioned you don't feed this stuff and I think that is a wise decision (sorry that may be hurtful to some because I think it is wise to avoid, JMHO).  I on the other hand feel it is biologically inappropriate because of the buffet. 

There are some other clues as well something is "fishy" here and it is not the Catch of the Day up north.  By there own admission, the diet is too weak for pregnancy and lactation and intake levels must be increased.  If the ration was strong enough as is, it would be able to suffice.

New Frontier I think is a far superior feed.

Charlie.

cc431

The reason is 25% lost to HIGH CARB fruit and vegetables, despite being cleverly advertised as low carb because people associate carbs with grains. 

Sorry if I'm being really dense, but what do you mean by 25% lost to the fruits and veggies? Or are you saying that 25% of the 4200 kcal/kg doesn't count because it comes from a non-meant source?
 

As for feeding more when the dogs pregnant, wouldn't you do that regardless of what you were feeding them? I know absolutely nothing about pregnancies in dogs, but I know when a person's pregnant, she generally has to eat a little more than when she isn't pregnant.

Just a general observation and request.  I'm seeing some attitude here that isn't particularly needed, so lets please try to post without the attitude.