Jump to content

Feeding Trials - Companies


Recommended Posts

insanelupus

The breeder fed and recommended a 26/16 Purina Pro Plan Focus for our French Brittany.  While he is doing ok Im a little underwhelmed.  

 

A year ago our old French Britt passed after many years on Nutrisource.  

 

He did extremely well on it and,  frankly,  I like the ingredient list better. 

 

I'm researching food though and trying to identify other dog food companies that do feeding trials. Nutrisource does not.  While I realize fred trials aren't perfect,  I'd like to evaluate ingredients among companies that do. 

 

Besides Purina,  who else is a feed trial company? 

 

Thanks.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
insanelupus

I have considered that.  But im still researching. Years ago,  26% was considered high protein for a dog food and I'm not yet sold on young pups having a steady diet of 30%. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

My Springer is on PPP Savor which I believe is also 26/16.

Why are you underwhelmed?

Link to post
Share on other sites
insanelupus

Ive never fed Pro Plan before and I suppose I just expected more.  Don't get me wrong,  it's not bad at all, but it hasn't wowed me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ray Gubernat

Years ago I fed my puppies Kasco puppy food which was 30/20.  Since that time(Kasco got sold and became a part of Royal Canin I believe))  I have fed puppies several different puppy feeds and to my recollection ALL were 30/20. 

 

Never had a problem. in close to 50 years.

 

As to your original question, I did a quick search and found an article from 2012 (whole dog journal or something like that) which stated that in addition to Purina, Proctor and Gamble(parent of Iams/Eukanuba), Hills Science Diet  and Royal Canin all did conduct feeding trials at the time of that writing.

 

FWIW, I currently feed a Sunshine Mills product which is 26/18 and my dogs do OK on it.  They can run a shooting dog race in front of a horse for an hour with no letup and have gas in the tank at the end of their hour.  I'm fine with that.

 

I don't know what it is you are looking for in terms of  performance from your dogs and dogfood,  but  if a dog can routinely run in front of a horse for an hour and not be all skin and bones, that is  a pretty good indication of  the dog being in proper condition and properly nourished.  

 

RayG

 

 

.  

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dave Quindt

I've talked about feeding studies with a PhD researcher at a leading vet school who has a large population of dogs her in care as part of research into a genetic disease. This program has also run feeding studies for dog food companies, so just because a company doesn't run feed studies in house doesn't mean they don't run feed studies at all.

 

I've also had the same conversation with an acquaintance of mine who owned a animal nutrition company that produces ingredients used in the formulation of animal feeds.  He's also a former FDA animal feed inspector.

 

Both told me basically the same thing

  • Feed studies are very important for the large dog food companies who are producing the same formula from multiple plants around the the country and need the end product palatability, nutritional value and product integrity (does the kibble look the same, does it crumble in the bag when shipped, etc) to be consistent even though raw ingredient sources are different
  • This doesn't mean the marketing teams of these big players won't pass on the opportunity to spin these big studies as being purely about animal health
  • Any piece of material knowledge used by canine nutritionists that materially affects the nutritional value of the food (vs things like easy of manufacturing or palatability) is all peer-reviewed science that everyone in the industry has access to.  There is very little "secret sauce" regarding canine nutrition; where the big guys have lots of secrets has more to do with how to get the best product they can from the cheapest ingredients they can and do so at a very large scale.

@insanelupus My question would be "Does NutriSource have a PhD animal nutritionist (preferably also a DVM) who reviews and approves all formulations?  

 

In the spirit of full disclose, I feed it and have for close to a decade.  It's the second best food I've feed behind Dr Tims, but is a better value.

 

JMO,

Dave

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Urban_Redneck

I believe AAFCO feed trial is some number (10?) of dogs fed the new formulation for 6 months, if the dogs are not diminished, the formulation is approved as marketable. I imagine much of what is learned from any "performance trial" remains proprietary knowledge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've stated this at least a dozen times in previous posts and I'll say it again because it will always remain true.

 

  Good nutrition is dictated by NUTRIENT CONTENT, NOT INGREDIENTS!!

 

In this regard one cannot successfully compare the quality of various dog foods based upon label information.  Beyond looking for the AAFCO seal of approval on a given brand, all else is a waste of time.  Period.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
insanelupus

Dogwood. If brand A has feeding trials with an AAFCO passing statement on the product and brand B has an AAFCO statement on the product reference the nutrient levels,  both with similar nutrient analysis , what is there besides an ingredient list for a consumer to review?

 

I realize ingredients alone aren't a standard,  but at times consumers may have to  compare apples to oranges depending on which AAFCO statement is on the bag and it seems nutrient analysis and ingredients are the best measuring stick left to use. Or am I missing something? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, insanelupus said:

Dogwood. If brand A has feeding trials with an AAFCO passing statement on the product and brand B has an AAFCO statement on the product reference the nutrient levels,  both with similar nutrient analysis , what is there besides an ingredient list for a consumer to review?

 

I realize ingredients alone aren't a standard,  but at times consumers may have to  compare apples to oranges depending on which AAFCO statement is on the bag and it seems nutrient analysis and ingredients are the best measuring stick left to use. Or am I missing something? 


The problem is that the bags must only show crude percentages of fat, protein, fiber etc. And a list of ingredients listed in order of predominance. Ingredient listing wording is very nebulous and hence impossible to ascertain the quality.

So, for example, the protein levels and ingredients speak zero of the proteins nutritional quality and true biological value. And I doubt they ever will. Ditto the argument for fats and carbs.

 

So, in reality, the only way to really compare one diet to the next is how your dog responds to it over time.  Not very scientific but that’s the deal.

 

Comparing AAFCO labeled dog foods in order to pick the “best” one is a waste of time. Unfortunately.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I have had my 2 FB on Dr. Tims 30/20 @ 2 1/2 cups/d since 8 weeks. I have a 50 pound english pointer who is on 26/16 PPP, at 4 cups/d to keep him on weight. Pay $70 per 40 lbs Tims and $43 for PPP 20/16 at 37 Lbs a bag.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Minetohunt said:

I have had my 2 FB on Dr. Tims 30/20 @ 2 1/2 cups/d since 8 weeks. I have a 50 pound english pointer who is on 26/16 PPP, at 4 cups/d to keep him on weight. Pay $70 per 40 lbs Tims and $43 for PPP 20/16 at 37 Lbs a bag.

Dam that Dr Tims is pricey. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...