Eukanuba-Bad, Better, Or Worse?

[BC_MoM]

Not starting war, stating an opinion:

Iams is a tad bit better than Science Diet...but it's still not too good

I disagree. I think quality of food should be based upon dogs as individuals. I've seen dogs on top brand foods do extremely horrible, while another on a lower brand is flourishing.

[coco-bean]

thank you all for your advice!!

[My Peanuts]

A simple way to tell which food is better is to look at the first ingredients. If corn or byproducts is listed in the first few ingredients, then it's not the best food. Corn is a filler and if the first ingredient is corn then most of the food is filler.

You may know this already, but ingredients are listed with the most in it first.

[buttercup132]

Neither of the brands are good. They are all packed with fillers and dont give the dog the esential nutrients.

[GreyhoundGirl]

Meat should be one of the first indredients.

Can someone tell me, is this good?

Ingredients:
Lamb meal, Ground rice, rice flour,rice bran,soybean oil, sunflour oil,poultry fat, Natural flavours, rice glutin, dried egg product, dried beet pulp, ect. ect.

Meat is the first ingredient, but there seems to be a lot of rice. This food is nutro lamb and rice. It is supposed to be all natural, but rice isn't exactly a natural thing for a dog to eat. I'm confused, can someone clarify please?

[coco-bean]

the only thing i know about rice is, it helps with upset stomach, it always helps to settle coco's stomach! of course i put either chicken or beef in it too, but i know rice is rather good for doggies, correct me if im wrong?!?

[borzoimom]

Meat should be one of the first indredients.

Can someone tell me, is this good?

Ingredients:
Lamb meal, Ground rice, rice flour,rice bran,soybean oil, sunflour oil,poultry fat, Natural flavours, rice glutin, dried egg product, dried beet pulp, ect. ect.

Meat is the first ingredient, but there seems to be a lot of rice. This food is nutro lamb and rice. It is supposed to be all natural, but rice isn't exactly a natural thing for a dog to eat. I'm confused, can someone clarify please?

I would worry more about the dried beet pulp. That will swell and make gas when water from the stomach and heat is added.. Rice glutin- same thing. I assume you have deep chested dogs like I do.. I wouldnt touch it..

[flaxseedoil1000]

A simple way to tell which food is better is to look at the first ingredients. If corn or byproducts is listed in the first few ingredients, then it's not the best food. Corn is a filler and if the first ingredient is corn then most of the food is filler.

With all due respect, corn is not a filler and not all byproducts are bad.

Processed corn is a source of carbs (energy) and a source of protein (a poor one) when other sources are lacking.

Byproducts are very misunderstood. Just watch animal planet and notice the first part of a kill a predator such as a wolf or lion eats is the insides, or as we call them, byproducts.

Put simply, a chicken byproduct is any part of the chicken you can't order at KFC.

Some chicken byproducts do nothing for nutrition (beaks, feet, etc.). These are filler. They don't hurt a dog but just take up space in the kibble.

Other chicken byproducts, such as the internal organs, are fantastic nutritional sources. They are amino acid rich and that's the whole purpose of eating protein.

Chicken byproducts have all 10 essential amino acids a dog requires. When I said earlier that corn was a poor protein source that is because it, being a plant, has an incomplete amino acid source for dogs.

The problem with plant based proteins for dogs is more than just them lacking certain amino acids. After protein is broken down into amino acids the liver grabs them and assembles them into the building blocks for the body. When the liver finds it can't build what it needs to out of the available amino acids because some types are missing, it throws the rest out. This is waste and must be removed by the kidney.

You often hear of dogs that have kidney problems being fed a low protein diet. Well if it is plant based protein there will still be waste for the kidney to process. They would be better off serving a high quality based protein such as chicken to reduce the protein waste.

So how do you tell if the byproducts in a bag of kibble are amino acid rich internal organs or feet filler? It's not guaranteed, but look at the feeding guidelines. You will feed less food that has less filler.

Examples: I know of a popular kibble that sells for about $40 for 40 pounds. A 50 pound dog gets 2 cups a day. Contrast that to the 40 pounds for $10 food at my local feed and seed. A 50 pound dog needs 7-8 cups a day on that food. Quite a difference.

I have over 600 pounds of dogs at my rescue right now. A 40 pound bag of high quality kibble lasts me 7 days. I have blown through 40 pounds of the cheap stuff in 3 days.

Keep in mind there is a lot of marketing hype against byproducts because they sound bad. That's because you, the human, have the money. If it was up to your dogs they would want all the internal organs they could get.

BTW, vitamin E....byproduct!

Now that I have made your heads spin I have to go feed the critters.

[Giselle]

Actually, I heard it was the other way around - high protein causing kidney problems. It was a big argument against raw feeding way back when.

Flaxseedoil1000, you raise a valid point and while GOOD by-products are certainly benefitial and essential in a dog's diet, an ingredient's list does not do a food justice, or lack thereof. You don't know whether by-product means livers and hearts or beaks and feet (btw, I know poultry feet are a popular raw food item). You don't know the quality. You also don't know the AMOUNT of a said ingredient in kibble. You get a general idea of which ingredient dominates the kibble, but you don't know exactly how much of said ingredient is in it. An ingredients list is so vague and generalized, it is difficult to judge a kibble based simply on the ingredients list so much of this is up for debate.

However, as a general rule, dogs are carnivores. Therefore, it is unnecessary to include carbohydrates into a dog's diet (both simple and complex), i.e. corn. As well, while carbohydrates are a worthy source of quick and efficient energy, lipids and proteins would do a carnivorous dog much better.

You also mentioned that plant based proteins are troublesome and do not provide a viable source of protein. Therefore, the rest is thrown out as waste. Does that not sound like filler to you? While a certain amount of carbohydrates may be acceptable and even beneficial to a dog's diet, they should NOT make up the bulk of the diet. This is why I must agree with MyPeanuts. Corn as the number 1 ingredient is something to avoid and I do believe it is considered a filler when it is used so blatantly to fill up space.

There are many variables that may affect the quality such as the cooking temperatures/times, quality of ingredients, etc. However, I truly believe that corn (and all parts of corn) and byproducts as the first ingredients is a signal that the company is trying to fill the kibble up with cheap ingredients. This is just my opinion. The Food Debate was named so for good reason

[flaxseedoil1000]

I don't mean to pick on you but let's go through this so everyone understands.

Actually, I heard it was the other way around - high protein causing kidney problems. It was a big argument against raw feeding way back when.

There was a study decades ago where they made rats ingest massive amounts of protein. The rats did not fair well so the conclusion was made that high protein is bad. They did not consider that rats are not carnivores. Dogs have the ability to utilize large amounts of protein.

Flaxseedoil1000, you raise a valid point and while GOOD by-products are certainly benefitial and essential in a dog's diet, an ingredient's list does not do a food justice, or lack thereof. You don't know whether by-product means livers and hearts or beaks and feet (btw, I know poultry feet are a popular raw food item). You don't know the quality. You also don't know the AMOUNT of a said ingredient in kibble. You get a general idea of which ingredient dominates the kibble, but you don't know exactly how much of said ingredient is in it. An ingredients list is so vague and generalized, it is difficult to judge a kibble based simply on the ingredients list so much of this is up for debate.

True. I suspect, but do not know as fact, that the low end dog food producers (which is the vast majority) lobby to keep the information on the bags as vague as possible.

Wouldn't it be nice if instead of them listing ingredients in order by weight they showed the actual percentages? I'm not holding my breath for that.

There was a time when it was not allowed by law to show a picture of the actual kibble on the bag. Now the rules have just changed and they can start listing the calories per serving on the bags.

However, as a general rule, dogs are carnivores. Therefore, it is unnecessary to include carbohydrates into a dog's diet (both simple and complex), i.e. corn. As well, while carbohydrates are a worthy source of quick and efficient energy, lipids and proteins would do a carnivorous dog much better.

Yes, dogs are not true carnivores in the sense that cats are. When carbs are present they will be used for energy leaving proteins and fats for other uses.

Also keep in mind different carb sources are processed more quickly than others. For example rice is like drinking a can of Red Bull. Glucose levels go through the roof. Great if you have a Grey Hound that needs to run a race. Not so good for the average dog and definately something to avoid of you have a diabetic.

You also mentioned that plant based proteins are troublesome and do not provide a viable source of protein. Therefore, the rest is thrown out as waste. Does that not sound like filler to you?

It depends on what your definition of "is" is. Oops, wrong topic. It depends on what your definition of "filler" is. To me a filler is something that has little or no nutritional value (good or bad), it is just there to take up space, to "fill" the dog up.

That is not the case with corn. Also keep in mind there are many components in corn, that's why you see it listed as corn, corn meal, corn glutten, etc..

Corn is about 8% protein (incomplete in essential amino acids), 62% carbs and the rest is fiber, oils, ash, etc..

Corn glutten is the protein part of corn. Other parts of the kernel have been processed out and the result is about 20% protein for glutten. This is a red flag for me as they can use it to boost their protein level in the guaranteed analysis. There are actually a couple of types of glutten, one is fairly "digestible" (for cows anyway), the other is not. Either way corn glutten is something I avoid.

Corn meal is just about the opposite. The glutten and fiber have been processed out, leaving mostly carbs. This I have no problem with. It's good source of energy and it is not messing with the amino acids.

While a certain amount of carbohydrates may be acceptable and even beneficial to a dog's diet, they should NOT make up the bulk of the diet. This is why I must agree with MyPeanuts. Corn as the number 1 ingredient is something to avoid and I do believe it is considered a filler when it is used so blatantly to fill up space.

Agreed. I prefer kibble high in protein and fat. I have been feeding 30% protein, 20% fat for sometime now. I would not do this with a dog that needs to lose lots of weight, but then I never find fat strays.

There are many variables that may affect the quality such as the cooking temperatures/times, quality of ingredients, etc. However, I truly believe that corn (and all parts of corn) and byproducts as the first ingredients is a signal that the company is trying to fill the kibble up with cheap ingredients. This is just my opinion. The Food Debate was named so for good reason.

I understand where you are coming from.

I do however take exception when I see/hear "by-products are bad" and "corn is just filler".

There is much more to it than that and folks need to educate themselves.

[Giselle]

Re: the protein issue. We had a long discussion about high protein and kidney problems with a vet tech on another board and a conclusion was made that high protein was certainly alright for healthy dogs. However, high protein diets were not okay for dogs that may have a pre-existing kidney issue since the organ would be aggravated (pretty DUH, lol).

True, the term filler has always been used quite broadly, but I believe the majority of dog owners tend to connect "corn" with "filler" because of the fact that corn is generally a lower-end ingredient. Because of its low protein content and high amount in dog food, it is natural to tend to avoid corn and call it a filler. What's disturbing is that while corn's protein percentage is a mere 8%, its biological value is a meager 60 (compared to an egg's biological value of nearly 95). Of course, we all know that the lower the quality of the protein the more you must feed. Thus, kibble companies jack up the amount of corn. So three posts later, this is why I consider corn to be a filler

I think we're darn near about to beat a dead horse, so I'll leave it to the Norden Laboratories to speak for me:

Providing a pet with maximum nutrition doesn't mean merely supplying an adequate daily amount of commercial pet food or supplementing it with treat-type vitamin/mineral tablets. Nor does feeding a pet a scientifically formulated prescription diet ensure that its maximum nutritional needs are met. The fact is that no commercial pet food, no matter how balanced or how high quality its ingredients, can meet the nutritional needs of every pet. Each animal has its own unique nutritional needs based on age, size, and a level of stress. The only way to meet those needs is by supplying a carefully balanced amount of all required nutrients in doses that can be customized for any cat or dog.

[dragondawg]

I do however take exception when I see/hear "by-products are bad" and "corn is just filler".

There is much more to it than that and folks need to educate themselves.

Welcome to the forum of dog food threads, where the topic will always be started as which food is better, and immediately drift into being Raw is good and most dog foods are bad. You can see it in this thread. The original question was: Is dog food Brand-A better than dog food Brand-B? The answer should have been: Are your dogs healthy on their current brand? If so then why bother switching?

You have already encountered some of the religion in the form of fillers, and the evils of corn. If you point out your dogs are perfectly healthy on dog food, the counter will come that you can't tell by looking. Yes that has been said. Apparently not even a Vet can tell. Another good one you'll hear is that there are preservatives in commercial dog food that will later slow down feces breakdown. Sort of interesting how there could be that much preservative in the feces, and yet the intestinal flora didn't get wiped out as it came down the alimenrary tract? Yet another is that commercial dog foods are lacking in Vitamins or some other nutrient. Now why would a manufacturer dog (or human) food take the expense of adding Vitamins that were going to be heat degraded? Not good for profit margins? Naaa- logic can not hold against religion. My two present dogs have apparently been lacking for 3 yrs, and the previous one lacking for 11 yrs. Then there is the stand by horrors of dog food plants and what goes into the food.

If you're on the East Coast somewhere you might want to look into the (horrors) of the dog food I feed mine. It tends to be cheaper than the name brands (approx. 30%), and I've yet to see a visiting dog refuse to eat it. Might save you a few pennies in your rescue operation. About 2.5 cups per day is what I give mine (60+ lbs, 70+lb dogs).

Propet

Ingredients: Lamb meal, brewers rice, ground yellow corn, chicken, corn gluten meal

Raa rooo nasty corn.