is trying to
private chat with you.
My dog's food is organic as the land it comes from. I don't buy all that fancy stuff that's $6.00 a can.
I know that applies to most people, Tiger, but common practice does not necessarily make something okay. There are a lot of things that I see happen every day that I don't think <i>should</i>. The tiniest amount of research on dog food can show a person better options.
We got Lucy, my "Agility Dane" as a pup and had her on Natural Choice. Then we got our second Dane from a rescue, the same age as her who had been on Alpo his who life and boy did we see the difference. Dirks fur was oily/grimy and his teeth were yellow and gross, he couldn't chew. We switched him to Natural Choice and he got better. His teeth and fur aren't quite as nice as Lucy's but boy is there a difference. His breath doesn't smell as bad now either. But they were eating us out house and home. Then we met another Dane owner who gave us the ingredient list and nutrition facts from Kirkland adult dog food. Its almost better than Natural Choice and its 30$ for one bag the same size as the 70$ bag we were buying for the dogs. So even if you don't have a lot of money, there are still good food options out there.
A <u><b>LOT</b></u> of people don't know the difference in good and bad food, they see "dog food" and figure its what they are supposed to give and since they're on a tight budgit buy what they can afford. I know its not an excuse, but its the truth.
Nath, you stole my words from my brain. :3
While I would not say anything like "poor people should not have pets," there's something to be said for knowing when to bring a <i>new</i> pet into the family and when to resist. If one is low on funds or has a high likelihood of being low on funds in the near future (ie, often has no money after bills), it's probably best they don't bring a new puppy into the house.<br /><br /><br />That isn't to say those of us with monetary problems are at fault for our problems...or that we can't be good owners/caretakers to pets we already have. But I would say it <i>is</i> irresponsible to bring a new pet into the house when there's not enough money for a good diet. Feeding what you have to to get by is one thing; planning to feed a diet you know is inferior from the beginning is another.
"If you have financial struggles you really shouldn't have a pet."<br /><br /><br />So your saying those of us who can't afford to feed our dogs like we eat then we shouldn't have pets? That's nice to know. <br /><br />I'm glad my dog doesn't care and he's happy and healthy no matter what he eats.
Also, my earlier comment wasn't directed towards anyone. And I wouldn't give up on just one food because they didn't like it. <br /><br /><br /> My grandmother's Toy Poodle was extremely picky, he wouldn't eat anything but chicken, hotdogs other human food. I convinced her to put him on proper dog food, she first put him on Pedigree, I later got her to have them on TOTW instead. <br /><br /><br /> For a long time he wouldn't eat, he'd pick up a piece and drop it outside the bowl. So I started leaving the bowl down for only 10 minutes. If they weren't done, it went up, and they had to wait until the next day to eat.<br /><br /><br />He eats very well now. =] Took him a bit to start, but he does.
That is false, there are hidden ingredients. This is from a veterinarian board.<br /><br /><br />ELISA testing for soy antigens in dry dog foods used in dietary elimination trials<br /><br />C. Willis-Mahn*, D. Raditic*†, K. Tater*, R. Remillard*<br /><br />*MSPCA Angell Animal Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts<br /><br />†University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee<br /><br />Abstract: Elimination diet trials are used to determine food allergies and intolerances. Contamination of<br /><br />the diet with a known food antigen, such as soy, nullifies the results of the trial whereas unintentional<br /><br />contamination confounds the results. The objective of this study was to determine if: 1) four over-the-<br /><br />counter (OTC) dry dog foods carrying a ‘made with no soy’ claim and 2) eight veterinary therapeutic dry<br /><br />dog foods designed for food elimination trials were suitable for a canine soybean elimination trial. A 100<br /><br />gram sample of each diet plus a soy foods carrying a ‘made with no soy’ claim and 2) eight veterinary<br /><br />therapeutic dry dog foods designed for food elimination trials were suitable for a canine soybean<br /><br />elimination trial. A 100 gram sample of each diet plus a soy positive control diet were submitted for<br /><br />ELISA testing to an outside independent food laboratory. The ELISA test is quantitative for soy flour<br /><br />protein concentrations between 2.5 and 25 ppm. The positive control diet contained >25 ppm soy protein<br /><br />antigens. Three of the four OTC ‘no soy’ claiming diets were positive for soy antigen; two contained >25<br /><br />ppm. Four veterinary therapeutic diets had less than the lower detectable limit of soy protein. Two<br /><br />hydrolyzed soy diets were positive (>2.5 ppm). One veterinary therapeutic diet contained >25 ppm soy<br /><br />but soybean oil was a listed ingredient and one diet contained 4.6 ppm with no soy ingredients listed.<br /><br />From these results we conclude that OTC dog food diets that claim to contain ‘no soy’ may contain high<br /><br />concentrations of soy protein antigen and therefore should not be considered for soy elimination trials.<br /><br />The veterinary therapeutic diet chosen for a soy elimination diet trial needs to be carefully selected based<br /><br />on these results.<br /><br />Study funded by an ACVD and AAVD Research Award.<br /><br />State conflict of interest: None declared.
"There's no such thing as hidden in if you read the ingredient list. Food companies have to by LAW list all ingredients put into any food product be it human or animal."<br /><br /><br />What I meant by hidden is dry foods claiming to be Lamb when they also contain chicken and/or poultry. <br /><br />
"What I've seen with the "if you're dog is doing good on it, fine" thing, is that people never tried a higher quality to see the actual difference. Also, the negative effects could be very subtle and insidious."<br /><br />
Uhm, I've tried 'higher' quality food for my two dogs. For a short period I fed them both Blue Buffalo Wilderness and they <i>hated</i> it. Lucy, my cocker spaniel, would actually pick certain kernels out of the food and set them beside her dish, refusing to eat them. Now this is a dog who lives to eat, I've never seen her do something like this before. Both of them also had softer stool, and smellier too, while they were on that food. Their breath also smelled rather foul too. So they were gradually weaned off that food and on to Authority, an 'average' dog food and both have been doing much better since. As I said, what food works for your dog depends on your dog.