Rating of Dry Dog foods

[ladyjane]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

I'm sorry, if that comes off as disrespectful, but I do really believe it. People can't stand to be told that the dog food they've chosen isn't the best food ever. I agree with you on BB, but the author of the site, does say:





I'm not saying you should take every word as gospel, I actually like the Dog Project website better for teaching, but it's informative and useful and shouldn't be discounted just because the author is a dentist.

I don't know about you and how you feel about the foods you feed; but I personally don't care what people think about what I feed.

What I DO care about is the constant rants about pet foods that frighten pet owners....foods that are quite valuable and necessary especially for sick pups. Bothers me immensely as I have said time and time again that anyone should feel they are giving something bad to their pets because some armchair nutritionist said the food their vet told them to feed their sick baby is bad/unhealthy. Horrible

[pstinard]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

I'm sorry, if that comes off as disrespectful, but I do really believe it. People can't stand to be told that the dog food they've chosen isn't the best food ever. I agree with you on BB, but the author of the site, does say:



I'm not saying you should take every word as gospel, I actually like the Dog Project website better for teaching, but it's informative and useful and shouldn't be discounted just because the author is a dentist.

Fair enough. I didn't think you were disrespectful--I was just trying to inject a little humor while discussing a controversial topic. Thanks for posting the disclaimers that the Dog Food Advisor has on his website--they are helpful.

BTW, I agree that the Dog Food Project website has a little more octane behind it.

[Lovetodream88]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

I'm sorry, if that comes off as disrespectful, but I do really believe it. People can't stand to be told that the dog food they've chosen isn't the best food ever. I agree with you on BB, but the author of the site, does say:





I'm not saying you should take every word as gospel, I actually like the Dog Project website better for teaching, but it's informative and useful and shouldn't be discounted just because the author is a dentist.

Considering my dogs food saved her life I KNOW my dogs food is the best for her! I personally don't necessarily believe what is the fad of what is the best ingredients right now. I think dogs need different things then us. One thing that is great for us might not be for them. When you start saying someone's food is not good then you should be prepared for arguments. I look at all these prescription foods and see all these ingredients people say are terrible in them yet thousands of sick dogs are made better and thriving on them. I'm not sure how someone can say some ingredients are so crap nasty yet these sick dogs do so well and most of them if you switched to one of these super 5 star rated foods wouldn't do as well and it might even make them sicker or have more issues. So what does that tell you about all those evil ingredients?

[pstinard]

Originally Posted by Lovetodream88

Considering my dogs food saved her life I KNOW my dogs food is the best for her! I personally don't necessarily believe what is the fad of what is the best ingredients right now. I think dogs need different things then us. One thing that is great for us might not be for them. When you start saying someone's food is not good then you should be prepared for arguments. I look at all these prescription foods and see all these ingredients people say are terrible in them yet thousands of sick dogs are made better and thriving on them. I'm not sure how someone can say some ingredients are so crap nasty yet these sick dogs do so well and most of them if you switched to one of these super 5 star rated foods wouldn't do as well and it might even make them sicker or have more issues. So what does that tell you about all those evil ingredients?

Very true. I have learned to respect prescription foods--they are real life savers, and they ARE prepared by veterinary nutritionists. Food for thought.

[Wylie's Mom]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

I think the site can be a very helpful as part as an overall education in learning about dog foods. Some people don't believe we should learn about the ingredients, we should just trust the companies to do what's best for our dogs, since they hire vet nutritionists. I think the site has much improved from it's earlier beginnings when ingredients weren't always kept up to date, but just because the author is a dentist, instead of a vet nutritionist, it doesn't mean the information is poor. He's not designing a diet, he's just telling you what's in those foods and what nutrition it provides. Here's another site that has helpful information, The Dog Food Project - Myths about Dog Nutrition. I'm glad you are learning about nutrition!

By the way, you can also learn about dogfood recalls there. Dog Food Recalls | Dog Food Advisor

When I first started being interested in dog nutrition / dog food - I found DFA invaluable - bc I learned about different ingredients and how they're listed in dog foods and what they may be for or may mean etcetera. It sparked me to learn more. I think it can be a tool in an educational tool box.

Originally Posted by pstinard

Bricks flying overhead! Ouch! Actually, Bella's Wellness Core Grain Free Small Breed is rated five stars, and I still have problems with the DFA website. Blue Buffalo, which rates from 4 to 5 stars depending on the product, has SERIOUS quality control issues--I got a bag with no Life Source bits, and woe to the people who got bags containing nothing BUT Life Source bits. So besides ingredients, one must also consider quality control. And DFA nitpicks over ingredients that are so far down on the list of ingredients that they are insignificant (tomato pomace, for example). I'd rate Dog Food Advisor three stars, LOL! He's not a veterinary nutritionist, but he's not sending dogs to a certain death, either. He's just another source of information to consider.

Yup...he's just another source for info and learning. One of hopefully many tools in one's dog food learning toolbox.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by pstinard

Don't worry, by now, most of us have developed a sense of humor about discussing commercial dog foods. I don't think that any of the five star foods are horrible. It's an okay place to start--it's where I started out.

Okay, I'll take your word for that, I wasn't aware of it. This is the page I was looking for yesterday, I think it explains some of the limitations of rating foods. The Problem with Dog Food Reviews

The Problem with Dog Food Reviews





Dog food reviews can be helpful when you’re comparing products.

However, it’s impossible to judge the actual quality of the raw materials that were used to make each specific batch of food available for purchase.

Or the important research and nutritional design effort that went into creating each recipe.

And no review can accurately reflect the safety practices that were taken — or neglected — by a company when processing, storing and shipping the finished goods.


Why Ingredient Quality
Can Be So Difficult to Judge

Not only do most pet food companies conceal the origin of their ingredients, they also change the sources as well as the quality of those ingredients on a regular basis.

Many raw materials used to make dog foods are bought and sold in commercial-sized lots on the open market.

Bulk prices vary. And so does quality.

From day to day, it’s not unusual for an ingredient to come from a different farm, a different storage facility or a different state.

Even a different country.

Although better companies procure their ingredients directly from trusted manufacturers, others may buy their raw materials through brokers and middlemen.

And many times through less-reputable third party suppliers.

What’s worse, manufacturers are not legally required to report these changes to consumers.

That’s why the method used to review a product is so important.


How We Rate Dog Food

Although there are many ways to rate a dog food, we’ve settled on using the only reliable information we feel we can consistently trust.

We read and interpret government-regulated pet food labels. Nothing more. And we do this in two simple steps.
1.We study the ingredients list
2.We evaluate the meat content

Of course, we don’t test dog food. We don’t taste it. And we rarely trust marketing hype. Manufacturer’s claims. Or the fancy artwork on the package.

Nor should you.


Going Beyond the Label

Just the same, a pet food label is a great place to start.

However, there are many important items that are missing from the label — additional facts you’d still like to know before making a purchase. For example…
◾Will my dog like the taste?
◾Is the kibble size right for my pet?
◾Where do the ingredients come from?
◾Are they food grade? Or agricultural rejects?
◾Have the raw materials been tested for contamination?
◾Are the finished goods tested before they are shipped?

Some of these questions can be answered by simply visiting a company’s website. Or calling their customer service number.

Yet company information can be biased — and is almost always subject to change.

That’s why we’re reluctant to simply re-broadcast a manufacturer’s marketing message. We fear it could be misleading and provide a false sense of security to our readers.


Getting Help

No review can ever predict results. Yet there are other reliable sources of valuable information.

Talk to friends. Ask your vet. And check out the Comments section at the end of every review.

That way, you’ll get a more complete picture of each product you’re considering — before you feed it to your pet.

In the Comments area and in our Forums, you’ll find a wealth of helpful information from other readers — dog owners, breeders, community-minded veterinary professionals, nutritionists and dog food companies.
◾Feeding tips and suggestions
◾Candid opinions about specific brands
◾Reports of actual experiences and results
◾Comments about a company’s customer service

More importantly, find out from others whether their dogs give a “tails up” or a “tails down” to the taste of a particular food.


About Our Star Ratings

When evaluating a product, we tend to favor dog foods made with quality plant and animal ingredients — especially named meats. And we downgrade recipes that contain:
◾Generic animal fats
◾Anonymous meat ingredients
◾Synthetic chemical preservatives
◾Plant-based meat-protein substitutes

And because we respect a dog’s natural carnivorous bias, we shamelessly favor dog foods rich in meat.

In general, a five star dog food is one that is high in meat content and free of suspicious chemicals or plant-based protein boosters.

So, does that mean a one-star dog food is bad for your dog?

No, probably not. A dog food with a low star rating isn’t necessarily a bad product.

It’s just that we believe you should always know what you’re paying for. So, dog foods made with by-products and less meat should, of course, cost less, too.


The Bottom Line

Because of all the variables that go into making any food product, it’s important to keep in mind that…


Each dog food can only be as good as the specific batch from which it was made — and different batches can vary significantly.

Since there’s no way to test each product, we must all rely on the integrity of the information posted by each company on its website.

As such, the accuracy of every review is directly dependent upon the quality of the test results from any specific batch of food a company chooses to publish.

In any case, start with our star ratings.

Then, consider all the information you can also collect from other reliable sources before making your final decision on what to feed your precious pet.

[ladyjane]

As to the bolded statement in the post above, I can only say this....
Pretty flawed thinking imho. I am willing to pay more for real experts (ie vet nutritionists) and feeding trials, NOT fancy marketing such as the BB law suit has uncovered. I stopped buying a dog food for that reason...they had all the fancy words on their website and the "desired" ingredients, but ignored my requests for names and qualifications of the "experts" they claimed had formulated the diets. Just because a company has the ingredients that guy says are more acceptable does not mean the quality control is there.

[pstinard]

Originally Posted by ladyjane

As to the bolded statement in the post above, I can only say this....
Pretty flawed thinking imho. I am willing to pay more for real experts (ie vet nutritionists) and feeding trials, NOT fancy marketing such as the BB law suit has uncovered. I stopped buying a dog food for that reason...they had all the fancy words on their website and the "desired" ingredients, but ignored my requests for names and qualifications of the "experts" they claimed had formulated the diets. Just because a company has the ingredients that guy says are more acceptable does not mean the quality control is there.

You're far too kind. The bolded statement makes me want to scream and throw my laptop out the window, because he's basically saying that his reviews are meaningless except for figuring out if you're getting value for your money. Then he ends with a plea to consider his star rating--then do your own research. I could have done that in the first place and avoided the middle man (and spared myself a splitting headache).

[107barney]

Originally Posted by pstinard

You're far too kind. The bolded statement makes me want to scream and throw my laptop out the window, because he's basically saying that his reviews are meaningless except for figuring out if you're getting value for your money. Then he ends with a plea to consider his star rating--then do your own research. I could have done that in the first place and avoided the middle man (and spared myself a splitting headache).

This is why I think the site is useless.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by pstinard

You're far too kind. The bolded statement makes me want to scream and throw my laptop out the window, because he's basically saying that his reviews are meaningless except for figuring out if you're getting value for your money. Then he ends with a plea to consider his star rating--then do your own research. I could have done that in the first place and avoided the middle man (and spared myself a splitting headache).

I see this differently. I bolded the sentence because I think it's important information. I only took one class of nutrition in college, but this was stressed very heavily, there is not much difference between a C level diet and an A level diet that can be shown scientifically. This doesn't mean there is no difference, but we don't have the equipment to measure the difference. There are some nutritionist who believe that the less processed our diets are the better for us. There is no proof of this, but many nutritionists are started to lean that way. There is also no proof that organic fruits and vegetables are better for us either, we don't have the equipment to show the differences. We do now know that organic gardening is better for the earth, but nothing shows it's healthier for us, yet. What this tells me is we don't have enough information. The website is neither gospel or worthless, it can add to your overall understanding of nutrition if you read enough. By the way, figuring out if you get value for your money, is far from meaningless to me.

[pstinard]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

I see this differently. I bolded the sentence because I think it's important information. I only took one class of nutrition in college, but this was stressed very heavily, there is not much difference between a C level diet and an A level diet that can be shown scientifically. This doesn't mean there is no difference, but we don't have the equipment to measure the difference. There are some nutritionist who believe that the less processed our diets are the better for us. There is no proof of this, but many nutritionists are started to lean that way. There is also no proof that organic fruits and vegetables are better for us either, we don't have the equipment to show the differences. We do now know that organic gardening is better for the earth, but nothing shows it's healthier for us, yet. What this tells me is we don't have enough information. The website is neither gospel or worthless, it can add to your overall understanding of nutrition if you read enough. By the way, figuring out if you get value for your money, is far from meaningless to me.

I see your point, but my head is still spinning. A and C level foods have been available for decades, though, and if something hasn't been proven by the millions of dogs fed on these foods for their entire lives, perhaps there never will be. It all comes back to feeding what your own dog likes and does best on. If Bella did equally well on Orijen and Ol Roy, wouldn't Ol Roy be the best value, for all intents and purposes, since you can get a huge bag for just a few bucks? (Don't worry, I would never feed Bella Ol Roy--that's just an example.)

[ladyjane]

Originally Posted by pstinard

You're far too kind. The bolded statement makes me want to scream and throw my laptop out the window, because he's basically saying that his reviews are meaningless except for figuring out if you're getting value for your money. Then he ends with a plea to consider his star rating--then do your own research. I could have done that in the first place and avoided the middle man (and spared myself a splitting headache).

Yeah, well I don't even GO to his website anymore. IMHO he is merely making money. He covers his backside with all that nonsense, but he knows that people are swayed by what they want to believe. He's no fool, that's for sure.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by pstinard

I see your point, but my head is still spinning. A and C level foods have been available for decades, though, and if something hasn't been proven by the millions of dogs fed on these foods for their entire lives, perhaps there never will be. It all comes back to feeding what your own dog likes and does best on. If Bella did equally well on Orijen and Ol Roy, wouldn't Ol Roy be the best value, for all intents and purposes, since you can get a huge bag for just a few bucks? (Don't worry, I would never feed Bella Ol Roy--that's just an example.)

One of the reasons I found a new major was I like things a little more black and white then they are in the field of nutrition. It's a very grey area with so many experts arguing. How do you define health, absence of disease or longevity? Diets just don't make much of a difference compared to other factors, like genetics. The main characteristic that indicated an unhealthy diet was if the diet contained too many calories, proper weight is the most important indicator of overall health. Some scientists believe that testing clone pups would give us better information on nutrition because you could take out some of the genetic component. However, there are many groups that are against this and see it as inhumane.

I don't believe that you can evaluate a food solely on how well you dog does, that one piece of the puzzle, I mean you can see if he's not vomiting, if has excessive gas, or gaining too much weight and if his hair looks healthy, and if he's not itching and has enough energy, but you really can't see how the internal organs are doing and I believe there is a difference between surviving and thriving, and I want to choose a food based upon many factors, but I expect my dogs would do well on a variety of different foods, it's just as they are getting older, I think diet plays an even more important part in there overall health.

[pstinard]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

One of the reasons I found a new major was I like things a little more black and white then they are in the field of nutrition. It's a very grey area with so many experts arguing. How do you define health, absence of disease or longevity? Diets just don't make much of a difference compared to other factors, like genetics. The main characteristic that indicated an unhealthy diet was if the diet contained too many calories, proper weight is the most important indicator of overall health. Some scientists believe that testing clone pups would give us better information on nutrition because you could take out some of the genetic component. However, there are many groups that are against this and see it as inhumane.

I don't believe that you can evaluate a food solely on how well you dog does, that one piece of the puzzle, I mean you can see if he's not vomiting, if has excessive gas, or gaining too much weight and if his hair looks healthy, and if he's not itching and has enough energy, but you really can't see how the internal organs are doing and I believe there is a difference between surviving and thriving, and I want to choose a food based upon many factors, but I expect my dogs would do well on a variety of different foods, it's just as they are getting older, I think diet plays an even more important part in there overall health.

I really wish dogs could talk and tell us how they're feeling, but since they can't... If a dog is healthy, happy, and energetic, doesn't itch, has a beautiful coat and the underlying skin is healthy, has a healthy weight, no excess gas, AND has good results when blood tests are run, isn't that the best we can expect?

Using cloned dogs in food trials is something I've never heard of before, and I wouldn't have any objections from a moral standpoint, so long as they are treated like regular dogs, not harmed in any way, and taken off the diet immediately if their health starts to deteriorate. A cloned dog is like an identical twin--each has its own personality. There is nothing inhumane about it unless you treat them inhumanely.

Thanks for the interesting discussion!

[Yorkiemom1]

Originally Posted by pstinard

You're far too kind. The bolded statement makes me want to scream and throw my laptop out the window, because he's basically saying that his reviews are meaningless except for figuring out if you're getting value for your money. Then he ends with a plea to consider his star rating--then do your own research. I could have done that in the first place and avoided the middle man (and spared myself a splitting headache).

These ratings are nothing more than HIS opinion of what is "good" for YOUR dog! This has always been the burr under MY saddle....opinions passed off as gospel and people thinking they are reading validated, irrefutability justified, researched, tested, and PROFESSIONALLY formulated diets. OPINIONS on what HE believes what is best for you to be feeding!!!

Quit pulling on my foot Linda, I am crawling back under the chair!!!!