What Do You Look For In A Label

[sandgrubber]

I'm forever looking for a better dry food that doesn't cost a bundle. I notice people often say 'read the label' -- which I always do. But I find labels confusing. Eg, I recently bought a bag of ProPlan Puppy -- which gets good recommendations -- and was horrified to read that it is 1.5% salt !!!! In my book that's the junk food range (and dogs love it). I notice everyone dumping on SuperCoat, but its ingredients look fine to me. I don't mind if pooh volume is large. It doesn't take me any longer to scrape up a big one than a little one . Ok 22% protein isn't heaps, but I can up this by feeding mince(~$3/kg) and chicken frames (~$.70/kg). The dogs like fresh stuff better than super premium ($7/kg and up).

In playing around with supplements I've found that selenium and zinc appear to be important for coat. But for trace minerals, the quantities and form (eg digestability) must matter and you can't get them off a label. Simpler to forget them in the dry food and use a supplement you trust.

Also 'by products' seem to be a no-no in many people's books, but blood and bone are by-products, and I would think they provide good nutrition, particularly if they aren't cooked to death. Indeed, I would consider the chicken carcasses I feed so freely to be 'meat by products'. I don't like the fatty by products -- but if the fat content is specified that's taken care of.

So . . . For those people who advise reading the label . . . what do you look for?

Edited February 20, 2007 by sandgrubber

[MolassesLass]

I take notice of the information from The Dog Food Project and picked the best food that I could afford from there.

[leopuppy04]

It is a tough one isn't it. Basically I go by something that has a good level of protein and fat - I used to think Supercoat was just fine but my dog was losing condition when on it. I have since switched him over to Nutrience and he has bulked up really quickly and his coat is much healthier too. I feed pretty much the same diet as you.

I don't like to see too much corn, wheat, barley etc in the ingredients and like to see meat (and/or by products - have the same belief as you ) first on the list. So in terms of premium and average - I like Optimum, Nutrience, Pro-plan and Advance. Royal Canin also seems to be pretty good . I would have listed S/C too but it just doesn't seem to suit my dog.

sorry - best I can give you

[t-time]

First of all - love that website ML

Ever since I've found Eaglepack - I don't read labels. My main issues previously have been more "moral" I suppose - how good a quality are the ingredients - what extra supplements are in the kibble - is that better and easier than what I'd been providing them previously. Also I like the idea of all the ingredients in EP being freshly sourced (ie human grade) and the effort they've gone to in securing many organic ingredients.

I used to feed BARF but it became too hard to get all the ingredients I wanted/needed and then I found that large batches would not be eaten because the dogs or a dog wouldn't like a certain ingredient. They didn't eat that one ingredient then how were they getting that particular nutritional element?? I got too worried about them missing out on important vitamins etc.

Now it's easy. I know they eat as much nice raw food as they want or like (yoghurt, veges, sardines, fruit, raw meaty bones) and then it's backed up with the high quality nutritious kibble. I still find myself adding extra omega oil but that's my own little "bent".

The main dog foods I'm always horrified about are dog treats - full of salt and sugar and preservatives. It's no wonder dogs go whacko for Schmackos ;)

The reason I feed the way I do now is because despite the argument that if you use a better quality kibble it will cost you less in the long-run - that was not the case for me. My costs went up considerably when I attempted feeding kibble only as per instruction so that only lasted for about 3 weeks Making the bulk of the meal with the ingredients I mentioned above is very inexpensive and then I add a small meal of EP kibble each day - that works out cheaper than feeding ANY sole kibble. So, my kibble more becomes one of my ingredients in my dogs' diets.

I understand what you're saying about supplementing up your Supercoat with extra ingredients but surely it's better for your "filler" to be more nutritious to start with? ;)

[MolassesLass]

First of all - love that website ML

Can't take credit for finding it, I found it when someone else posted a link here on DOL to it.

I used to feed BARF but it became too hard to get all the ingredients I wanted/needed and then I found that large batches would not be eaten because the dogs or a dog wouldn't like a certain ingredient. They didn't eat that one ingredient then how were they getting that particular nutritional element?? I got too worried about them missing out on important vitamins etc.

One thing you might like to try is the Weaner or Edge products from Big Dog Pet Foods which is a "commercial" BARF mix (made by the same people who manufacture Dr Billinghurt's official product so they know the right ratios;)). It may be too high in fat for less active breeds and I'm sure it won't work for everyone, but it does wonders for my guys (and is so much easier for me).

The reason I feed the way I do now is because despite the argument that if you use a better quality kibble it will cost you less in the long-run - that was not the case for me. My costs went up considerably when I attempted feeding kibble only as per instruction so that only lasted for about 3 weeks

Me too, was quite insane really!

I understand what you're saying about supplementing up your Supercoat with extra ingredients but surely it's better for your "filler" to be more nutritious to start with? ;)

SuperCoat has recently changed formula we believe. This has been noticed by a number of people who've fed SC for years (me included). It was a very good filler for a reasonable cost but I feed Nutrience now. My local pet supplies store gives 10% discount to CCCQ members, so it's not too bad in price.

[Miranda]

I look for foods that have meat as the first ingredient, not by-products but meat. If there is a second meat ingredient in the first four ingredients that's even better. I like to know where the fat is derived from eg. I like to see poultry fat instead of animal fats and I won't feed anything that includes tallow as a source of fat. I won't feed any food that has a cereal as the first ingredient and I won't feed anything that contains corn or soy. As far as preservatives go I won't feed anything that contains a chemical preservatives or citric acid.

I also dislike Supercoat and only recommend Nutro, Eagle Pack Holistic, Royal Canin or maybe Advance.

Edited February 20, 2007 by Miranda

[MolassesLass]

Advance (Adult Chicken) contains chicken by-products, corn, chicken tallow and poultry by-products among it's ingredients though. I was surprised to find RC didn't stack up as well as I thought it would to the ingredients check.

Nutro, Eagle Pack and Nutrience were the top three from my checking. ProPlan was also quite good. I haven't been able to check Optimum as it doesn't list ingredients online.

ETA: Miranda, I'm not trying to be argumentative, but have you had a look at the dog food project site at all? There is some interesting information there about how ingredient splitting and dry vs wet weight can be used to make a product appear differently on the ingredient list. Given the foods you list above, probably not much surprised, but it's still good reading.

Edited February 20, 2007 by molasseslass

[t-time]

I look for foods that have meat as the first ingredient, not by-products but meat. If there is a second meat ingredient in the first four ingredients that's even better. I like to know where the fat is derived from eg. I like to see poultry fat instead of animal fats and I won't feed anything that includes tallow as a source of fat. I won't feed any food that has a cereal as the first ingredient and I won't feed anything that contains corn or soy. As far as preservatives go I won't feed anything that contains a chemical preservatives or citric acid.

I also dislike Supercoat and only recommend Nutro, Eagle Pack Holistic, Royal Canin or maybe Advance.

Miranda - did you check out that website? It basically said what you are saying ;) The only exception was that they recommended Chicken fat over general poultry fat ;) Once again - that's about actually knowing what's in the food

SuperCoat has recently changed formula we believe. This has been noticed by a number of people who've fed SC for years (me included).

ML - it's been "noticed" but you're not sure Have the ingredients changed without them telling you? I used to love Dr Harry and I trusted him (that was until my Frontline Plus didn't work any more :p)

I'll stick with my Eaglepack at the moment!

Thanks for the BARF patties- type tip ;) Once again, I think it would be cheaper to be adding my own ingredients together rather than paying someone to do it for me

[MolassesLass]

A large number of people have noticed the SC stopped working for their dogs, despite no change in ingredients on the bag. It was discussed in this thread. I only say "believe" because there has been no official statement that things have changed.

Thanks for the BARF patties- type tip Once again, I think it would be cheaper to be adding my own ingredients together rather than paying someone to do it for me

Lucky you, I couldn't get the supplies at good prices so it is much cheaper for me this way too.

[Miranda]

Yes that's an excellent site ML , I didn't actually see it before I posted. I originally got my information from Whole Dog Magazine, they did a review of all the foods a few years back and said basically the same thing.

Actually I have yet to find a food that meets all the criteria, I am currently using Nutro and although I'm not keen on the fact that rice appears three times in the first four ingredients my dogs are doing very well on it although I do feed other things and limit dry food to one cup per day.

The only reason I mentioned Advance is that I use Advance Rehydratable for my puppies, it certainly doesn't look good on paper, but I've found it to be an excellent food for weaning puppies and for babies in their first few weeks of life.

BTW the reason I won't use any product including citric acid is that it has been implicated as a causative factor in bloat, I don't think that they mention citric acid on that site, but although it's a natural preservative it's not completely safe in those breeds with a predisposition to the disease.

Edited February 20, 2007 by Miranda

[MolassesLass]

Interesting. I notice two items with "preserved with mixed tocopherols and citric acid" against them in the Nutrience Wholistic Giant Breed. Argh! Bloat already scares the heck out of me. But I guess the fact that it's fed as a small portion of the meal, the rest of which contains high protein fresh meat and bone should cancel it out. Good to know though.

Sorry sandgrubber, for taking your topic off on a tangent.

[Miranda]

I just checked out the Purdue site ML and it said that foods containing citric acid that were moistened by the owner were a risk factor. I don't know why moistening the food makes a difference, but apparently it does.

[KitKat]

Actually I have yet to find a food that meets all the criteria, I am currently using Nutro and although I'm not keen on the fact that rice appears three times in the first four ingredients my dogs are doing very well on it although I do feed other things and limit dry food to one cup per day.

The thing with rice is it's very easily digestable by dogs and cats...as opposed to many grains etc.

[sandgrubber]

I take notice of the information from The Dog Food Project and picked the best food that I could afford from there.

I like the Dog Food Project site -- good basic science -- but am not confident about applying US information in Australia. Two problems.

1. Different Labelling Laws. Can anyone point to a description of Australian labelling laws as applied to pet foods? For example, if US laws applied here, I don't think SuperCoat would advertise their product as 'with real beef' or 'with real chicken' -- doing so would imply that meat was a small fraction and they go out of their way to project the image that it's the main ingredient. It would be particularly useful to know how water is counted as an ingredient . . . as the Dogfood Project people point out, meat tends to be 80% water, so having meat as a first ingredient on the label doesn't prove there's a lot of meat in the stuff.

2. Different biogeochemistry. Australia is an old continent that is highly deficient in trace minerals. Trace mineral deficiencies in introduced livestock species are widespread. On the other hand North America is a very young continent (most of the US and Canada is freshly weathered since the last glaciation) and trace mineral deficiencies are almost unknown. I think we have to pay more attention to trace minerals than Norte Americanos.

Edited February 22, 2007 by sandgrubber

[MolassesLass]

Different Labelling Laws.

Not really. Australian dog foods get AAFCO certified too, which is the standard the site talks about rather than American laws. SuperCoat included.

2. Different biogeochemistry.

True for foods manufactured here, not so for the imported products.

[sandgrubber]

Different Labelling Laws.

Not really. Australian dog foods get AAFCO certified too, which is the standard the site talks about rather than American laws. SuperCoat included.

2. Different biogeochemistry.

True for foods manufactured here, not so for the imported products.

Sorry, I'm not good at quotes within quotes.

I'm looking at bags from SuperCoat and CopRice. Neither says it is AAFCO certified. Rather, they say "formulated to meet AAFCO nutritional standards". I can't see that this means they are labelled according to AAFCO rules.

Not to be cynical, but I've noticed some companies treat standards with lip service and a wink.

Previous discussion of this subject at:

http://forums.dogzonline.com.au/lofiversio...php/t27075.html

seems to have come to the conclusion that PFIAA was the relevant body in Australia. The PFIAA code of conduct:

http://www.pfiaa.com.au/default.asp?d=67698&p=54227

Says nothing about labelling, and nothing about enforcement. I suspect this boils down to voluntary compliance.

[MolassesLass]

According to CHOICE which tested a number of dog foods in 2002:

There's only one really reliable way to test animal food, and that’s with lengthy feeding trials. AAFCO trials last six months for adult 'maintenance' products, during which time the animals are given only the test food and water, and their health and progress are monitored for signs of nutrition-related disease.

Foods that pass this test can carry a label claim along the lines of: "Animal feeding tests using AAFCO procedures substantiate that Product X provides complete and balanced nutrition."

Unfortunately, some foods that have met AAFCO feeding trial requirements don’t advertise the fact on the label. It’d be much more useful if they did. Look for the words 'complete and balanced' if there’s no mention of AAFCO.

The US National Academy of Sciences' National Research Council (NRC) and AAFCO also set food formulation standards. These are useful, but don’t provide the same guarantee, as they’re based on a chemical analysis, not actual feeding trials.

And that all the following foods are AAFCO trialled ("This product has been tested successfully in feeding trials undertaken by the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO). It has the right amount of nutrients and energy and can claim to be a 'complete and balanced' pet food.").

CHUM Tinned

FRISKIES Lucky Dog Dry

PEDIGREE Meaty Bites Dry

PEDIGREE Pal Tinned

EUKANUBA Dry

HILL'S SCIENCE DIET Dry

HILL'S SCIENCE DIET Tinned

IAMS Dry

PEDIGREE Advance Dry

PEDIGREE Principal Dry

PURINA One Dry

PURINA Pro Plan Dry

ROYAL CANIN Dry

SUPERCOAT Dry

However, there are notes on the site about what this trialling includes.

But use the information or not, it's an interesting and useful read IMO even if you don't think it applies.

[ShesaLikeableBiBear]

There is a huge difference between conforming/formulated to AAFCO standards and actually being AAFCO TESTED there are precious few companies which can actually lay claim to having sat the stringent AAFCO tests, and would doubt that many of those listed above have passed these tests.

Edited February 22, 2007 by Hesapandabear

[MolassesLass]

Perhaps someone would like to ask CHOICE then, as that is there statement on those foods.

Edited February 22, 2007 by molasseslass

[sandgrubber]

Thanks everybody for giving another kick at the dry dogfood 'dead horse'.

Damn! I was hoping for a simple answer

I would consider 6 mo (as used by AAFCO) a long trial if I was paying for it, but as a breeder . . . or for puppy buyers as a pet owner, I don't consider it very long. Also it would be interesting to know what they consider 'signs of nutrition related diseases'. A dry coat is not a disease, nor is high volume of foecal matter. So presumably the things people find 'bad' about SC could pass muster in such trials.

I guess in the long run it comes down to reading as much as you can, evaluating, and making decisions based on your experience plus outside information. Which puts me back where I began . . . thinking that a lower price dogfood used as a supplement to fresh meats and a few veg's is a pretty good diet.