Innova is great food!!

Discussion in 'Woof Memorial Critter's Corner' started by David9966, May 28, 2007.

  1. David9966

    David9966 Guest

    Messages:
    112
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    May 18, 2007
    This is the most successful thread that I've ever started. Is it just coincidence that people who own guns are often more likely to appreciate the lives of everyone around them, more than those anti-gun folks. Why don't we hear about that in the media. Anti's simply don't value life,Human or animal as much as us. I take alot of pride in that.Thanks to everyone for paying attention to this thread and being responsible pet owners. If you research ballistics to know what type of firearms to own, you might as well research canine nutrition to know what to feed your dog.Dave :thumbsup: :)
     
  2. CCO

    CCO Wandering CLM

    Messages:
    548
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Location:
    Lake Texoma
    Wow. I was directed here from the GNG page, and started reading all this stuff. We've got a mini schnauzer, not a working dog by many means, but a perimeter alarm and a family pet. We feed him Kibbles and Bits on good months, and Ol' Roy on the tight months.

    My head's kinda spinnin...i suppose i should get a small sack of canadie or something and try him.
     

  3. Scottmkiv

    Scottmkiv

    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2004
    Location:
    Dallas
    I did a fair amount of searching all over the internet when I first chose my dog food. I am not the type of person to cheap out on quality where it makes a difference. That being said, I could not find a single study, or even report, that showed any sort of difference between dog foods when it came to the dogs health. Obviously if your dog is allergic to something in your dog food you need to change it. That being said, I just could not find any sort of scientific evidence to justify buying something more exensive than the regular dog foods.

    I didn't go Ol'Roy cheap (though I am far from convinced it isn't nearly identical to some Pedigree or Purina blend put in a different bag), but as far as I can tell there are no scientifically proven health benefits to the expensive food.

    I would love to be proven wrong, because I care about my dogs well being a lot, but I need actual evidence not just anecedotal stories.
     
  4. SouthernGal

    SouthernGal What's Up Dox?

    Messages:
    6,801
    Likes Received:
    3
    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    Location:
    NW MS
    Dogs are CARNIVORES. They need protein from meat, not plant/vegetable materials. If the first 3 to 4 ingredients in a dog food include are plant/vegetable based ingredients, then that means that most of the food is useless. Dogs don't need it and can't digest it, so it goes right through their systems. Their intestinal tracts are much shorter than those of humans. Food stays in a dogs digestive tract for approximately 3 hours, as compared to three days for humans. Therefore, dogs need food that contains ingredients and nutrients that can be quickly and efficiently broken down and utilized, not ingredients that cannot be used. Sure, cheap food has nutrients in it, but if it is all plant/vegetable/carbohydrate-filled, those nutrients will not be able to be absorbed as efficiently as with a high-quality food. In cheap foods, hooves, beaks, toe nails, etc are ground up and put into the food as fillers. Dogs cannot take any nutrients from those ingredients. They are not digestible. They need MEAT for protein and fat. In cheap foods, you will tend to see too much of indigestible ingredients and too little of the nutrients that actually are digestible. Yes, a dog can live on Ol'Roy and Kibbles and Bits, but is the dog using that food as efficiently as it can and gaining as much nutrients and benefit as possible? No. So, basically it's like buying the really cheap off-brand batteries. They work, but they tend not to last as long and I've had several leak. So, do you spend a couple of extra bucks on Energizer? I do. Remember, dogs can eat less of the high-quality food. Why? Because, as I said, since they are able to absorb and use more of the food's ingredients, they don't need as much volume. The cheap foods add more carbs/fillers to substitute for the fact that dogs will be hungry faster when they are unable to absorb proper nutrients from their food. Carbs help to fill up their stomachs and keep them full, but offer no health benefits. I have attached a link to an article from the Whole Dog Journal that outlines the differences between low and high quality foods and why those differences are important. Please read it. I know that Purina and Eukanuba also do a great deal of nutritional research and I believe they have some of the findings on their websites.

    http://files.meetup.com/360837/WDJ_Feb2007.pdf
     
  5. TurboRocket

    TurboRocket

    Messages:
    2,344
    Likes Received:
    9
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Location:
    South of Utopia

    I wouldn't need to read scientific studies to tell me not to feed my child McDonald's 3 meals a day, seven days a week. I just wouldn't do it. Same thing for a dog. Dogs have been designed to eat real food for over 1 million years. Mainstream kibble has been around for 60 years (so has highly processed food for humans - coincidence?). It's all just about the math.

    The commercial dog food industry, in large part, came about because companies like General Mills, P&G, and their predecessors wanted a outlet for all the crap that they cannot sell to humans. Corn husks, cobs, stalks...any part of the plant that they cannot convince humans to eat.

    To piggy-back on what SouthernGal just said, the veggies that dogs ate would primarily be the stomach contents of their kill. Dogs don't graze on wheat, corn or rice (heck, even humans didn't eat rice until 10,000 years ago, after they learned how to cook). You may see dogs eating grass or picking at leaves but that is purely for water.

    If you just try a premium brand for a month or two, you'll probably see a difference in your dog. You could easily tell by the stool - it will probably be a lot smaller, and will dry out much quicker, because - as SouthernGal said - your dog will absorb more of the nutrients and a lot less fillers will pass through Fido.

    For me, I just like to take it one step further to what mother-nature intended for the canine, which is why I like a raw, natural diet. However, this is not convenient for everyone, and premium kibble is the next best thing.

    TEHO but give it some consideration. At minimum, the ingredients going into mainstream kibble has been well documented - and it is some SCARY stuff.
     
  6. Scottmkiv

    Scottmkiv

    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2004
    Location:
    Dallas
    If it was that simple then it would be obvious. However, there are simply no studies (that I have ever seen) that show any health benefit for premium food vs. mid-range food. (Assuming your dogs aren't allergic to any of the ingredients of course.)

    I personally don't care if one food results in more poop than another, though I can see why some might.

    In short, I need science to persuade me to switch. If there was a health benefit you would think that the premium dog food companies would be pouring money into proving it. Imagine what a great claim dogs fed brand x live, on average, 2 years longer than brand y would be. And yet, there aren't any claims even a little like this.

    To me, this makes it seem highly likely that there is no such benefit. If you sold premium dog food, and your food really made dogs healthier, wouldn't you be screaming from the rooftops about the results of your study?
     
  7. TurboRocket

    TurboRocket

    Messages:
    2,344
    Likes Received:
    9
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Location:
    South of Utopia
    Fortunately for some dogs, it is that simple.

    But consider this...

    1) Most premium food companies are 'mom-and-pop' shops. There are some premium producers that are a bit larger but nothing compared to the power-houses like Proctor & Gamble, Colgate-Palmolive, Nestle, and Mars - not even remotely close. Then you have the symbiotic conspirators in separate industries that have a huge stake in pet-foods: agri-business like Cargill and ADM; mainstream vets; big-Pharma, pet stores, and vet schools/universities. One can only imagine the dollars they are willing to spend, and the arms they are willing twist, to protect their $15b a year industry ($25b world-wide). This $15b is just pet food in the U.S., and does not include the side industries mentioned.

    2) Consider the premium pet food companies' profit margins - paying for higher grade ingredients, while facing consumer pricing pressures (price needs to be in check to stay somewhat competitive with commercial kibble). Also, premium food companies don't have other product lines (like toothpaste, candy bars, pet toys, and laundry detergent) to help feed the bottom line. The huge dollars that the conglomerates have pays for lots of marketing, ownership in pet-related magazines, dog-show sponsorship, lots of perks to vets, lots of funded studies in vet schools, and lots of political strong-arming (think FDA, USDA, EPA, as well as lobbyists in the side industries mentioned).

    To use an analogy, just think about how feasible it might be for a local hardware store or small grocer to run TV ads, versus Walmart buying up huge plots of land and sitting on it for years to get the zoning, do traffic studies, EPA studies, muscle-out any obstacle, etc. Walmart could survive years and years sitting on vacant land, but the small store owner will go out of business in a few short weeks if their revenues are disrupted.

    3) "Screaming" takes a lot of money - a BOAT-LOAD of money. I am not talking about just the marketing piece (TV ads), but clinical studies themselves are extremely expensive. We are talking about $250k up to millions of dollars for clinical trials.

    For example, there is a current effort to study and prove that rabies shots are effective for 5 - 7 years, versus most state laws that require 3 yr. vaccinations (some locales even requiring annual vaccinations). Rabies vaccines are not so great for dogs (in case GT members didn't know), so the goal of this study would be to change current laws.

    Does anyone think that big-pharma would fund this study? How about the vet establishment? How about commercial kibble companies? They're all in bed together. Oh, by the way, they need $1.5 million to do the study, and that is with a bunch of services donated. Here's a link to the effort...

    http://www.rabieschallengefund.org/index.html

    Will you find the scientific studies you seek? Most likely not, for the reasons mentioned above. If you do, it will be well buried in some doctoral thesis or obscure trade magazine. The establishment won't fund it, and the small, premium pet food companies are not rich enough nor well organized enough to fund such a study. The best information we have at our disposal is common sense, and some revealing informal studies, articles, and books.

    Your dog does not have the luxury to tell you what he likes eating. He is a captive prisoner regarding what he eats. Perhaps the crux of the difference is some dog owners start with the quality ladder, and others start with the price ladder.

    In the end, and as I mentioned earlier, TEHO. :wavey:

    Respectfully,
    Turbo
     
  8. Scottmkiv

    Scottmkiv

    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2004
    Location:
    Dallas
    If there was really a study that could prove premium dog foods were healthier, and it only cost a million bucks to run, then I am sure it would have been done. The company could just print the claim on big letters on the bags of food. No real need for extra advertising. I'm sure word of mouth and newspaper articles would spread the news quickly.

    There are just too many companies that distribute truck loads of product all over the country for me to believe that not one of them (or perhaps a consortium of a few) can get a hold of the money to do the research. In order to achieve that kind of scale, you simply can't be that small.

    I think the real reason such a study hasn't been done is because no one B]knows[/B] that the study will show the results they want, or is even very confident. If the study proved their food was better, they would be swarmed with more business than they could handle. However, if the study didn't show any meaningful results the premium food companies would all be ruined. If they were even fairly sure what the outcome would be, the course of action is a no-brainer.
     
  9. TurboRocket

    TurboRocket

    Messages:
    2,344
    Likes Received:
    9
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Location:
    South of Utopia
    We'll just have to agree to disagree. I can only lead so many horses to water.
     
  10. SouthernGal

    SouthernGal What's Up Dox?

    Messages:
    6,801
    Likes Received:
    3
    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    Location:
    NW MS
    +1

    Edited to add:
    The suggestion that rabies shots cause issues in some dogs is true. There was an article I read last year that was published in a breeder journal someone here at work had. Interestingly enough, the breed most commonly associated with having issues with this vaccine was the same breed I own--dachshund.
     
  11. tahqua

    tahqua

    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    I looked at the Innova and the Canidae and settled on the Canidae. My cats have been on the Felidae for two weeks now and like it a lot.
    My GWP and my kids two cockapoo's got there first taste yesterday. They had a puzzled look at first when they approached the bowls. Once they had their first bite they went to town. They definitely like it and the price is not too bad compared to Pro Plan. I am going to stick with it for all my pets. I'll take the human grade ingredients anytime over some of the fillers and "meals" I have seen listed.
     
  12. compassman

    compassman

    Messages:
    173
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2003
    Location:
    CT
    Manufacturers vehemently denied this; however, the American Veterinary Medical Association confirmed the Chronicle's story. From his experience as a veterinarian and federal meat inspector, P. F. McGargle, D.V.M., has concluded that feeding slaughterhouse wastes to animals increases their chance of getting cancer and other degenerative diseases. Those wastes, he reports, can include moldy, rancid or spoiled meats as well as tissues severely riddled with cancer. These meat scraps can also contain hormone levels comparable to those that have produced cancer in laboratory animals. Dr. McGargle attributed these high levels to two causes: Synthetic hormones routinely fed to livestock to stimulate rapid growth, and meat meal whose source are often glandular wastes and fetal tissues from pregnant cows. Both are naturally high in hormones.

    A recent analysis determined that two-thirds of the pet foods produced in the US had synthetic preservatives added by the manufacturers. Of the remaining third, 90% included ingredients that were already stabilized by synthetic preservatives.

    Today, there are more than 8,600 recognized food additives with absolutely zero toxicity information on 45% of them! Of those that have been analyzed only 5% have had a complete health hazard assessment. Many of these chemicals are known to be carcinogenic above a certain level but still are allowed in pet food in concentrations below the known carcinogenic amount. This is misleading because many of these compounds are not readily cleared from the body and can thus build up to very high levels over time. Ethoxyquin, for example, was found in dogs' livers months after it had been totally removed from their diet.

    Since when do dogs need to be fed insecticide as part of a healthy diet? The answer to this question should be obvious. NEVER! Here's another alarming fact: 60% of all herbicides, 90% of all fungicides and 30% of all insecticides have been proven to cause cancer in and of themselves. Virtually all of these chemicals find there way into commercial pet food via the added grains and meats used. Worse still, upwards of 80% of these chemicals, 49,000 in all have virtually no toxicity data. In other words neither you, nor I, nor any scientist in any lab in the world has any idea what they will do to you pet today, tomorrow or ten years from now. Another recent study found that these same chemicals lead to chromosomal mutations, double-strand DNA breaks and numerous mutations. To your dog, this means a greater incidence of cancer and other diseases. To your breeding program, this means lower survivability, mutated puppies and genetic aberrations that will make the pups non-salable.


    The Department Of Pathology, Nagoya City University Medical School Japan, recently completed a study to determine the toxicology of BHA, BHT, Ethoxyquin and Propyl Gallate.

    · * ETHOXYQUIN Promoted kidney carcinogenesis. Significantly increased incidence of stomach tumors. Enhanced bladder carcinogesis.
    · * BHA Enhanced stomach and urinary bladder carcinogenesis. Causes squamous-cell carcinomas in stomachs (Cancers of this type are among the most lethal and fastest acting, the swiftest effects being seen among animals with light colored fur.)
    · * BHT Promoted urinary bladder carcinogenesis Could be a promoter of thyroid carcinogenesis
    The study noted that BHA and other antioxidants, particularly propyl gallate and ethoxyquin, showed additional effects in inducing stomach hyperplasia and cytotoxicity. According to Dr. Wendell Belfield, DVM, practicing veterinarian for some 26 years, both BHA and BHT are known to cause liver and kidney dysfunction and are banned in some European countries. He adds that ethoxyquin is suspected of causing cancer and that propylene glycol ( a pet food ingredient closely related to anti-freeze ) causes destruction of red blood cells.

    Ethoxyquin is listed and identified as hazardous chemical by OSHA. It has a rating of 3 on a scale of 1 to 6, with 6 being super toxic requiring less than 7 drops to cause death. ~When manufactured by Monsanto, the containers are marked with the word POISON. Monsanto makes no representations and will not be responsible for damages of any nature whatsoever. Department of Agriculture lists Ethoxyquin as a pesticide.
     
  13. compassman

    compassman

    Messages:
    173
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2003
    Location:
    CT
    Recently, I found the following notice from the FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine: August 14,1997: FDA REQUESTS THAT ETHOXYQUIN LEVELS BE REDUCED IN DOG FOODS

    In letters dated July 31, 1997, to manufacturers of ethoxyquin and trade associations for the pet food industry, FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) requested that the maximum level for ethoxyquin in complete dog foods be voluntarily lowered to 75 parts per million (ppm). Under the current food additive regulations, ethoxyquin is allowed at levels up to 150 ppm in complete dog foods (Title 21, Part 573.380 of the Code of Federal Regulations). However, after recently completing a scientific review of a voluntarily submitted study from the Monsanto Company, CVM has reason to believe that the 150 ppm level may not provide an adequate margin of safety in lactating female dogs and possibly puppies. The results from this study show that ethoxyquin levels above the current tolerance in dog foods produced no adverse reproductive effects. There was, however, an increase in a dark, reddish-brown pigment in the liver of female dogs immediately after completing a 6-week lactation. The liver pigment was identified as protoporphyri.

    During lactation, the female dogs consumed two to three times more food as a percentage of body weight than they did at maintenance, and this increased food consumption likely contributed to the increased pigment deposition in the liver and in the elevated serum enzymes. The increased pigment deposition and serum enzymes in lactating female dogs may be reversible when food consumption returns to maintenance, but it still constitutes a finding that must be further investigated.

    The Pet Food Institute has undertaken a study designed to show that ethoxyquin is an effective antioxidant at levels between 30 and 60 ppm in a complete dog food. FDA is closely monitoring the progress of this study. If new information becomes available that questions the safety of ethoxyquin at 75 ppm in dog food, or shows it to be an effective antioxidant at levels below 75 ppm, CVM will consider further action.

    Further information on this subject is available from FDNCVM's Division of Animal Feeds, 7500 Standish Place, HFV-220, Rockville, MD 20855 or by calling (301) 594-1724.

    I suggest you call the FDA at that phone number. After all, you own both the FDA and those phone lines because you pay for it all through your taxes

    http://www.ag.state.co.us/ag_crr/animals/HTML/RENDERING
     
  14. compassman

    compassman

    Messages:
    173
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2003
    Location:
    CT
    Common Sense & Nonsense Feeding
    There is little doubt that the vast majority of health problems in animals are a direct result of poor nutrition. This is not because well meaning owners intentionally feed their companions a diet they were never meant to eat, but rather is based on a series of "beliefs" initiated and fostered by commercial interests in the nine billion dollar a year pet food industry.

    In past issues we have briefly touched on this vital subject but now that you have a little better understanding of enzymes, the immune system, etc., I would like you to give some serious thought to some common sense principles in feeding your dogs and cats.

    A good starting point is to examine some of the widely held "beliefs" to see if they make sense or are more or less nonsense.

    Everybody knows that---The digestive system of the modern domesticated dog is much "weaker" than a wild dog’s and that is why modern dogs have to be fed differently to their wild counterparts.

    NONSENSE!! This belief is based on nothing more than somebody’s opinion. There have been no scientific studies to back it up. Although mankind may have changed the outward appearance of the dog over the last few thousand years, and developed a large variety of shapes and forms for practical or esthetic reasons, THE INTERNAL WORKINGS INCLUDING THE ENTIRE DIGESTIVE SYSTEM, AND THE WAY FOOD IS UTILIZED FOR GROWTH, MAINTENANCE, REPAIR AND REPRODUCTION, IS FUNDAMENTALLY THE SAME IN ALL DOGS—BOTH WILD AND DOMESTICATED.

    COMMONSENSE—If the internal workings have not changed, then a study of the foods eaten by wild dogs, should provide us with a sound basis for feeding modern dogs!!

    Everybody knows that--Dogs should not eat raw bones and all dog food should be COOKED to kill all the bad bacteria.

    NONSENSE—Dogs fed only cooked and processed food will always develop a weakened immune system and poor dental health.

    COMMONSENSE—From centuries of practical experience dogs thrive on a RAW diet.

    Everybody knows that—Each meal you feed your dog should be complete and balanced,
    It is impossible without a university education in dog nutrition to be able to successfully feed a dog,
    And of course—the best way to ensure proper nutrition is by feeding only (fill in appropriate brand name) commercial dog food.

    Do I really have to say it?? O.K.—NONSENSE!! This "modern" idea was devised for no other reason than to enable the sale of pet foods. Massive "education" campaigns inundate the media to convince you that "You cannot feed your dog properly…but we can". Even many vets have become convinced that feeding a dog is a very complicated process and best left to the "experts".

    The major "fear" that is exploited in the pet food industry is centered around the concept that "every meal must be completely balanced". Unfortunately, even "holistic" animal lovers and some authors of "how to" books have fallen into this trap.

    COMMONSENSE—Ask yourself the question…is that the way you design your own meals ? Each of them totally balanced with every conceivable nutrient present that you require ? Of course you don’t. No creature since life began has eaten that way!!

    You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to realize that in nature, a "wild" dog will achieve a balanced diet over a period of time that can range from a few days to a few weeks. Never at each meal and never consistent. The attempt to put all the nutrients a dog requires into one commercial product is responsible for much unnecessary suffering and poor health. It is an insidious way of slowly ensuring a shorter life span for your animal and is guaranteed to sooner or later make your veterinarian a little richer.

    Dr. Ian Billinghurst in Australia provides an outstanding insight to confirm this concept. In his words:

    "As a veterinary student in the early seventies, I found it hard to understand why Aussie vets had fewer and simpler dog and cat diseases to deal with than the Americans. It seemed to make the Aussie vet somehow inferior. We did not need to be trained to the same high degree of complexity and sophistication.

    There was a simple explanation. At that time, more than seventy percent of Aussie dogs were still fed raw bones and scrapes. They were still pretty healthy.

    American dogs had been eating processed food and no bones for decades. They had developed a wide range of problems. Their vets had been forced to develop a complex set of diagnostic and therapeutic tools to deal with them.

    I need not have worried. Our dogs’ disease problems are increasing on a par with their increasing consumption of processed and cooked foods. We Aussie vets now have to be as good as our American counterparts to deal with them."
     
  15. compassman

    compassman

    Messages:
    173
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2003
    Location:
    CT
    Premium quality dog foods, either canned, dry or frozen, contain vitamins and minerals balanced for a dog's nutritional needs. Although they cost more than other foods, they contain no indigestible fillers or additives that create bulk, while providing nothing but empty calories. Dogs do not really require carbohydrates in their diets. However most dog foods contain them in varying percentages (official standards allow up to 50%) and small amounts help regulate digestive functions. Premium dog food may contain more nutrients that can be absorbed by the body. This means that he will eat less and feel more satisfied than when eating lower cost, lower grade foods. Most premium dog foods also do not contain dyes, a source of many dog food allergies.

    The biggest selling point for premium dog foods is the obvious long-range benefits of the sleek, glossy coat your dog will wear after being on such a diet for a few months. Since these foods are utilized more fully, you will also notice a change for the better in small formed stools and less elimination. Look for products whose labels state a "complete and balanced" diet or foods that "meet or exceed the American Association of Feed Control Officials requirements" or the requirements of the National Research Council.
     
  16. compassman

    compassman

    Messages:
    173
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2003
    Location:
    CT
    HEALTHIER OPTIONS
    Pet owners do have options besides paying the sometimes outlandish prices for sub-par pet food. If you must purchase commercial pet food from your local grocery store, try to find one that uses feeding tests rather than the "Nutrient Profiles." Try brands that advertise themselves as "natural," but read the ingredients. Remember that the definition of "natural" is dependent upon the manufacturer's interpretation. Be sure it does not contain by-products or rendered meat and bone meal. API recommends avoiding special formula foods like those touted as "senior" or "light." These may contain "acidifying agents, excessive fiber, or inadequate fats that can result in skin, coat or other problems."

    Premium dog foods have higher standards in choosing ingredients and in processing methods. Premium foods still vary from brand to brand, but often the formula does not change from bag to bag like it might with economy brands. The ingredients are better, artificial dyes are not added, but antioxidants and vitamins are, and the food is easier to digest, according to the PETCO Care Sheet on Premium Dog Food. All of these extra touches result in higher quality nutrition for your pet, but with less food consumed.

    According to Nan Weitzman and Ross Becker in The Dog Food Book, the main difference between Economy, Premium, and Super Premium dog foods is the clean up. The Economy brands had fewer nutrients per package and the recommended feeding portion was 6 cups a day. The Premium brand had more nutrients than the Economy packages, but less than the Super Premium. The feeding instructions recommended 3-1/4 cups per day. The Super Premium offered the best nutritional value and suggested an average of only 1-3/4 cups of food per day. All measurements were for a 40-lb. dog. "Thus, the big difference," state Weitzman and Becker "is in the poop!"

    Super Premium dog foods contain better ingredients than in the Premium brands. Most brands use only human-grade ingredients. They also do not use synthetic preservatives like ethoxyquin, but use Vitamin C or Vitamin E instead. They do not use artificial flavors or colors. Super Premiums may be more expensive, but your pet is receiving concentrated nutrition packed into smaller portion sizes, which can be more economical.

    Premium dehydrated dog foods offer excellent nutrition because the process of dehydration removes only the water content from the product, while the vitamins, minerals, enzymes, and phyto-nutrients remain. Dehydration is considered to be one of the best methods to preserve food because it is a gentle, time-proven process. Many of the ingredients in dehydrated dog food are considered to be raw because the process of dehydration uses moderate temperatures, but meat and egg ingredients are dehydrated at higher temperatures that will kill any bacteria that is present in the food.

    Many premium dehydrated dog foods are made with all-natural, human-grade ingredients. The process of dehydration concentrates the nutrients in the food, so manufacturers don’t need to add any vitamins or minerals to make it nutritionally balanced, as in most commercial foods. Additionally, this type of dog food is lightweight, easy to store, and simple to prepare.

    Organic or natural dog foods are becoming more common as people begin to focus on their own health and the health of their pets. AAFCO defines a natural product as "a feed or ingredient derived solely from plant, animal or mined sources" that may be altered through processing, including rendering, as long as it has not been "subject to a chemically synthetic process" or contain additives or preservatives that are synthetic.

    Organic dog food offers diets of human-grade ingredients without dyes, additives, or synthetic preservatives. Some brands offer baked food for a great taste and aroma as well as improved digestibility. These brands return to the basics, giving your dog the best nature has to offer.

    Holistic diets treat your whole pet - from nutrition to environment to all-around well being. The foods are all natural and chemical-free. The holistic approach offers many treatments that were formerly for humans only, such as herbology, acupuncture, homeopathy, and chiropractic.

    The BARF diet - Bones And Raw Food - returns your dog to his wild roots. This regime recommends feeding your dog raw, meaty bones and finely ground vegetables. It is important not to cook the food, but serve it as your pet would find it in the wild. The vegetables should be chopped into very tiny pieces - like he would find it in the gut of his prey - so that your dog's body will be able to process the nutrients.

    Some experts claim that the best food for your pet is the food you make yourself. Advocates of a raw food diet recommend feeding your pet fresh meals instead of prepared foods. This requires some planning and preparation, since you cannot buy fresh dog food in a bag. With a little foresight, however, you can prepare enough food for several days to compensate for those days that you are running a little short on time.
     
  17. compassman

    compassman

    Messages:
    173
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2003
    Location:
    CT
    The simple matter of fact is good food is better. The better the food the longer the life. It common knowledge that if you eat bad food you will suffer from all kinds of health issues. Studies don't have to be done to tell me that eating McDonalds every day will kill me. The same is for my dog. The better I feed him and the more healthier diet I can provide the longer he will live and the less health related issues he will have. There are many studies done by vets, doctors and scientist showing the chemicals are substandard in low quality food that are not healthy for consumption.

    The law allows corporations to get away with using all kinds chemicals and substandard ingredience. The law only protects the buyer from ingredients that will cause death or illness.


    I don’t need a study to tell me jumping in front of a car is bad for my health.
     
  18. Show Killer

    Show Killer Boost Junkie !!

    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2004
    Location:
    San Antonio, Tx
    Here's my update:

    I have had Zeus on Innova red meat for 3 weeks now. I actually mix 3 cups Innova dry and 1 can of Merrick. Anyways, i have noticed a few changes in him.

    1) He has filled out a bit. He seems to have put on a little bit of weight but he doesn't look fat. It looks good on him.

    2) He seems to be passing less gas. When he does, it sure doesn't smell like it used to. Also, his poop is much smaller and seems to dry up faster in the back yard. I have mowed the grass twice since i switched him and the yard bombs are much smaller.

    3) He seems to have more energy but is less hyper.

    4) He use to smell pretty bad. I would give him a bath and 2 - 3 days later he would smell. I have given him 2 baths since i switched his diet and 1 was because he rollled around in the mud. He just doesn't seem to have that smell to him any more which in turn makes the house not smell.

    5) This is probably the biggest change. Before, when i would rough house with him, he would make me very itchy. My arms would itch for about 45 minutes after i got done playing with him. It was almost like some kind of allergic reaction or something. Now, it's not a problem. I was rolling around on the floor with him yesterday and didn't itch at all.


    He will stay on this unless i get crazy and go to a raw diet.

    Phil
     
  19. TurboRocket

    TurboRocket

    Messages:
    2,344
    Likes Received:
    9
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Location:
    South of Utopia
    Way to go, Show Killer :thumbsup:. Another happy dog, and owner.

    Not sure how frequent you bathe your dogs, but just a quick comment... they don't need them too often. It dries out their skin if they are bathed too often. I bathe my dogs every 4-5 months if they need it. Regular brushing helps keep them clean, too. While I admit that I love it when they are all fluffy and smelling like shampoo after a good bath, they simply don't smell whatsoever other times - they don't smell like "dog" or anything else. Their coat is soft and shiny. Diet is a big part of that so glad to hear Innova is such a success for Zeus.
     
  20. David9966

    David9966 Guest

    Messages:
    112
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    May 18, 2007
    Glad to see everyone enjoying good kibble! Just wanted to mention that I just turned my neighbors on to Innova for thier new Austrailian cattle dog puppy. It's nice that people see me and my dog and look to us as a role model!!! Dave:)