# Thoughts on high protein dog foods?



## FredSmi (Nov 20, 2008)

Products with 33-42% protein ratings. Like Solid Gold Barking at the Moon, Evo Red Meat, etc.


----------



## Deejays_Owner (Oct 5, 2005)

Some good info here........ ORIJEN White Paper


----------



## nysirk (Apr 15, 2008)

In the Book "The dog who loved too much" by Dr. Nicholas Dodman, he had a theory on high protein content in a dogs diet can increase activity and make an aggressive or hyperactive dog even worse, which makes me wonder how much diet really dose effect behavior. If that is true I wouldn't want to risk feeding my dogs food with 42% protein content, They are hyper enough as is


----------



## FredSmi (Nov 20, 2008)

I like the Orijen link. I have not purchased any yet but will.

I know she eats less of the high protein food than she did foods with less protein. I did not notice a change in her hyper'ness when I switched.


----------



## Winkin (Feb 21, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: nysirkIn the Book "The dog who loved too much" by Dr. Nicholas Dodman, he had a theory on high protein content in a dogs diet can increase activity and make an aggressive or hyperactive dog even worse, which makes me wonder how much diet really dose effect behavior. If that is true I wouldn't want to risk feeding my dogs food with 42% protein content, They are hyper enough as is


Odd. I'm not saying that's not true...but in humans, carbs are usually the cause of activity like that (primarily simple carbs/sugars). It's the body's natural reaction to a high influx of carbs; a carb-high. But we all know what happens after: zzzzz









Maybe it's the opposite for dogs...I have no idea. I would love to know the answer, though.


----------



## Branca's Mom (Mar 26, 2003)

Branca and Urro have been eating no grain food, EVO, TOTW, and Wild & Natural for years. Years. Branca is 11 years old and her bloodwork is great. 

I do not see any hyperactivity and certainly no unwarranted aggression.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

IMO, the high protein = hyperactivity or aggression is an old wive's tale. One that dates back to even before that book was written.

Dogs are carnivores. They are designed to eat meat, and really nothing but meat. It is the most natural thing for them and a meat based diet is naturally a rather high protein one.


----------



## M&J (Nov 16, 2002)

Both my dogs were on Orijen (42% protein) for a while. Both dogs' bloodwork was great.


----------



## 3K9Mom (Jun 12, 2006)

High protein-fed dogs = aggressive = nonsense, IMO.









I think, if anything, dogs on garbage (grocery store quality) diets are more aggressive. Not because of the diet itself, but because the diet often reflects the overall care and concern of their owners -- which, of course, includes training. 

I found with my dogs when I switched them to a high protein/high fat diet, their concentration and focus was better and they had more energy. And yes, this includes my little senior. I guess if you're a lazy owner who expects your dog to sit in the back yard and not cause a fuss, more energy and more focus could be a problem -- a big problem. But more focus doesn't mean hyperactivity: it's the exact opposite. For an owner that doesn't know how to channel drives (or doesn't want to take the time), I can see that it's a problem though.


----------



## Emoore (Oct 9, 2002)

My dogs eat Barking at the Moon and are doing great on it. Healty coats, small, firm poops, great weight, the whole 9 yards. No change in activity level-- my six year old American boy is still calm and mellow, my two year old working-line boy is. . . well, he is what he is.


----------



## Catu (Sep 6, 2007)

Since my availability of good food is limited I've been seriously thinking in not changing from puppy food to adult food and to use that puppy food as an High Energy one. For what I've seen, the nutritonal contents are the same. 

I have no grain free food available and the one I'm giving (called Sieger) is the only one so far with chicken meat as the first ingredient. Then my options go down to Eukanuba and Royal Canin, who use chicken subproducts and necessarily in the first place, but I've been told that Adult Sieger is not that good as the Puppy.

In a dog in which rapid growth is not a concern (Diabla reached full height, now she needs to fill up) that do lots of exercise, trekking, swimming, training, etc. would you consider to keep giving puppy food for life? It has 32% protein against adult with 26%.


----------



## LisaT (Feb 7, 2005)

> Originally Posted By: nysirkIn the Book "The dog who loved too much" by Dr. Nicholas Dodman, he had a theory on high protein content in a dogs diet can increase activity and make an aggressive or hyperactive dog even worse, which makes me wonder how much diet really dose effect behavior. If that is true I wouldn't want to risk feeding my dogs food with 42% protein content, They are hyper enough as is


I think that you have to look at the foods that were studied. I have never seen what was in that high protein diet that was fed. But I have a theory.

If it was a high protein kibble, that high protein was most likely protein primarily from grains, glutens, etc. At training the first thing we would do is get the corn, corn gluten, etc. out of the diet, with often amazing results in reducing that ADD/hyperactivity. 

High protein from quality meat sources are a completely different beast.


----------



## 3K9Mom (Jun 12, 2006)

Catu, I don't care whether a food is a "puppy" food as much as I care what's in it, even beyond protein -- Can you provide a link to (or copy in a post) its guaranteed or better yet, nutritional analysis?


----------



## 3K9Mom (Jun 12, 2006)

Good point, Lisa. I hadn't considered that at all. 

(Maybe add a little melamine for even higher protein values? If at low doses -- low enough to not destroy kidneys -- it acts as a neurotoxin, we might have some additional insight too.







...)


----------



## LisaT (Feb 7, 2005)

> Originally Posted By: 3K9MomGood point, Lisa. I hadn't considered that at all.
> 
> (Maybe add a little melamine for even higher protein values? If at low doses -- low enough to not destroy kidneys -- it acts as a neurotoxin, we might have some additional insight too.
> 
> ...


I never thought about the neurotoxin aspect, given low amounts of melamine. 

How depressing, since it's entirely a realistic scenario.


----------



## Catu (Sep 6, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: 3K9MomCatu, I don't care whether a food is a "puppy" food as much as I care what's in it, even beyond protein -- Can you provide a link to (or copy in a post) its guaranteed or better yet, nutritional analysis?


Puppy:
Proteín 32%, Fat 16%, Fiber 3%, Calcium 1.2%, Phosforus 0.9%, Humidity 8%, Ashes 7%.

Ingredients:
Chicken meal, corn, rice, egg, chicken fat, fish meal, gluten meal, sweet potato, wheat, yucca, glucosamin, condroitin sulfate, vitamins and minerals.

Adults:
Proteín 26%, Fat 16%, Fiber 2,7%, Calcium 1%, Phosforus 0.7%, Humidity 8%, Ashes 7%.
Same ingredients.

The brand is made in Argentina, so there is only a Spanish web page http://www.dragpharma.cl/fichas.php?index=1921

Grain free foods or without corn simply doesn't exist here. I have to work with what I have.


----------



## JulesMichy (Feb 15, 2008)

> Originally Posted By: Chris WildDogs are carnivores. They are designed to eat meat, and really nothing but meat. It is the most natural thing for them and a meat based diet is naturally a rather high protein one.


True, but what concerns me is that the meat that a carnivore in the wild would be consuming would still be nearly half the amount of protein in some of the grain free, high protein foods that list their crude protein at 40% or more. Raw meat has a substantial amount of water in it, putting the actual protein content at around 25-30%.

Dogs are carnivores, and do process large amounts protein better than, say, we would. But I have to withhold my opinion (neither for nor against) on the super high protein foods in the 40 percent and higher range until I see a few studies on their renal health, blood work - specifically BUN and CREA levels, that support the diet.

Now, having said that, if someone asked me if they had to choose between Science Diet and Barking at the Moon or Innova EVO, my answer would be an easy one.


----------



## LisaT (Feb 7, 2005)

I have fed a high protein homeprepared diet for years......no problem with kidney values in my study of one.....


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

> Originally Posted By: JulesMichy
> 
> True, but what concerns me is that the meat that a carnivore in the wild would be consuming would still be nearly half the amount of protein in some of the grain free, high protein foods that list their crude protein at 40% or more. Raw meat has a substantial amount of water in it, putting the actual protein content at around 25-30%.



Raw meat, water inclusive, and kibble is apples vs oranges if trying to make a nutritional comparison from a percentage of weight standpoint. The water content has no nutritional value. The dog isn't obtaining any calories or anything else from the water in the raw meat.

Take the water out of the meat, like it's already been removed from the kibble, and compare what is left side by side. The only way to make an accurate comparison between the two is to look at it from a percentage of nutrition standpoint, leaving water out of the equation. When a dog eats meat, how much of the actual nutrition and calories he's ingesting come from protein?


----------



## 3K9Mom (Jun 12, 2006)

I don't see any particular reason that you couldn't go with this puppy food for Diabla. 

But I'm wondering, is the Performance Premium - Adult formula available where you live?

I have two reasons why I kind of prefer the "premium" formula. The second and third ingredients are rice and rice meal (instead of corn and corn meal -- their positions are basically swapped). And I do prefer rice as a grain over corn. Most dogs tolerate it better and it tends to have a better digestibility for most dogs. 

Obviously, Diabla isn't "most dogs." She's Diabla. But if I were suggesting a food for a dog I didn't know, I'd suggest a food with more rice than corn. 

Also, the ratio of Omega 6 to Omega 3 oils is a bit lower in the Premium food. With this sort of diet, I would recommend supplementing Omega 3 fatty acids anyhow (with fish oil being the easiest way). 

There isn't a definitive number on what it the healthy ratio of fatty acids for dogs. I've seen the number of 5:1 tossed around, but I'm dubious of that. Early dog ate meat that was grass-fed (high in Omega 3s), not grain-fed. The meat that dogs eat now tends to be grain-fed, higher in O6s.

In any event (I've rather digressed, haven't I?), the premium food has a 6:1 O6:O3 ratio, instead of a 7:1 ratio. I don't see a lot else that separates these two formulas.

My Spanish isn't perfecto. So please let me know if I've missed any major differences that we should chat about.


----------



## JulesMichy (Feb 15, 2008)

> Originally Posted By: Chris WildTake the water out of the meat, like it's already been removed from the kibble, and compare what is left side by side. The only way to make an accurate comparison between the two is to look at it from a percentage of nutrition standpoint, leaving water out of the equation. When a dog eats meat, how much of the actual nutrition and calories he's ingesting come from protein?


That's just it: a natural diet would be inclusive of water. Dehydrating ups protein content drastically. The % of protein per gram of food increases when meat is dehydrated. A dog would consume less meat inclusive of its water content than "jerky", so to speak, and thus consume less protein. So you're still left with around 20-30% protein in a natural "meal".

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets/Water_in_Meats/index.asp

When we take water out of the equation by dehydrating and overcooking meat, we alter it in a way that a dog's body isn't adapted to handle. There's a good deal of research going into the effects of kibble diet on renal failure, blockage, crystal and stone formaiton, etc. in dogs and cats due to dehydration right now.

Frankly, I'm not a fan of kibble period. It would never be my first choice in feeding my pets, even the really high quality brands. I'll always prefer a balanced, homemade diet or as a substitute, a really high quality wet food, over kibble any day. And like I said, my vote is still out on the super protein dense diets until I see some well founded research that altering a dog's diet in such a drastic manner would have no deleterious effects. But, again, if it's a choice between carb-loaded or protein-loaded, I do know which a carnivore is more adapted to handle.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

Maybe I'm being dense, but I don't quite follow. Dehydrating doesn't *increase* the protein content. It changes the ratio, sure, because now one main element affecting that ratio (water) has been removed. But the total amount of protein doesn't change, it remains the same. 

Take 1lb of meat and it has the same number total of grams of protein after it's dehydrated as it does as wet weight. The dehydrated form will now just be a lot smaller and weigh a lot less with the water removed. But the only thing that has changed is the water. Set that water that was removed in a water bowl next to the "jerky" and the dog is consuming the exact same thing he would have if you handed him the raw meat, just in different forms. 

Just because meat is only 20% protein and 75% water and 5% other things does NOT mean that the dog is eating a 20% protein diet. Water is water, whether he gets it in his meat or gets it from his water bowl. If meat is 75% water and 25% non-water, then only 25% of the meat actually has any nutritional value.... the rest being just water, which while very important, has no nutritional value on its own. All of the dog's calories are coming from that 25% of the meat that is not water. And 20% of that 25% is protein. So in terms of actual nutrition, about 80% of the nutrition consumed by the dog is from protein.


----------



## JulesMichy (Feb 15, 2008)

> Originally Posted By: Chris WildJust because meat is only 20% protein and 75% water and 5% other things does NOT mean that the dog is eating a 20% protein diet.


Okay, yeah, dense is a good word for it. Because that's exactly what that means.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

No, it isn't. Because far more than 20% of the actual *nutrition* the dog is consuming is from protein. The water does NOT count from a nutritional standpoint. Only the 25% of the meat that is NOT water counts when determining nutrition, protein ratios etc... and 4/5s of that 25% is protein.

Water content is not a factor in determining amount of nutrition. Whether the water comes in the meat or from the water bowl it doesn't count. If it did, we'd have to figure in how much our dogs drink in a day too. Those who drink more would be getting lower protein (and everything else) diets than those who drink less. It doesn't work that way.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

Let me put it this way.

I've got a box of spaghetti here. According to the box, 1 serving of it contains 41g of carbs, which is 14% daily value. 

Does the spaghetti have less carbs, and thus a lower % daily value, when I boil it in water for 8 minutes?

Of course not. Now it has more water in it, a different consistency and a higher weight because of the water. But dry in the box or rehydrated and on a plate, it still has the exact same number of carbs and the exact same % daily value. If I eat one serving, wet or dry, I am consuming the exact same food from a nutritional standpoint, and wet or dry I'm consuming 41g of carbs.


----------



## JulesMichy (Feb 15, 2008)

> Originally Posted By: Chris WildNo, it isn't. Because far more than 20% of the actual *nutrition* the dog is consuming is from protein.


How are nutrient percentages determined? _By weight._ This is true in commercial dog food as well. When the number on the side of the bag says 22% protein, it means that protein contributes to 22% by weight of the total food. The same is true of raw meat. If a dog consumes a lb of raw chicken, only 25% of that meat is given to protein, fat, etc. Therefore, it only constitutes 25% of the total diet.

Do you get it now?


----------



## RubyTuesday (Jan 20, 2008)

I soak my kibble in warm water prior to feeding. Naturally, this completely alters both the water content & the protein % by weight...although there isn't a smidgeon more or less protein in the bowl after adding water. Assuming a 50:50 ratio b/w kibble & water weight am I now feeding a 21% protein diet? If you define it as such, there's still no less absolute protein in the diet. Nor are the protein:fat:carb ratios altered.

I'm a 'semi-fan' of high protein diets. Anecdotal info indicates owners are seeing leaner dogs b/c fat is being lost while muscle mass is increased. Apart from the vanity issue, that makes me wonder anew if contemporary diet, even beyond simple obesity issues, is involved in the increase seen in canine diabetes.

I say 'semi-fan' b/c with these diets, abundant water intake is essential. There's been conjecture that dogs as well as cats have an inadequate thirst drive for dry diets, especially dry, high protein diets. Another problem is that it's easy to over feed with such nutritionally rich diets. And too, there haven't been long range studies yet. Nothing is identical to the wild canine diet. Kibble, even excellent kibble, is several large steps removed. 

Despite these reservations, I'm feeding high protein & excited b/c these kibbles are ideal for my preferred canine diet which is to feed very, very lightly, but very, very well. (I haven't attempted that with this bunch yet b/c it's inappropriate for a growing pup. In fact, I might never do it with my current crew b/c they're considerably more food driven than my previous pack)


----------



## JulesMichy (Feb 15, 2008)

> Originally Posted By: RubyTuesdayI soak my kibble in warm water prior to feeding. Naturally, this completely alters both the water content & the protein % by weight...although there isn't a smidgeon more or less protein in the bowl after adding water. Assuming a 50:50 ratio b/w kibble & water weight am I now feeding a 21% protein diet? If you define it as such, there's still no less absolute protein in the diet. Nor are the protein:fat:carb ratios altered.


No, but...



> Quoteespite these reservations, I'm feeding high protein & excited b/c these kibbles are ideal for my preferred canine diet which is to feed very, very lightly, but very, very well.


Exactly. You feed less. You recognize that by feeding such a protein-dense food, their need is less. And by adding water to the food, you increase the volume size, and your dogs need to eat less to feel full, consuming less protein than they would if you were to feed the same volume of just kibble.

What Chris didn't seem to understand is that nutrient analysis percentages are determined by weight, and so yes, a lb of grain-free kibble with 40+% protein will have more protein than a lb of meat inclusive of its water with 25% protein. He seemed to think I was talking about the same amount of meat before and after dehydration. I was not.


----------



## FredSmi (Nov 20, 2008)

I don't have to feed as much of the higher protein kibble (Evo red meat, etc.) as I did lower protein kibble (Natural Balance, etc.). My shepherd sometimes passes up a meal. With the other foods, she ate every meal like she was starving and in greater quantities (twice as much).

If I eat rich, protein-filled, carb-filled, calorie-filled foods then I can go longer periods of time on less. If I eat lighter foods, I eat more to get the same energy. Although I wouldn't enjoy it, eating a junk of a carcass would give large amounts of protein and energy for an extended period of time. If I eat that same meat after being dried, I’ll get a similar amount of energy out of it. Eating a bag of popcorn, well (besides the fiber effect) … I’m just satisfying my addiction to eating, dogs also. Eat meat, then, add the other essentials (vitamins, minerals, etc.). BALANCE

A raw diet with meat and vegetables seem best, I’ve just not committed my family to that. Even then, mimicking a true natural diet with the blood, intestines, etc., spread out over days for each kill, drinks from rust colored puddles, wild grass … well, how many do that? 

With that said, and the spaghetti analogy, if you eat the spaghetti raw, your body will not absorb the nutrients the same as if cooked (with water); likewise, with dried kibble, can food, raw, or bloody foods, absorption is affected. How to BALANCE this (with vitamins, minerals), again, an ellipsis seems appropriate, because … I don’t know.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

> Originally Posted By: JulesMichy
> What Chris didn't seem to understand is that nutrient analysis percentages are determined by weight, and so yes, a lb of grain-free kibble with 40+% protein will have more protein than a lb of meat inclusive of its water with 25% protein. He seemed to think I was talking about the same amount of meat before and after dehydration. I was not.


I understand what you're saying. The point I am trying to make is that we're talking about two different formulas here.

Guaranteed analysis as is posted on dog food bags, or that website about meat, is not the same as nutritional analysis. The analysis you are referring to is a percentage of everything included. Including the water.

The analysis I am referring to is as a percentage of the actual nutrition in the food. Water has NO nutritional value. So it needs to be eliminated from the equation when determining the % of nutrition that protein constitutes.

Nutrition refers to the things that the dog utilizes as food, what it can break down in digestion to convert into energy. That would include protein, carbs, fat, etc.. It would NOT include water. There is no nutritional value in water. Because water makes up a % of the food by weight makes no difference because it has no nutritional value.

The 75% water content in meat needs to be eliminated from the equation. Only the 25% of meat that has nutrition matters. And since 4/5s of that 25% is protein, 80% of the actual NUTRITION the dog consumes is from protein, the other 20% (the remaining 1/5) is not from protein. 

For purposes of determining what a diet consists of, we must focus on things from the standpoint of the % they constitute of the actual nutrition the dog consumes. Only those things it is able to utilize as food and convert into energy. Not as a % of what goes down the gullet.

We are talking about two completely different things. You are focusing on % of what the dog consumes, including water. I am referring to % of what the dog eats that actually constitutes food. 

Of course feeding amounts need to be adjusted. 1lb of meat does not equal the same nutritional content of 1lb of kibble. The kibble is more concentrated, so the dog would eat less. But from a caloric standpoint a dog eating raw meat is getting approximately 80% of it's calories from protein. (4/5s of the 25% of meat that actually contains any calories.. that 75% of the meat that is water has no calories). The dog eating a raw diet is actually getting a higher percentage of his usable nutrition and calories from protein than is the dog who eats even a high protein kibble.


----------



## JulesMichy (Feb 15, 2008)

> Originally Posted By: Chris WildGuaranteed analysis as is posted on dog food bags, or that website about meat, is not the same as nutritional analysis. The analysis you are referring to is a percentage of everything included. Including the water.


http://www.kroger.com/healthy_living/PublishingImages/march_updates_2008/pet_labels/label1.jpg

Do you see the "moisture" category there? Under your precious guaranteed analysis header? It's on every bag of dog food. Now, why, I wonder, if it is as you say a measure of the contribution of protein, fat, etc. from the total caloric content of the food and not the percent by weight, would they include water? Water has no calories, right?

I want to see some sources from you to back up what you're saying. It goes against everything I've read about determining proper food ratios in my own private research, and without citations, I'm not swayed to your side.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

> Originally Posted By: JulesMichy
> Do you see the "moisture" category there? Under your precious guaranteed analysis header? It's on every bag of dog food. Now, why, I wonder, if it is as you say a measure of the contribution of protein, fat, etc. from the total caloric content of the food and not the percent by weight, would they include water? Water has no calories, right?


Because by law, guaranteed analysis must include ALL ingredients, and that would include moisture. The law requires this to be listed as a percentage of the product. Not a percentage of the nutrition in the product. Totally different things.






> Originally Posted By: JulesMichy
> I want to see some sources from you to back up what you're saying. It goes against everything I've read about determining proper food ratios in my own private research, and without citations, I'm not swayed to your side.



Fine, here you go:

This page shows what you are talking about, as it relates to a chicken drumstick, meat only. The full analysis of what all is included in a drumstick, including the water.

Total Analysis 

Here is what I am talking about, in terms of % of that actual nutrients in the food (water not included). Notice the % of the *nutrition* in raw chicken that is comprised of protein when ONLY the nutrients are taken into account, not the useless water? 

Nutrient Analysis 

Eating that chicken drumstick, 69% of the nutrition is from protein. Even though it's still comprised of 75% water. Get it? Different things, total ingredients (what you are measuring) versus the ingredients that actually have any nutritional value in the food (what I am measuring).


----------



## mikaK9 (Oct 8, 2007)

I've had very good results for my younger and senior GSD's on Barking at the Moon and Orijen. For the younger dog, there was no difference in activity level between a moderate and higher protein kibble. For the senior dog, there has been a very noticeable difference, but that's because the dog was on a crappy senior kibble beforehand, with way too little protein. She's not by any means out of control now....she just has energy of the dogs about 1/3 her age...and has stopped eating other dog/goose poop (probably did so because she wasn't getting enough protein). Both dogs are extremely healthy and perfect weights.


----------



## 3K9Mom (Jun 12, 2006)

Chris is right. She's right. 

The perfect Cliffs Note Explanation:



> Quote:
> Eating that chicken drumstick, 69% of the nutrition is from protein. Even though it's still comprised of 75% water. Get it? Different things, total ingredients (what you are measuring) versus the ingredients that actually have any nutritional value in the food (what I am measuring).


Nutrients are not ingredients. Ingredients provide nutrients.

I can't explain it better than she has. She's right.


----------



## RubyTuesday (Jan 20, 2008)

> Quote:What Chris didn't seem to understand...


I must have stated my position poorly. I was actually agreeing with Chris. <span style="color: #000099">"For purposes of determining what a diet consists of, we must focus on things from the standpoint of the % they constitute of the actual nutrition the dog consumes. Only those things it is able to utilize as food and convert into energy. *Not as a % of what goes down the gullet."</span>* She states it perfectly in that statement, as does 3k9mom when she states, <span style="color: #000099">"Nutrients are not ingredients. Ingredients provide nutrients." 

</span>


> Quoteo you see the "moisture" category there? Under your precious guaranteed analysis header?


<span style="color: #666666">*sighhhh*</span>This is such a snitty little jab. And WHY? Really, WHY? From all I've seen of Chris, she focuses on what matters & ignores what doesn't, including nasty little digs. Good for her(really). Others often find it impossible to ignore the sly asides & bitchy little pokes. Hence, these never help & can seriously impede communication. It takes a great deal more than a superior body of knowledge to become an outstanding medical professional. A HUGE requirement in primary care is *<u>communication</u>*. You need to work on that, IMO. You also need to rigorously question your superior body of knowledge. Todays dogma was yesterdays heresy. Neither necessarily found any 'universal truth'. This is particularly true in the ongoing quest to improve pet nutrition.


----------



## JulesMichy (Feb 15, 2008)

> Originally Posted By: RubyTuesdayThis is such a snitty little jab. And WHY? Really, WHY? From all I've seen of Chris, she focuses on what matters & ignores what doesn't, including nasty little digs. Good for her(really). Others often find it impossible to ignore the sly asides & bitchy little pokes. Hence, these never help & can seriously impede communication. It takes a great deal more than a superior body of knowledge to become an outstanding medical professional. A HUGE requirement in primary care is *<u>communication</u>*. You need to work on that, IMO. You also need to rigorously question your superior body of knowledge.


The jibe was because I felt I was being condescended to. And as for "questioning my superior body of knowledge", this is why I demanded sources. I won't buy into anything some stranger on a forum is saying without evidence to back it up.

Also, communication on a faceless, consequence-free online forum vs. dealing with paying clients face to face? Not the same thing.


----------



## LisaT (Feb 7, 2005)

> Originally Posted By: RubyTuesday......
> 
> 
> > Quoteo you see the "moisture" category there? Under your precious guaranteed analysis header?
> ...


You are so right RubyTuesday.

JulesMichy, you might want to tone down your attitude -- particularly when you are wrong. Haven't you ever calculated the percentage of protein in canned food, which requires a computation to deal with water weight?


----------



## RubyTuesday (Jan 20, 2008)

> Quote:The jibe was because I felt I was being condescended to.


I don't think you were, but why not just ask rather than assume the worst & jump evil? From what I've seen Chris' posting style is measured, cool, analytical, precise & objective. She means EXACTLY what she states, nothing more, nothing less. Her posts are blessedly absent 'sotto voce' digs & innuendo.



> Quote:Also, communication on a faceless, consequence-free online forum vs. dealing with paying clients face to face? Not the same thing.


There are almost always consequences. Among those are people responding to your 'tone' rather than your intended message. Is this what you want? Your online persona won't cost you 'paying clients', but if people whose pets could benefit from your input, reject your advice to the detriment of their pets, that is a 'consequence' albeit one they suffer rather than you. IF your interest in veterinary medicine is beyond personal glory & financial enrichment that's something to be avoided. 

Then there's the old _use it or lose it_ adage. Communication isn't strictly b&w, personal vs impersonal, written vs spoken. IF your serious about your chosen career, communication skills s/b something you strive to improve & fine tune throughout your life. Persuasion is a more effective tool than bludgeoning, although it's often less immediately gratifying. 



> Quote:I won't buy into anything some stranger on a forum is saying without evidence to back it up.


People on discussion boards can be gold or dross, their info accurate & informed, or muddled, ill conceived & just plain wrong. It's wise to form opinions of individual posters over time by reading their replies, noting their actions/reactions & checking out what they say against what you know. Chris is impressive on many, many levels. Whether I agree with her or not, I always know that she's deeply honest, knowledgeable & fair. She is to be trusted, IMO & I am NOT a trusting sort.


----------



## JulesMichy (Feb 15, 2008)

> Originally Posted By: RubyTuesdayThen there's the old _use it or lose it_ adage. Communication isn't strictly b&w, personal vs impersonal, written vs spoken. IF your serious about your chosen career, communication skills s/b something you strive to improve & fine tune throughout your life. Persuasion is a more effective tool than bludgeoning, although it's often less immediately gratifying.


We are not who we are online. If so, every fat, balding, 45-year-old WoW geek living in his mothers basement would have Hugh Hefner's social life. Clients love me, and often request me personally. I'm pretty confident in my bedside manner, actually. And equally confident that what's said on a forum I rarely posted on until these past few days won't affect my personal life a smidge.



> Quoteeople on discussion boards can be gold or dross, their info accurate & informed, or muddled, ill conceived & just plain wrong. It's wise to form opinions of individual posters over time by reading their replies, noting their actions/reactions & checking out what they say against what you know. Chris is impressive on many, many levels. Whether I agree with her or not, I always know that she's deeply honest, knowledgeable & fair. She is to be trusted, IMO & I am NOT a trusting sort.


I have no such knowledge or experience of her. This was my first time seeing any of her replies, and indeed didn't even know she was a "she", let alone anything else about her. So I wasn't going to trust her right off, and I think demanding a standard of evidence, even from experienced, trusted posters is a good thing. I think being skeptical is a good thing.


----------



## RubyTuesday (Jan 20, 2008)

No, what's posted here won't affect your personal life, nor even your professional life but you're passing up an opportunity to be of greater help to pet owners online. 

'Demanding a standard of evidence'...Huh??? What Chris posted was not only <u>correct</u>, it was very obviously correct. Why not simply acknowledge as much?


----------



## JulesMichy (Feb 15, 2008)

> Originally Posted By: RubyTuesday'Demanding a standard of evidence'...Huh??? What Chris posted was not only <u>correct</u>, it was very obviously correct. Why not simply acknowledge as much?


To me, it wasn't obvious, and went against what I have learned about how the nutrient analysis is done. Every animal nutrition class I have ever taken has involved nutrient analysis by weight. The ingredients are listed in order of weight. It didn't even occur to me to think that the guaranteed analysis would use another method, particularly when some of the items that do not contribute to the caloric value are given as a percentage by weight (moisture and fiber) and others are given as a percentage of their contribution to the caloric value. That seems very anti-intuitive to me.

I won't acknowledge something as correct unless someone can provide me proof that it is. Blindly accepting everything you read is not only foolish, it is also the very thing I see the majority of dog owners on forums such as this complaining about when it comes to their vets. So it seems a double standard is in place. You hate it when vets accept on faith what they are taught in school by representatives from the big dog food companies, but you also hate it if they don't accept on faith everything _you_ have to say about nutrition.

I fully intend to study the links that she provided and to look into the subject further, and if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. But do not expect me just to trust the word of some stranger on the internet who I know nothing about. Debate is healthy, it is useful and it is how we learn.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

> Originally Posted By: JulesMichy
> 
> To me, it wasn't obvious, and went against what I have learned about how the nutrient analysis is done. Every animal nutrition class I have ever taken has involved nutrient analysis by weight. The ingredients are listed in order of weight. It didn't even occur to me to think that the guaranteed analysis would use another method,



You are correct that analysis is done by weight.

However, the statement made earlier about ingredients vs nutrients is dead on. Nutrients are ingredients. But not all ingredients are nutrients. Some have no nutritional value whatsoever, water/moisture being one of them.

A guaranteed analysis/ingredients list does not represent an accurate picture of nutrients, because of that very fact... that much of what is included are not nutrients.

When determining percentage of diet, we need to look only at the nutrients, not at the ingredients that have no nutritional value.

The way things are measured, by weight, is the same. WHAT is being measured... everything vs just the important things.. is what is different. Just because something is 20% of the total ingredients does not mean it represents 20% of the actual nutrition. That is the point I am trying to make, because the statement that a dog eating raw meat is eating a 20% protein diet is completely false, and therefore very misleading in a discussion of nutrition. 20% of what the dog consumes in terms of total ingredients may be protein, but that same amount of protein represents a much, much higher percentage of the actual nutrients in the dog's diet.


----------



## JulesMichy (Feb 15, 2008)

> Originally Posted By: Chris WildJust because something is 20% of the total ingredients does not mean it represents 20% of the actual nutrition. That is the point I am trying to make, because the statement that a dog eating raw meat is eating a 20% protein diet is completely false, and therefore very misleading in a discussion of nutrition. 20% of what the dog consumes in terms of total ingredients may be protein, but that same amount of protein represents a much, much higher percentage of the actual nutrients in the dog's diet.


And this is where we got hung up, because I was under the impression that the percentages on the side of a bag of dog food were percent of the total diet, and not of the nutrient value. Thusly, in my mind, a dog eating close to 60% protein in a grain-free kibble, if that 60% were indeed total ingredients and not contribution to nutrients consumed, would be consuming far more protein than what nature intended.

Like I said, I'll look into it, and if I'm wrong then I'll accept that and adapt this knew knowledge into what I already know. As far as I'm concerned, that's what a good vet does. Questions things, researches and either confirms or rejects what they previously thought.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

In terms of dog food bags, what is printed on the side is very close to the actual percentages because the kibble has little moisture and thus the nutrients are more concentrated. In other words, ingredients and nutrients are in much closer ratios because of the nutrients are not as diluted in usless ingredients like water.

In terms of things like canned dog food, raw meat, etc.. with very high moisture contents and thus much more diluted nutrients, you need to take all that water out of the equation in order to look at just the nutrients, because a high percentage of the ingredients are uselss and of no nutritional value.


----------



## RubyTuesday (Jan 20, 2008)

> Quote:To me, it wasn't obvious





> Quote:I won't acknowledge something as correct unless someone can provide me proof that it is. Blindly accepting everything you read is not only foolish, it is also the very thing I see the majority of dog owners on forums such as this complaining about when it comes to their vets.


Among those participating in this thread, it appears you are the only one it's not obvious to. For this reason I'm baffled as to why you're demanding proof, rather than providing it. Chris has provided support for her position, whereas you have not. 'Blindly accepting everything you read...' is so fraught with hyperbole it would be insulting if it wasn't so ridiculous. Where has anyone indicated they want or expect 'blind allegiance'? 




> Quote:So it seems a double standard is in place. You hate it when vets accept on faith what they are taught in school by representatives from the big dog food companies, but you also hate it if they don't accept on faith everything you have to say about nutrition.


Where did you get this notion? Please show me where I've said anything like that. Frankly, I have more questions about nutrition than answers & my vets are a valuable source of information in answering those questions. 



> Quote:And this is where we got hung up, because I was under the impression that the percentages on the side of a bag of dog food were percent of the total diet, and not of the nutrient value. Thusly, in my mind, a dog eating close to 60% protein in a grain-free kibble, if that 60% were indeed total ingredients and not contribution to nutrients consumed, would be consuming far more protein than what nature intended.


You're hung up on percentages. Forget percentages & try calculating the grams of protein in a cup of high protein kibble vs the grams of protein in a lb of chicken. What is relevant is the absolute amount of high quality protein being fed, not the percentage. With kibble I can lower that percentage to any value I prefer by adding water, but there's truly no less protein in what I'm feeding my dogs. They require adequate amounts of protein to thrive but it doesn't matter if that's provided as a 42% dry kibble or 21% moistened kibble.


----------



## JulesMichy (Feb 15, 2008)

> Originally Posted By: RubyTuesdayAmong those participating in this thread, it appears you are the only one it's not obvious to.


Clearly. But what does that have to do with anything? 



> Quote:For this reason I'm baffled as to why you're demanding proof, rather than providing it.Chris has provided support for her position, whereas you have not.


I linked to two things that I thought supported my case. She did not until I requested it. Before that she was merely explaining her case, not providing any outside sources.



> Quote:Where has anyone indicated they want or expect 'blind allegiance'?


You did, actually. By telling me to trust Chris, when I don't know her. By telling me to simply acknowledge that she is right. I've already said that I'd study the material she gave me and do a little digging, and that if I am wrong then that is fine, but I want to come to that conclusion through evidence and research, instead of being told. I fail to see why you have a problem with that.

As far as I'm concerned, the matter is over. I've had an extremely long and exhausting weekend, which might have contributed to my mood a bit, I'll admit. I'm not going to respond to you anymore, but I'll be more than happy to respond to Chris or anyone else who can be reasonable.


----------



## 3K9Mom (Jun 12, 2006)

Even if people aren't who they say they are online (and assume that I am a balding overweight guy who never leaves his mother's basement), why be rude to people?

I've never understood this. 

What does one get from being snippy and rude? In the chat forum down below, tempers flare from talking religion and politics, but they don't need to. But here, in the dog forums, where we all want the same thing -- safe healthy dogs -- I * really * don't get this. 

I've been around long enough to witness and sometimes be a part of some uh, "turbulent" discussions here and on other dog forums. Most of the time, one person seems to feel like they're backed up against the wall when their knowledge is questioned. But what is actually going on is simply that THEIR KNOWLEDGE/EXPERTISE IS BEING QUESTIONED. And it's nothing more personal than that. 

I question my vets A LOT. Not because I don't respect them, but because I do. My favorite phrase is "hey, what about this ---" I could go off on my own and try stuff out, but I want to know what they think. Sometimes, they say, flat out, "Nah. It's not worth the money." Or point blank: "No. Don't do that." But they always take the time to explain why, professionally, graciously, and in detail.

But often, they say, "Maybe. Maybe not. It will cost you, but you know that. Let's give it a shot." And frequently enough, "I hadn't thought of that. It's worth pursuing."

We're a team. We respect each other.

(And, I tell them I want referrals when I think I've maxxed out their body of knowledge, which a less confident vet would take as an insult.)

And I'll tell you what, you're going to meet a lot of vet owners like me, who understand medicine thoroughly, understand veterinary medicine pretty well, are willing to do anything to take care of their pets and don't think that what you think is the bottom line. 

AND you're going to meet a lot of vet owners who read something on the internet, which is in all likelihood a bunch of hooey, but it's what we call here a "One Time at Band Camp" story. Someone said it worked for THEIR dog, so the owner wants to know why it won't work for their dog. And you need to deal with these people as tactfully as well. 

You might think that you'll be much more gracious to them because they're paying clients and they're there in person. But wow, some people have some crazy ideas; they stick to them like flypaper, and it's really hard to not want to grab a hold of them and scream "NO! Stop it!" because you know those crazy ideas, if followed through, can be hazardous to their pet. So, getting in a habit of being gracious, generous and patient with EVERYONE (including your classmates) is probably a really good idea NOW before you meet some of these doozies. 

I have a phenomenal relationship with the three vets at my vet clinic. On slow days, we'll sit around and chat about new research that's being done, new drugs and supplements, and their families, dogs and what's going on in the world. It's not because I'm the easiest owner to work with. I know that. 

It's because they are willing to be questioned, without being snippy in return, because they understand that whether I'm right, or I'm wrong, or sometimes, it falls in the murky gray area in between, we all want what's best for dogs. And not just my dogs -- but dogs in general. What we learn about from my dogs, they can use in practicing on other dogs, and I can bring back here and to those I know in my dog club and at my training facility. 

And one last thought -- Chris provided you links, but she shouldn't have had to. This is YOUR future profession. If someone explained to you in detail that your understanding of something relatively simple as the nutrients in food was not correct, I would expect that you would go off on your own to investigate if their info were correct. You were bashing a woman (in another thread) for accepting that Purina is a good food; she never questioned it. That's lack of intellectual curiosity. Weren't you curious when Chris told you that you were wrong that perhaps, in fact, you were?

When I post something and someone here says, "No, Lori. You're wrong" as unequivocally as that, the first thing I do is go off to double-check. Sometimes, we are mistaken. Sometimes, we confuse things when we learn them. Sometimes, our sources are wrong. 

A little humility goes a long way -- for all of us.

Just my two cents. 

(And for the record, I pretty much am who I say I am in and around this forum.







)


----------



## LisaT (Feb 7, 2005)

Wow, we have the greatest members on this board. In terms of knowledge and temperment (to use a dog term!), I'm not sure I've ever been on a better health and nutrition board. (Let's not talk about Chat okay???). 

Great posts ladies









JulesMichy, do stick around if you are willing to have an open mind and do a bit of research.


----------



## JulesMichy (Feb 15, 2008)

> Originally Posted By: 3K9MomAnd one last thought -- Chris provided you links, but she shouldn't have had to.


Yes, she should have. If you make a claim, you should provide outside sources to back it up. No one should accept anything at face value, particularly on the internet.



> Quote:This is YOUR future profession. If someone explained to you in detail that your understanding of something relatively simple as the nutrients in food was not correct, I would expect that you would go off on your own to investigate if their info were correct.


I did, and the few things I was able to pull up on short notice in the brief windows that I had free time this weekend confirmed what I understood to be true: that nutrient analysis is done by weight. I was confusing nutrient vs. ingredient, and I realize that now. Which I've already admitted, so I'm confused as to where you're getting this impression that I'm unwilling to admit that I could be wrong about something.



> Quote:Sometimes, we are mistaken. Sometimes, we confuse things when we learn them. Sometimes, our sources are wrong.


Precisely what I've already said myself.

And again, I'm getting the impression that there's a definite bias against vets here. That any time a vet is skeptical or doesn't automatically accept something they're told by a dog owner at face value, that they are being inflexible. That somehow by demanding sources, I am unwilling to have myself questioned. That by wanting evidence in exchange for anecdotes or personal experience or authority from a complete stranger, I'm stubborn and unwilling to learn.

I've already said that I believe that things like this are _how_ we learn. We have our beliefs, or our knowledge, or our experience called into question, and yes, sometimes it stings and gets our back up. That's a purely human reaction. But eventually either you can look at the information presented to you objectively and adapt, or you can turn away from it and continue on as you have been. And I really don't think anyone could say that I've shown here that I am the latter type of person. Will I be critical and skeptical of any information put before me? Yes. Does that mean I won't give it a chance and allow myself to be convinced otherwise? No.


----------



## 3K9Mom (Jun 12, 2006)

Bias against vets?

You didn't read a word I said, or at least, you are so untrusting that you didn't take it to heart. 

There are bad vets out there. Quite a few. More than having bad information, they're inflexible and unwilling to listen when actually given facts, data and sources. And they talk down to people.

But Jules, honestly, it doesn't matter to me. The disrespect that you showed for your peers in your other thread left me speechless. Has it dawned on you that they might come upon this forum as well, and that you have revealed enough of yourself to make them know that you're speaking of them? 


I tried to give you honest extremely well-intentioned input to perhaps give you a bit to think about, to help you be successful in the future * precisely because * I like vets so much. I'm on first-name basis with not only my regular vets but nearly all of my specialists as well. Which specialists? Dentist, internist, cardiologist, and surgeon. The only two specialists that we don't chat as friends are my dog's dermatologist, whom he sees only annually and the radiologist because, well, he's just the kind of guy that you know he likes being called Dr. Smith, so I give him that. 

They're in my cell phone on speed dial, and voice dial too. 

Knowledge can be taught and I'm sure that your professors will do a fine job. Attitude is something else altogether. More vets lose patients due to their and their staff's attitudes than knowledge though. And consider this -- professional liability claims can often be predicted more by the relationship of the doctor or vet and the patient or owner than by the egregiousness of the mistake (because EVERY professional unfortunately makes mistakes now and then). 

There's far more to the world than what you read in a book or two. Some of us have been around the block a few times and actually do have useful information. 

Oh well, I've wasted enough of my time


----------



## RubyTuesday (Jan 20, 2008)

JulesMichy, I didn't tell you to trust Chris. I told you that I trusted her & why. Gotta chuckle at that, tbh. She's a well known, widely respected breeder & trainer as well as an administrator & moderator on this forum, so my assertion that *I* trust her frankly reeks of arrogance. (Sorry Chris! It's admittedly a personal fault of mine) I suggested that you might read her posts & peruse her website to get some idea of the kind of person/poster she is, so you could make an informed opinion of her. There's enough info out there that she doesn't need to be simply some stranger on the internet.

I suspect that she was 'merely explaining her case' & not providing outside sources b/c 'her case' is so screamingly obvious it shouldn't require 'outside support'. That sounds snotty & it's not intended as such. Most of us have hit blind spots that when the light finally goes on are an embarrassingly 'Well DuH!' experience. Stupid moments don't make stupid people. We all have 'em. Again, that is not intended to be snotty.

What's been discussed/disputed is not new, controversial or arcane. It's fully in the realm of common knowledge & shouldn't require deep thought, extended analysis or formal documentation. While high protein diets are a new (or rather return to old) approach, nutritional analysis, measurements & ingredients lists have remained largely unchanged for many yrs. It's hard to see extensive arguments about these <u>facts</u> as something other than stubborn. Would you ask me repeatedly to prove there are 16oz in a lb? This is on the order of that simple. 

Vet bashing? Where have I engaged in any vet bashing? ****, I thought you were still a vet student! I didn't even realize that you're already a vet. From other posts you've made, I received the impression that you're extremely unhappy with your professional colleagues, so I'm confuddled that you now accuse me/us of vet bashing. I actually didn't see many of us (if any) climbing aboard your vet bash thread. 

To reiterate, I admire, respect & depend on my vets' knowledge, decency, dedication & expertise. Their practice was a very early adopter of the reduced vaccination protocols. Products they sell are reasonably priced & never shilled. They're open to various feeding strategies & voluntarily recommend outside sources for supplements. Whenever they make recommendations I KNOW it's my animals well being they're concerned with. 3k9mom stated it perfectly, _"I question my vets A LOT. Not because I don't respect them, but because I do."_ Nor are my vets unique. Most of my friends have vets they're equally happy with, many of whom I'd consider consulting for a 2nd opinion if that's ever necessary.


----------



## FredSmi (Nov 20, 2008)

After some research, I decided on high protein kibble a year ago. I also decided I would switch brands every so often because I doubt any kibble is perfect. I also mix bags together. After adopting these practices I came across this website:
http://www.dogfoodanalysis.com/dog_food_reviews/ 

Although not perfect, I wish I had found this website sooner and saved time by investigating the 6 star picks. I had already been using EVO Red Meat, Blue Wilderness & Barking at the Moon and considering most of the rest. Despite the critics, I've mixed Timberwolf Wilderness in (33% protein).

Blue Wilderness is one of the only high protein foods available at Petsmart, which is handy sometimes. http://www.bluebuff.com/products/dogs/wilderness.shtml 

I think EVO Red Meat & Barking at the Moon are my favorite (I don't eat it







), and I'm going to try Orijen.


----------



## RubyTuesday (Jan 20, 2008)

FredSmi, I'm pretty much in line with your approach. Djiboti is still a pup so I have to take that into consideration when choosing kibbles. I usually have 2 brands open at a time. I also like to supplement with fresh meat, eggs, yogurt, cottage cheese & left overs. (Note, I routinely give glucosamine chondroitin & omega 3 supplements, too)

Mine did well on Barking at the Moon, but it's not a good choice for Djibouti so I won't get it again til he's older. Pudding poops with Evo but that was probably my fault but Djibouti is also too young for that so I won't try it again for awhile. Gag! But I hate the smell of Barking at the Moon. 

I've also read those sites & found them helpful tho' I'd take 'em with a (large)grain of salt. The star picks site is heavily biased towards grain free & high protein. All kibbles include carb components as well as protein. Are potatoes are any more a part of the 'canine ancestral diet' than rice? Perhaps some dogs thrive on more moderate protein levels. IMO, the grain free, high protein positions border on religion at times, which leaves me a mite queasy & suspicious as well.


----------



## 3K9Mom (Jun 12, 2006)

Ruby, I'm feeding my pup 50% each Evo and NV's Prairie right now. The Evo by itself created runny poop (not even pudding) , but when I tried a couple months later as a mix with the Prairie, everything is perfect. 

We keep tinkering....


----------



## RubyTuesday (Jan 20, 2008)

I know, I know! I sometimes wonder why I'm so obsessive about it. They seem to thrive regardless of what I feed. 

Djibouti is only 11mos old & many of the high protein foods have excessive amounts of calcium for a pupster. A concern I have, is that he's an over sized guy whose lines grow 'til 24+mos old. I think his Dad actually grew 1/2" in height b/w 2 & 3yo! Due to this, I wonder if I should avoid the high protein/high calcium kibbles beyond the usual 1yr that's recommended.

I adore my guy & I want him with me for as looong as possible. He has made such a difference in my life just by being himself...obstreperous, opinionated, full of himself & always, always, always incredibly sweet. A complete charmer!


----------



## RubyTuesday (Jan 20, 2008)

FredSmi, Timberwolf Wild & natural was a real favorite of mine & then whoooosh! the price went skyward with nary a warning! I read complaints about changing the formula, but it's priced so high I don't even try to get it anymore. (I'm not certain what their calcium level is. I didn't become aware of the significance of that 'til after the price JUMP) It's a darn shame. The cats loved their Serengeti formula & there aren't many premium dry foods they'll eat.


----------



## 3K9Mom (Jun 12, 2006)

> Quote:
> Due to this, I wonder if I should avoid the high protein/high calcium kibbles beyond the usual 1yr that's recommended.


I would. One year is just a very rough guideline that assumes a pup is done growing by then. Some breed pups are done growing long before then and can be fed high nutrient foods earlier. Others, like our GSDs grow til they're about 3. 

Guidelines are for the average dogs. But I've never owned an "average" dog.









And I'm certain that Djibouti (GREAT name, by the way. My kids have geographical names too!) is ANYTHING but average too.


----------



## LisaT (Feb 7, 2005)

_JulesMichy, ......

Vet bashing? Where have I engaged in any vet bashing? ****, I thought you were still a vet student! I didn't even realize that you're already a vet. ......_

I think she is still a student RubyTuesday:


> Originally Posted By: JulesMichy...... I worked in a clinic as a vet assistant......
> 
> ......now I'm a pre-vet major amongst a group of people who are _driving me insane_.......


----------



## LisaT (Feb 7, 2005)

> Originally Posted By: 3K9Mom.....Guidelines are for the average dogs. But I've never owned an "average" dog. ....


What exactly is an average dog? I've certainly never owned one either!


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

> Originally Posted By: RubyTuesdayFredSmi, Timberwolf Wild & natural was a real favorite of mine & then whoooosh! the price went skyward with nary a warning! I read complaints about changing the formula, but it's priced so high I don't even try to get it anymore. (I'm not certain what their calcium level is. I didn't become aware of the significance of that 'til after the price JUMP) It's a darn shame. The cats loved their Serengeti formula & there aren't many premium dry foods they'll eat.


I still miss using this food. I just rotated through the formulas. It was so nice. Now every three months I re-research again to find the next food. 

http://www.natureslogic.com I am going to switch from the Lamb to the Venison in the next month. 32% for the lamb to 38% for the venison. 

My oldest dog is on Orijen fish and I am trying the senior slowly mixing it in together. I may also mix in a less proteiny food. He gets canned, too so it's a lot to digest-I add Prozyme to help him out.


----------



## BowWowMeow (May 7, 2007)

I still haven't found a good kibble for Rafi. I've tried high protein, medium protein, grain free, food with grains and now I've given up with the switching for a little while. I have never been able to get more than a cup of kibble into him at a time without running into problems coming out the other end.







The kibble + homemade + pre-prepared raw works fine though. 

He's on Orijen Senior (yes senior!) because it's lower fat and he has problems metabolizing fat. The rest of his food is raw and homemade. 

He is about 2 and I did put him on the higher protein stuff shortly after I adopted him (about a year ago). 

Chama, my senior, gets a mix of Orijen Senior and Orijen fish. She is doing really well on it. I have to say that she does much better on the higher protein foods than she did on the lower protein foods. But that could be the grain issue too since all of the high protein foods I've fed have been grain free. 

I am considering trying the Wellness Core Fish for Rafi if that fat levels are ok.


----------



## 3K9Mom (Jun 12, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: LisaT
> 
> 
> > Originally Posted By: 3K9Mom.....Guidelines are for the average dogs. But I've never owned an "average" dog. ....
> ...


And is that average dog the mean, mode or median?


----------



## RubyTuesday (Jan 20, 2008)

Thanks, Lisa. I thought I'd missed something, & might have inadvertantly caused offense(again?).

3k9mom, I think I will wait. IF nothing else, it will be a much needed exercise in patience. Glad you like my guy's name. Very few do, but I swear he does! My daughter(BRAT!) tried naming him Yogi & STILL refers to him as Yogi b/c she so dislikes the name Djibouti. (I've taken to simply hanging up on her. She is finally learning)

Gotta admit, I have a 'fish thing'. I don't know why but it never seems like dog food. Silly, yes, but I always gravitate to one of the meat formulas rather than fish. Barking at the Moon being the exception & at least Solid Gold didn't put *FISH* in the name. (But ooohhhh that smell! & I actually like fish)

Ruth, I always feel like I haven't found *the* magic kibble(s) yet & then I remember that the quest is largely my own nutsiness. They've done well on whatever I fed 'em. (I've been darned lucky, I know).

I wonder at times if I should feed Purina One & save a bundle, cuz they do great on it. I simply don't want to risk losing an edge if the high quality kibbles do in fact provide an edge.

Sam, my senior girl (10 in Dec) had me a bit worried cuz she recently got thinner without any dietary restrictions! Due to her age, I'd switched her to the higher protein food, whereas I'd previously given her food that was 24-26% for weight control. I gradually increased her portions of the richer food somewhat as well. She's looking good & she's probably at a decent weight. She usually struggles a bit with the pounds (carries a bit of 'heft'), but wt loss without reason is always cause for concern. Her activity level is great. She's happy & eating well. And it occurred to me that I'm seeing a benefit of the high protein, low carb diet...Less fat, more lean tissue. That alone is well worth it. On the higher carb kibbles she ate so darned little to try & maintain a good weight & she was always HUNGRY.


----------



## RubyTuesday (Jan 20, 2008)

Jean, have you been happy with Nature's Logic? I sooooo want to try tha,t but I need to either wait til Djibouti is older or feed it to everyone but him. That would necessitate rotating through 3 kibbles & I'm not sure I want to do that. But maybe...Gawd knows they devour it quickly enough. It just looks like a very interesting food. I'd certainly start with the ever affordable chicken!


----------



## LisaT (Feb 7, 2005)

> Originally Posted By: 3K9Mom
> 
> 
> > Originally Posted By: LisaT
> ...


Now that is way too technical!!


----------



## JulesMichy (Feb 15, 2008)

> Originally Posted By: 3K9MomThe disrespect that you showed for your peers in your other thread left me speechless.










Because no one ever gets frustrated and goes online to let off some steam.



> Originally Posted By: RubyTuesdayVet bashing? Where have I engaged in any vet bashing? ****, I thought you were still a vet student!


I am a vet student. And I didn't accuse you of bashing, I said I detected a definite bias. In that I feel I was prematurely judged as inflexible, stubborn and unwilling to be questioned based on my chosen occupation and the preconceived attitude associated with it, when I clearly haven't demonstrated that. In fact, I've have expressed over and over my willingness to be open to knew ideas. The fact that I'm even on a forum like this and not trolling about "omg u tards Science Diet rules!!1!" shows that clearly enough.

And here I've already broken my own promise not to respond to you, because clearly we are not going to say eye to eye, and I'm just repeating myself at this point, and so are you. So I think I'll just go back to lurking here every so often. 

Gotta say, though. As much as you guys dislike my attitude, and how it might push people away, etc., you haven't done a stellar job of living up to your own example and making this a very welcoming place, either. Imagine if some new poster just entering into the world of nutrition came here and upon seeing everything they've ever thought to be true being questioned and in some cases mocked, got a little hot under the collar and made some reactionary posts. Instead of being presented with information in a way that might change his mind and lead him to becoming a better dog owner, the sort of behavior I've seen here would definitely drive him away. So, practice what you preach, I suppose, and don't come off as a hypocrite.


----------



## FredSmi (Nov 20, 2008)

The Blue Wilderness smells fishy.

This may help with not feeling like fish is dogfood.
Wolf with Salmon Pic


----------



## Barb E (Jun 6, 2004)

> Originally Posted By: RubyTuesdayJean, have you been happy with Nature's Logic? I sooooo want to try tha,t but I need to either wait til Djibouti is older or feed it to everyone but him. That would necessitate rotating through 3 kibbles & I'm not sure I want to do that. But maybe...Gawd knows they devour it quickly enough. It just looks like a very interesting food. I'd certainly start with the ever affordable chicken!


-----Original Message-----
From: Barb 
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 11:07 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Puppy

With the high Calcium levels in your food can it be fed to a large breed
puppy?

I'm giving it a try for my 4 year old, I'm hopeful that it will be the
perfect food!!

Thank you, 
Barb

Dear Barb,

Thank you for your email and interest in our products.

Our food is very good for large breeds especially. The reason is because all
the calcium comes from real food and all the vitamins come from real food.

When a food has added chemically synthesized vitamins and minerals added
they can have a negative effect on structural growth and development. This
does not happen when feeding a whole food diet only like Nature's Logic.

Sincerely,

Scott Freeman 

Customer Service
Nature's Logic
PO Box 67224
Lincoln, NE 68506
402-475-7663
[email protected]
http://www.natureslogic.com


----------



## Barb E (Jun 6, 2004)

> Originally Posted By: JeanKBBMMMAANwww.natureslogic.com I am going to switch from the Lamb to the Venison in the next month. 32% for the lamb to 38% for the venison.


I just bought a bag of the Venison - $$$ (I think it was like 60 something







)
I think I have a couple more weeks left of the lamb yet though.


----------



## BowWowMeow (May 7, 2007)

I just checked out the price of Wellness Core Ocean Fish and it's more than $60 so strike that off my list.


----------



## Barb E (Jun 6, 2004)

Ruth - I think Wellness just had a huge price increase.


----------



## roxy84 (Jun 23, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: BowWowMeowI just checked out the price of Wellness Core Ocean Fish and it's more than $60 so strike that off my list.


yeah, i've yet to find any fish based kibbles (that dont use "ocean fish" as the main protein source) that arent sky high in price. i use the wellness core ocean because it is $65 for a 26 lb bag as opposed to the orijen fish, which is $89 for a 29 lb bag. the canidae salmon (actually salmon based) is cheaper, but their relationship with diamond does not inspire confidence in me regarding the presence of ethoxyquin. (they have never adequately responded to me to show me their controls prevent the presence/use of this)


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

> Originally Posted By: RubyTuesdayJean, have you been happy with Nature's Logic? I sooooo want to try tha,t but I need to either wait til Djibouti is older or feed it to everyone but him. That would necessitate rotating through 3 kibbles & I'm not sure I want to do that. But maybe...Gawd knows they devour it quickly enough. It just looks like a very interesting food. I'd certainly start with the ever affordable chicken!


The only thing I don't like is that it has chicken fat, and I swear that is not a good ingredient for my dogs. But I think they get itchy every fall and every fall I forget that they get itchy. 

BUT-good coats-one dog in particular (Bruno) has that Soupy Sales kind of wiry coat at times and he is so soft right now-it's wonderful, happy eating, but it has taken me a while to figure out servings. I cut too much on one dog, and my three smallest I have to watch that they don't get a little sausage-ish. 

Is the Venison more expensive than the lamb? Dog food prices are going to end up becoming more expensive than home cooking soon.


----------



## Barb E (Jun 6, 2004)

Yes, the Venison is the most expensive of the NL


----------



## 3K9Mom (Jun 12, 2006)

> Quote:
> But I think they get itchy every fall and every fall I forget that they get itchy.


There. I've written it on my 2009 calendar. 

October 22, 2009: _Send Jean an email that her dogs get itchy in the fall. _
Glad to be of assistance.


----------



## sunnygirl272 (Dec 10, 2003)

> Originally Posted By: 3K9Mom
> 
> 
> > Quote:
> ...


Hhhmmmm....Wondering if that is early enough of an alert? Maybe a pre-warning, then a reminder on that date?


----------



## 3K9Mom (Jun 12, 2006)

Maybe a daily reminder starting in July?


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

That sounds good! Thank you. I need that so I don't hit the panic button every year. 

I also realized that <gasp>...sometimes *I* scratch/itch for no reason and maybe it feels good to them...


----------

