I should add to my post that I agree with this too, but pricing ingredients that go into dog food is much more complex than looking at the price of a cut of meat at the grocery store and declaring there is no way that a manufacturer could produce an affordable bag of dog food unless it is nothing but sawdust. (actually sawdust would be a very expensive ingredient because it is a valuable "by-product" that is used to make other things :D)

It's probably a lot cheaper to hire a foreman than it is to hire a veterinary nutritionist. Testing should be done by independent third party laboratories yet few do this...

There's different types of soy listed in dog foods. I am not sure which would be considered "cheaper".

Soy Flour

Soybean Hulls - consist primarily of the outer covering of the soybean.

Soybean Meal (Dehulled, solvent Extracted) - obtained by grinding the flakes remaining after removal of most of the oil from dehulled soybeans by a solvent extraction process.

Soybean Meal (Mechanical Extracted) - obtained by grinding the cake or chips which remain after removal of most of the oil from the soybeans by a mechanical extraction process.

Soybean Mill Run - composed of soybean hulls and such bean meats that adhere to the hulls and such bean meats that adhere to the hulls which results from normal milling operations in the production of dehulled soybean meal.

SOOOO true! We have a whole commodities future trade commission (CFTC) to regulate the trading of this market.

I've seen a lot of soybean meal or soy protein isolate (which is what E eats).

Feeding trials were done on HA and I can be assured that there is an acceptable level of digestibility (because feces are analyzed in a trial). I have no idea what these other companies are doing/saying their foods are just fabulous and fit for canines, but not even doing a 6 month test to look at things like digestibility. It really appears as though $20K is just too much for them to spend. If they are taking the cheaper way out, then what else are they taking the cheaper way out on?

Choosing corn over potatoes is not my top concern. Actually, I'd just as soon they chose corn.

I see. Each of these would then have to be evaluated for their nutritional value. The oil extracted from the bean is highly desirable for one product, while the remainder is used to make other products (including human foods). I don't have a problem with that. It isn't harmful (is it :confused:, other than the general debate over soy), and it still adds up in the final nutritional analysis.

I still don't understand what makes soy so much less desirable than meat. There is meat in a kibble that I am feeding, but also soy. They could have just as easily added more meat and skipped the soy. They balanced it that way for some reason. If prices are comparable, I have to believe that there is a reason SD chooses to use it sometimes. I think the amino acid profile appeals to them based off of what canines need. They don't need meat, but nitrogen and amino acids. If meat was the only right choice, Ellie would be dead by now because she hasn't had any in months. I guess the question is what makes soy so terrible and you should avoid it if you don't have to use it?

And I really don't understand why owners decide to feed high protein with the knowledge that the BUN in these dogs goes up rather easily and with the knowledge that tons of dogs are headed straight for kidney failure by age 5 or 6 and owner won't know it for years by bloods alone.:confused: Doesn't the phosphorus concern anyone? Why not be cautious instead?

There’s some good research that shows certain diets are beneficial to dogs that are prone to develop stones. I think it’s only certain type of stones, but I think an owner would be wise to buy those foods if the type of stone found is helped by these diets. I’m not sure any research shows that a certain food causes the stones, but we know that dogs prone to a certain type of stone do better on certain diets.

The cheaper grocery store foods fill a need for the average consumer. We are pretty lucky in that most of us can afford to feed our Yorkies whatever we want, but how about dog owners who have dogs that weigh 10 times as much? Are their dogs doomed to bad health? I don’t think I’d recommend the cheapest of any product, but rarely is the most expensive of any product a good value either. Totally agree with you on the artificial colors, and I really wish they would take them out of human foods as well. Lol, it’s true some vegetables go through pretty much unchanged if you don’t break the kernel. However, the kernel is ground and cooked so dogs have no problem digesting it.

Beneful is not the McDonnells equivalent because it’s a complete and balance diet. Beneful does more than keep a dog from starving to death, A human bowl of cereal would keep a dog from starving, but the dog would suffer malnutrition, but that’s not true with Beneful. I don’t think you can say the same for a person eating only McDonnell’s.

Do you mean McDonald's? LOL I think the fact that you can't spell it shows how often you go there...you're putting us to shame Nancy!!

Sorry for the useless comment...I've been following this thread because I have nothing to contribute but I like reading about nutrition...it's jut that this made me laugh :)

Ha ha, I knew it looked wrong, but I wasn't sure what it was. That first paragraph is a dozy too, I'm going to drink more coffeeee.

Espresso Delivery
 

Enjoy your cup!
:coffee2:

Just a side note, is basic nutrition taught in schools anymore? I mean like what is a "protein"? What is a "starch"?

I had a health class in middle school, but admittedly I didn't pay much attention. My knowledge of nutrition has come primarily from my best friend who is a fitness competitor. What I do remember form my health class, I found to be pretty misleading. The dairy industry's influence on FDA recommendations for example, I'm not particularly fond of.

Years ago, they use to be the worst ones passing bad information. (Don’t ever eat carbs! ) I think most are pretty knowledgeable now. I just think if we could understand some of the chemistry behind what these things are, we wouldn’t be so easily duped. While human nutritional needs are different than dogs they are basically the same nutrients.

Do I sound any better, I just downed my second cup!

Carbs aren't bad, but fitness competitors do cut out a lot of carbs prior to a competition. Carbs and dairy to be more specific. This is not a "forever" thing though...it just helps slim down faster to cut these things out of your diet a month or two before competition. When preparing for competition, their carbs come from plain oatmeal, sweet potatoes, and protein powder.

My nephews studied nutrition in grade school. From what they discussed with me, it sounded better than the flawed food pyramid I was taught in school.

Yes, that's much more moderate than it use to be. I still wonder if preparing for competitions is hard on the body.

I think it is for women because their body fat percentage drops below the recommended value for women so..basically it stops them from menstruating. That's not unique to fitness competitors though, a lot of women suffer from this b/c they are too thin...They also have to restrict water within 48 hours of competition (I think) because depriving the body of water makes muscles flex more. It's interesting to say the least. They eat approximately six meals a day though...and my best friend (when she's not competing) I think eats about 3000 calories worth of food and she is SO TINY. The workouts are do-able (I used to do them) but it is the diet that makes the ultimate difference.

Years ago we were taught the basic 7, that became too confusing for people and they were taught the basic 4. I actually think the basic 7 helped people understand more of the differences between complex carbs, simple carbs and starches. We've over simplified everything with the food pyramid, and I think it's easier to mislead people, and of course the food pyramid, doesn’t give us any information regarding canine nutrition.

Three thousand calories sound like heaven, but it's three thousand calories of healthy food! :D

LOL I know! Again off topic (obviously it's been OT for a while), I get really offended when there are people who don't know anything about nutrition, see someone who is extremely thin and they automatically assume that they are starving themselves (I've read comments about Kate Middleton for example)...a lot of these tiny women eat MORE calories than the average person...they're just eating the right calories AND working out. Nothing wrong with that!

So true, and some of those women, eat all the wrong things and never workout and are still stick thin! Those are the ones I hate! Hope Mardelin doesn't read this.

Heh, stick thin! Never going to worry about that for me here. But hey, I figure if the world was to go into some crazy global warming ice age like Al Gore, predicted (I know Al Gore predicting, scary) then at least my pudge would pervent me from dying first! I may have a chance!:p

I agree! I got away from RC when my boys were young. The price was OUTRAGEOUS! I feed Taste of the Wild now and my boys LOVE it, have for well over 5 years. I pay $25 for a 15lb bag, WAYYYY cheaper than RC and personally I think better, but thats just my opinion! :)

This is sooo true! I have a friend who thinks I have an unhealthy view of weight... but I think SHE has an unhealthy view. I think if someone eats a well balanced diet and works out, then being a size 2 is healthy and perfectly ok! She thinks being a size 2 in general on anyone is too thin. Funny thing is she used to be a size 4 and now she's a size 14. When she looks at old pictures of herself she thinks she looked sick, but other people (myself included) thinks she looked great! A size 14 and out of shape is way more unhealthy looking than a size 4 and in shape! (again, my opinion)

I'm a size 12...However I'm 6'1. Not to argue your opinion. But just imagine what I'd look like as a size two..:p

People dislike SD because the company thinks corn and by-products are good additions to dog food. SD comes out with new lines to try to appeal to those who don't like those ingredients. Now the problem is soy?

Diamond's original line is full of by-products and corn. They came out with TOTW and people love it because the ingredients appeal to them. So it's okay that the company uses corn and by-products as long as they offer a line that is more "natural" (as in, nobody is boycotting the company's regular diets as long as they offer an option that fits their criteria).

I think I have this right so far.

So does that mean if SD were to put out a line of food with no corn, soy, by-products, or menadione that it would get the same acceptance as these other "natural" foods or would it still be disliked just because SD is on the label? And does that also mean that avoidance of soy is more important that actual feeding trials?

You bring up some important points. When I joined over 5 years ago, being the anal person I am, I started reading the forum backwards. Oldest threads first. When Yorkietalk started, Science Diet was the only food that everyone raved about, there was no competition. So like most things in life, it was built up to be the best thing ever, and then torn apart to be the worst food ever. Vets recommend it not because they are ignorant about nutrition or greedy and get a kick back, but because it has been shown to be safe and safety is the foremost concern for most vets. "First do no harm." However, if I had a nickel for every time I read that vets don't know anything about nutrition . . .

I'm pretty sure TOTW is just manufactured at Diamond Food Plant. It's not an actual "Diamond" product food. If that makes sense. TOTW has their own people there working for that particular product. Lots of foods are manufactured at Diamond, including Artemis, Canidae, Chicken Soup, OmniPro, Solid Gold, etc. But they are not involved in "Diamond original line" -- that's a separate food.

Like, when you go buy a bag of TOTW, it doesn't say "Diamond Taste of the Wild" on it, whereas SD has different lines but they are all made by SD. It clearly shows 'Science Diet Natures Best' on the bag.

Just wanted to point that out.

TOTW is a Diamond product. :)
They told me when I emailed them asking for QC info.
Sent emails to Diamond and TOTW. Same rep emailed back for both and said TOTW is Diamond, so no need to answer twice.

"Crystal,

Taste of the Wild is one of our brands. The information that I just sent you about the Diamond products also pertains to the Taste of the Wild products.

Sincerely,
-name omitted"
Quality Control Manager
Diamond Pet Foods"