dog food

[Lovetodream88]

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom

Well, in a perfect world - the guy would be able to track every single thing we can think of...but he can only do so much, I suppose. I don't hold that against him.

And in fact, I don't support - at all - dog food trials/research across the board or think it's categorically a great thing bc those trials can (and have) result in animal cruelty and very poorly run trials/research where the dogs are actually maltreated. "Research" doesn't always translate to "good research". In addition, we should *not* always need food trials bc of the current inferences we should now be able to make regarding several common ingredients.

An analogy is like w/ mascara testing on rabbits - we should not ever have to do this again like we did in the past bc we now have enough inferences / proven-safe-ingredients to create products without forcing research.

But in order to know if our dogs are getting what they need there needs to be trails. I think it's different then testing mascara and stuff because when done right it's feeding the dog food and then testing to see if there getting what the dogs need and how the dog is doing on the food. That's important to me because I don't want to feed my dog a food that might be missing stuff my dog needs. A lot of these holistic foods that pop up are just a recipe put together with no vets on staff or anything. People do need to know it's more then just how the food is rated.

[ladyjane]

My two cents for what it's worth. I have seen people tout the Dog Food Advisor as if he really is an expert in what we should be feeding our dogs. He is not what I call an expert especially when I see reputable companies such as RC not making the top rankings. He has made himself what he is by slick marketing and continues to do so even selling his information to those who are in awe of him. Not a chance on this earth I would pay him for dog nutrition advice. I do my consults with vet nutritionists only. His main focus is on ingredients and there is SO much more than just ingredients in dog food.

The one thing I see as useful on his site is the notifications for recalls...but note that many recalls are for food given high rankings.

I clicked a link on his site to find a high pressure tactic to sell his information about dog food...NOW when I click on it, it says my offer has expired and it offers me another "deal".

I know of two businesses local to me who sell their foods based upon his reviews...just crazy to me how this is happening just because some man with no degree in animal nutrition at all is looked upon as an expert. I don't know why I think it is crazy....Jim Jones had plenty of followers as well. So do some nutsy politicians. hah

Anyway...here is the link:
The Dog Food Advisor's Editor's Choice Membership Offer

Oh gosh...I need to find the original link...will post when I do.

OK here it is....I cannot imagine anyone signing up for this especially after listening to it all.....the high pressure junk is just that..
http://www.dogfoodadvisor.com/editors-choice-landing/

[BabyGirl Rosie]

Originally Posted by ladyjane

My two cents for what it's worth. I have seen people tout the Dog Food Advisor as if he really is an expert in what we should be feeding our dogs. He is not what I call an expert especially when I see reputable companies such as RC not making the top rankings. He has made himself what he is by slick marketing and continues to do so even selling his information to those who are in awe of him. Not a chance on this earth I would pay him for dog nutrition advice. I do my consults with vet nutritionists only. His main focus is on ingredients and there is SO much more than just ingredients in dog food.

The one thing I see as useful on his site is the notifications for recalls...but note that many recalls are for food given high rankings.

I clicked a link on his site to find a high pressure tactic to sell his information about dog food...NOW when I click on it, it says my offer has expired and it offers me another "deal".

I know of two businesses local to me who sell their foods based upon his reviews...just crazy to me how this is happening just because some man with no degree in animal nutrition at all is looked upon as an expert. I don't know why I think it is crazy....Jim Jones had plenty of followers as well. So do some nutsy politicians. hah

Anyway...here is the link:
The Dog Food Advisor's Editor's Choice Membership Offer

Oh gosh...I need to find the original link...will post when I do.

OK here it is....I cannot imagine anyone signing up for this especially after listening to it all.....the high pressure junk is just that..
Editor's Choice Dog Food Recommendations | Dog Food Advisor

I noticed he gave. RC a 2.5 to 3.0 rating. I am feeding Lily RC. I started feeding it to her because I took the advice of someone who knows yorkies. Could care less what he thinks. Haha.

[Britster]

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom

See, now I don't agree on categorically putting this guy down, nor with the black-and-white thinking seen here at times regarding his site.

Bc, yeah, I just might trust my dentist's advice on things other than dentistry depending upon their knowledge, experience, hobbies, expertise, and type of advice. I mean, I HIGHLY value some people's opinions here at YT and they have NO professional experience whatsoever with dog health. However, they are highly invested in gaining knowledge in dogs, dog health, vet practices, gold standards in vet care, in very specific dog diseases, in breed specific issues, and in both anecdotal and scientific resources. I've received some of my BEST advice regarding my dogs from non-dog-professionals.

When I first started learning passionately about dog foods/nutrition, I actually found Dog Food Advisor incredibly helpful for just learning about certain ingredients and their place in dog foods...it helped me start to form opinions and urged me to seek more info elsewhere regarding what I learned on DFA. So, I would not personally say DFA is all bad. I think it has a place as a *piece* of a pie with many pieces.

I do think the reviews should be taken with some grains of salt as they are, indeed, one person's opinion / one person's schematic. But I don't find the opinion worthless, imo. I think it does have some worth, albeit as cursory / as a launching pad for further investigation and learning. It's one opinion of a thousand others.

And this is just my one opinion of a thousand others too .

Originally Posted by ladyjane

My two cents for what it's worth. I have seen people tout the Dog Food Advisor as if he really is an expert in what we should be feeding our dogs. He is not what I call an expert especially when I see reputable companies such as RC not making the top rankings. He has made himself what he is by slick marketing and continues to do so even selling his information to those who are in awe of him. Not a chance on this earth I would pay him for dog nutrition advice. I do my consults with vet nutritionists only. His main focus is on ingredients and there is SO much more than just ingredients in dog food.

The one thing I see as useful on his site is the notifications for recalls...but note that many recalls are for food given high rankings.

I clicked a link on his site to find a high pressure tactic to sell his information about dog food...NOW when I click on it, it says my offer has expired and it offers me another "deal".

I know of two businesses local to me who sell their foods based upon his reviews...just crazy to me how this is happening just because some man with no degree in animal nutrition at all is looked upon as an expert. I don't know why I think it is crazy....Jim Jones had plenty of followers as well. So do some nutsy politicians. hah

Anyway...here is the link:
The Dog Food Advisor's Editor's Choice Membership Offer

Oh gosh...I need to find the original link...will post when I do.

OK here it is....I cannot imagine anyone signing up for this especially after listening to it all.....the high pressure junk is just that..
Editor's Choice Dog Food Recommendations | Dog Food Advisor

I agree with BOTH of these posts. lol.

My feelings are so iffy on him. Some treat his site like he's the almighty God of dog food, which... he's clearly not. Others treat him like he's the worst thing to happen on the planet, which I don't think he is either.

I take what he says with a grain of salt because like Taylor said, he doesn't really take into account where a food is manufactured, how many recalls, how the recalls were handled, etc... some of the "5 star foods", I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole. It does concern me that a lot of people will have dogs doing well on a 3 star food, then see his website, and think OH NO... and quickly change to a 5 star food where maybe the dog isn't doing as well. So yeah THAT part concerns me.

But I think it CAN be a good resource for some things. And the fact alone that he's a dentist isn't enough reason for me NOT to trust him. In fact, my dentist IS a dog breeder and I would trust his opinions on dogs in general more than a lot of folks.

[ladyjane]

The only reason to mention he is a dentist really is to get people to understand that he is NOT an expert in dog nutrition (or shall I say not what I consider to be an expert in it) . That's all.

What you said about people switching their dog's food based on what he says is exactly my concern. BUT...if people want to listen to just anyone, not much anyone can do.

[megansmomma]

Originally Posted by Britster

I agree with BOTH of these posts. lol.

My feelings are so iffy on him. Some treat his site like he's the almighty God of dog food, which... he's clearly not. Others treat him like he's the worst thing to happen on the planet, which I don't think he is either.

I take what he says with a grain of salt because like Taylor said, he doesn't really take into account where a food is manufactured, how many recalls, how the recalls were handled, etc... some of the "5 star foods", I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole. It does concern me that a lot of people will have dogs doing well on a 3 star food, then see his website, and think OH NO... and quickly change to a 5 star food where maybe the dog isn't doing as well. So yeah THAT part concerns me.

But I think it CAN be a good resource for some things. And the fact alone that he's a dentist isn't enough reason for me NOT to trust him. In fact, my dentist IS a dog breeder and I would trust his opinions on dogs in general more than a lot of folks.

OK....so I poke at the guy because he's a dentist and I think people are giving him way too much credit for his opinions regarding dog food. All of the articles on his website are of course written by him regarding his opinions. Furthermore, some of his sources are questionable as to where and how his opinions are formed. There are so many ads on his site for online dog foods site to purchase food and because I was on his site today now they are showing up on my Facebook. I do not like that at all.

[kfern]

thankyou for all your views im very satisfied that my dogs are doing well on r/c so yea I think rc will be there food from now on the reason I started using rc in 1st place was because a vet told me it was a very good dog food when my baby was 8 weeks old she is now 4yr old so thanks to all very much for your views just wanted to kno that's all iv seen a lot of people on here already using rc so just wounderd

[Wylie's Mom]

Originally Posted by Lovetodream88

But in order to know if our dogs are getting what they need there needs to be trails. I think it's different then testing mascara and stuff because when done right it's feeding the dog food and then testing to see if there getting what the dogs need and how the dog is doing on the food. That's important to me because I don't want to feed my dog a food that might be missing stuff my dog needs. A lot of these holistic foods that pop up are just a recipe put together with no vets on staff or anything. People do need to know it's more then just how the food is rated.

This answer makes me think you've never actually read food trial requirements or results. Bc if you had, you'd likely agree they're about as useful as a square peg in a round hole.

The recipes for dog foods are all about the same (at the end of the day) because they all have to follow AAFCO standards if they want to be certified. Our dog food, unfortunately, is *not* a science -- it's a best guess based upon what a collective has come up with for our dogs .

[BabyGirl Rosie]

Originally Posted by kfern

thankyou for all your views im very satisfied that my dogs are doing well on r/c so yea I think rc will be there food from now on the reason I started using rc in 1st place was because a vet told me it was a very good dog food when my baby was 8 weeks old she is now 4yr old so thanks to all very much for your views just wanted to kno that's all iv seen a lot of people on here already using rc so just wounderd

I think that is a good plan!

[ladyjane]

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom

This answer makes me think you've never actually read food trial requirements or results. Bc if you had, you'd likely agree they're about as useful as a square peg in a round hole.

The recipes for dog foods are all about the same (at the end of the day) because they all have to follow AAFCO standards if they want to be certified. Our dog food, unfortunately, is *not* a science -- it's a best guess based upon what a collective has come up with for our dogs .

I have to respectfully disagree with you on this. Because nutrition is not my favorite subject or one I care to dig into very much, I rely on vet nutritionists'advice for my pups.

As for recipes being the same, if that were really true, then I don't think there would be all the marketing that is being used and also the Purina lawsuit:
http://www.yorkietalk.com/forums/yor...e-buffalo.html

I feel so much more comfortable with companies that spend money on hiring vet nutritionists and also feeding trials. I don't like the thought of my pups being guinea pigs for companies that use their money to advertise.

Maybe I am incorrect in this, but as I said, I am not very knowledgable about animal nutrition and rely on what science there is .. even though it may not be what everyone wishes it is. Beats no science in my book.

I don't think AAFCO regulates what the recipes/ingredients are unless I am misreading the following. It is my understanding that they regulate how the labeling is done?? And the balance of nutrients? Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

The Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) > Ingredients - Making Pet Food

AAFCO does not regulate, test, approve or certify pet foods in any way.

AAFCO establishes the nutritional standards for complete and balanced pet foods, and it is the pet food company's responsibility to formulate their products according to the appropriate AAFCO standard.

It is the state feed control official's responsibility in regulating pet food to ensure that the laws and rules established for the protection of companion animals and their custodians are complied with so that only unadulterated, correctly and uniformly labeled pet food products are distributed in the marketplace and a structure for orderly commerce.

[107barney]

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom

This answer makes me think you've never actually read food trial requirements or results. Bc if you had, you'd likely agree they're about as useful as a square peg in a round hole.

The recipes for dog foods are all about the same (at the end of the day) because they all have to follow AAFCO standards if they want to be certified. Our dog food, unfortunately, is *not* a science -- it's a best guess based upon what a collective has come up with for our dogs .

I agree in part with this statement that food trials are only sort of useful and a food trial done yourself with your own dog is really what is relevant to whether or not your dog will tolerate the diet and thrive on it.

I have to disagree that food is not a science. I do think it can be both an art and a science especially when you take a dog with a medical condition into consideration. I can tell you that the diet that was just made for my Teddy has each ingredient strategically placed for a certain predicted biochemical response to help offset the problem he has (a genetic problem). It's nothing I could come up with as good on my own, and I have been wrong about some of my beliefs such as he needed higher protein than she was giving me.

I suppose how I come down on this issue in general is a middle-of-the-pack approach -- that owners should feed whatever they feel is best if their dog is doing well on it. If the dog is not doing well, then it is time to cast aside some hard core beliefs we may have (right or wrong) and do what "the collective" has studied to be best for that particular problem. I think home cooking has served me well, but there is no denying that a commercial diet would be better for my Teddy at this time and that home cooking for this problem is not easy nor cheap nor as predictable as commercial food would be. I am ok with that, because I have to take his other concerns and my own priorities into consideration. He's my dog, I'm in tune with him, and I haven't done wrong by him or the others yet by listening to my intuition.

I think it behooves all of us to have a little faith sometimes. Maybe not blind faith, but the amount of distrust and disdain we all seem to have for the pet food industry as a whole is kinda sad when you really think about it.