What Would Happen ? Grain Free Question....

you realize that none of the "traditional" kibbles have been tested in long-term feeding trials, right? the traditional feeding trial is ten caged dogs fed the food for six months. If eight of the dogs survive, and the remaining don't lose too much weight, and certain biochemical analyses are ok, they declare the food capable of supporting an active dog in the real world for fifteen years.  I've seen way too many "corn dogs" look and act old by age seven, and way too many "raw dogs" look and act like puppies at age 12, to believe that a high-grain, highly preserved diet like most traditional kibbles is good for dogs. Some dogs may do ok no matter what you feed them; most dogs do better if fed fresh foods (i.e. table scraps) in addition to kibble or in place of kibble.

The only reason why you'd ever want to feed carbohydrates to a dog is to provide calories. Most dogs clearly get way too many calories; therefore feeding a diet that has removed the empty carb calories (i.e. grain free kibbles) is the best diet for most dogs these days.

You realize that it's impossible to get stories of dogs who lived forever on "good" foods right now-- because twenty years ago all you had access to was brands like purina.

Forget the protein levels. Protein has never been reliably implicated in renal disease in the research world.

 However, what HAS been implicated is phosphorous and, in general, ash content. THAT is what worries me about the grain-free kibbled foods (and why I took BATM and Evo out of Ginny's rotations). You're basically throwing a huge amount of highly processed meat (read: high ash content, high phosphorous content) at a dog's kidneys. Not a good idea in my book.

If you want a specific high protein diet, for goodness sakes do home-cooked or raw, not kibble.

Not to discount kibble in general. I think good-quality kibble can be a perfectly respectable part (or majority or only, even) part of a dog's diet. But I don't like these high protein varieties that are being marketed as "more natural" , when in reality they just "up" the ash/P content.

Not ALL grain-free high-protein foods have high ash or phosphorous. Orijen for example has normal ash and phosphorous levels.

mudpuppy

you realize that none of the 'traditional kibbles have been tested in long-term feeding trials right? the traditional feeding trial is ten caged dogs fed the food for six months. If eight of the dogs survive, and the remaining don't lose too much weight, and certain biochemical analyses are ok, they declare the food capable of supporting an active dog in the real world for fifteen years.

   That's basically true, but I would like to see more holistic companies do feeding trials because IMO it shows they are willing to take some extra steps to ensure that dogs do well on their products. A formula can look good on paper but that is not a guarantee dogs will do well on it. Also, Purina did a 12 year feeding trial with Labrador Retreivers.

   A dog's brain, like ours, needs glucose and the most readily available source is carbs. Their body can manufacture it from protein but not as easily.
 

whtsthfrequency

Forget the protein levels. Protein has never been reliably implicated in renal disease in the research world.

 However, what HAS been implicated is phosphorous and, in general, ash content. THAT is what worries me about the grain-free kibbled foods (and why I took BATM and Evo out of Ginny's rotations). You're basically throwing a huge amount of highly processed meat (read: high ash content, high phosphorous content) at a dog's kidneys. Not a good idea in my book.

    Well said and I agree.
 

What I love about this forum is I learn to think. It has some of the BEST information that lets a reader sift though all the HYPE Pet Food Companies throw at us.

One thing I have come to expect is heavy marketing including using forums to get products going in the market place. Another is that making Pet Food is more about getting waste removed from the manufacturing of Human Food Stuffs. Let's say I own a chicken processing plant and I have all these carcasses around . If I pay to have them dumped in a landfill I lose profit. If I sell a rendered Chicken Meal as Pet food I get someone else to pay for it and haul it away. Good business right ? So I think all meats that go into Pet Food are waste ? Am I wrong?

Is grain free just another way to get rid of waste. If I understand that ASH is what is left if I burned the product isn't that the bone and minerals..

So if I market a product heavy with ASH don't I get rid of a lot of excess bone from my other manufacturing industries.Remember weight is what is measured when I have to send stuff to the dump.

Grain Free at those high Protein Levels in the 40 0/0 range make no sense when I am in business to keep a dog healthy. It has always been a combination of foods that keep any human or animal healthy. But they do make sense to the people selling them. I get to charge twice the price and have the customer dispose of more waste product.

If I was going to produce a healthy diet for a dog that had issues with grain would it not be better in a non-kibble form ? I think the Honest Kitchen dehydrated diets would be the form. Or home cook.

Kidney issues....  What about pancreas and liver that has to work harder.   What about a new generation of dogs that may develope GOUT a disease only man has known .......  too many questions and not enough answers.

Ash is minerals, plain and simple.  What doesn't burn (like carbon-based compounds and moisture).

Minerals are needed for good health.  What isn't needed is a huge amount of them - that's where you run the risk of overtaxing your dog's systems.

Some animal products go right into the dog food supply.  There are animals that are unsuited for our picky consumers (underweight, took too long to grow to weight, culls from the breeding side of the equation).  I love the taste of mature meat but most of us have grown used to "baby meat" - so the dogs benefit from what is actually superior in terms of nutritional value!

In terms of ecology, I'd far rather the waste from our food supply go where it's used than going to build land fills.  I used to buy the same type of scraps directly from the processors (frames, bones, and carcasses by the case) and it was an awesome deal for me, for them, and for the dogs - and it's a form of responsibly using resources which have already gone into growing the chicken, turkey, deer, pig, sheep, or goat in question.

In other words, when done responsibly, I consider it to be recycling, not waste. 

whtsthfrequency

Forget the protein levels. Protein has never been reliably implicated in renal disease in the research world.

 However, what HAS been implicated is phosphorous and, in general, ash content. THAT is what worries me about the grain-free kibbled foods (and why I took BATM and Evo out of Ginny's rotations). You're basically throwing a huge amount of highly processed meat (read: high ash content, high phosphorous content) at a dog's kidneys. Not a good idea in my book.

If you want a specific high protein diet, for goodness sakes do home-cooked or raw, not kibble.

Not to discount kibble in general. I think good-quality kibble can be a perfectly respectable part (or majority or only, even) part of a dog's diet. But I don't like these high protein varieties that are being marketed as "more natural" , when in reality they just "up" the ash/P content.

http://www.jarvm.com/articles/Vol5Iss2/Frantz.pdf

It has always been a combination of foods that keep any human or animal healthy

I so agree. Feeding a diet of nothing but kibble, any kibble, is the most unhealthy way to feed a dog. I feed a mixed diet of low-carb grain free kibble, raw, and home-cooked. It's a grain-free low carbohydrate diet with lots of variety and fresh foods and hopefully not excessive in any ingredient. It somewhat resembles my own diet (except i eat lots of vegetables and the dogs don't), and the diet that many health professionals are now suggesting for people-- a low carb diet. Excessive carb intake is not normal for most species.

whtsthfrequency

I would do it msyelf but I am completely zonked from a 100 question, 2.5 hour Pharmacology final exam today....:(

  You have my sympathy; my daughter is a bio-chem major and is going through the same thing right now. Have you looked at the study posted by abbysdad? It's very interesting. Here's some excerts;

Loss of lean muscle mass is also a concern among aging companion animals as in humans. Reductions in muscle mass
with aging may lead to decreases in activity and general health, and may be associated with other age-related diseases such as
obesity, diabetes, etc. Supplying the proper concentrations of the essential amino acids relative to lysine (protein quality) rather
than a total dietary protein amount (protein quantity) is required for the synthesis of new muscle protein and to prevent its breakdown.
 In foods designed for weight loss,dietary protein is often increased to prevent reductions in muscle mass while providing
positive effects on insulin sensitivity.However, increasing dietary crude protein may also increase the risk for developing
kidney disorders due to the processing of excess nitrogen and mobilization of calcium to buffer the additional acid load. Increasing
dietary protein may also have negative implications on bone preservation.

In geriatric dogs, renal failure is a common process and leads to death in approximately 5% of the dog population. One of the
main treatment strategies in the management of dogs with renal disease is to reduce dietary protein and phosphorus in foods.
However, decreased dietary protein concentrations have been implicated in reducing lean muscle in aging animals and during
weight loss. Thus, dietary intervention for one purpose may be counterproductive to another in the geriatric animal. Even so,
balancing diets based on ideal amino acid ratios should allow a reduction in dietary crude protein while maintaining lean muscle
mass of the dog.

  Thanks abbysdad; I've bookmarked this study.
 

I've seen that one before but it's not as relevant as it looks at geriatric dogs who already have renal disease.  I'm more interested in what is implicated in causing renal disease in healthy young dogs.  We all know high protein in itself does not, but it can exacerbate pre-existing renal disease.  I'm curious about the phosphorous. 

ottoluv

I've seen that one before but it's not as relevant as it looks at geriatric dogs who already have renal disease.

  I thought all the dogs were healthy at the start of the study;
" Prior to the studies, dogs were determined to be healthy by physical exam and blood chemistry screen."

180 days into the study the report said that dogs fed the higher protein foods had higher BUN levels than dogs fed the lower protein diets and dogs fed the highest protein diet had reduced kidney function. I know you're a medical professional (doctor?) and can interpret this much better that I can though. Jessie's nine and based on studies by Eukanuba and Royal Canin I keep the amount of protein in her diet between 26 and 30%. Her senior blood panel last September showed her kidneys were fine, and in the Eukanuba study they fed a diet of 34% protein to geriatric dogs for 4 years without impairing renal function. I wish these studies all agreed.