Talk:Dog food

Misc

There need to be sources listed on what foods are toxic to dogs. Where is teh source that says avocados aren't safe? Brumpz 18:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and added some sources, and clarified that the avocado has only been associated with poisoning in dogs in two known cases. We really need a new article on foods poisonous to dogs. Any thoughts on a good title? --Joelmills 01:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding consumables poisonous to dogs, how about a heading in this article rather than an additional article?

The content of this article is disapointing. I did not learn anything new. I wonder why there hasn't been more interest paid to this entry considering the huge industry dedicated to feeding our dogs, or considering the fanatical interest in all things dog by their owners. I hope someone with a vested interest (like accepting a regular paycheck for being a part of that aformentioned industry) will take a role in making this article more encyclopedia-ready. Anthronify 02:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The third paragraph of the intro needs some serious reconsideration. It starts with a stark summary of those (ignorants assumed) that think table scraps makes a balanced diet for dogs (I hope they don't have children). Let's shoot for an intro that better embodies the principles of dog nutrition. Anthronify 02:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

External links - Dog Food Nutrition

Having looked through the website "Dog Food Nutriton" I found it is not commercial, and does seem independent. I have removed the warning "NOT INDEPENDANT - SHOP TRYING TO SELL THEIR BRANDS OF FOOD." Unless anyone can provide support otherwise it would seem this was an act of vandalism.

List of Ingredients?

I'm not sure what purpose the "List" sections that User:HarryCarrey44 added to the article are serving, but I'm going to refrain from messing with them a little while so that Harry has an opportunity to explain them. I don't think it's practical- speaking as someone with a fair bit of industry knowledge, I think the various types of dog foods and ingredients used therein are just too numerous to fairly attempt to list. As far as "types of dog foods" go, most foods fall into multiple categories (for example, several foods are both weight management and joint support formulas- joint support, as an aside, being the preferred term versus "arthritis relief," as there are several problems that can be treated in the same manner as arthritis). As far as ingredients are concerned, well, how come lamb, salmon and venison make the list, but pheasant, cod, beef and chicken don't?

My point is this: while I appreciate the sentiment, I don't think it's possible to make an inclusive list that serves a real purpose. For now, it looks like they're just clutter, unfortunately. --Moralis (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The firse paragraph in homemade diets doesent make any sense and sounds completley biased. Also raw food seems messed up: Raw food Main article: Raw feeding Raw food is also a growing industry. Concerned pet owners are now turning to freeze-dried food or the Biologically Appropriate Raw Foods (BARF) diet. [14]

Dog treats are usually higher in grease or fats. These are usually designed to be held in a person's hand without being messy, and are often designed in fanciful shapes and colors. A top selling brand is Milkbone. There are also many kinds of natural chewing treats for dogs like rawhide. As is the case for most chewing toys, the dog will clean its teeth by itself during the lengthy chewing process. Dog jumper100 21:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Health benefits

It'd be interesting to see more about the health claims for dog food - are there regulations on what claims can be made, what is the evidence, etc. Some of these foods that say they'll extend lifespan, cure arthritis, keep weight under control, give you a glossy pelt... shoot, they make me want to eat the stuff myself! ;) 204.186.19.202 13:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

External links

Seems like this page has too many external links... a lot of which duplicate each other. Also, the history suggests this page attracts a lot of people promoting their own sites. Anyone have any thoughts on which (if any) of the links should be removed? -Watchsmart (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Fresh dog food?

I work at a fairly major retailer of the various higher-end pet products (no byproducts, no filler type foods, etc.) and I'm unable to decipher what products this paragraph is referring to. Is it talking about homemade dog food? --Moralis (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Dog Nutrition

I've been wondering this for a long time. What are the % protein, fat, carbohydrates as well as the amounts of vitamins and minerals that dogs need each day. If someone decided that they wanted to make their own dog food (only in recent history have dogs been fed industry dog food, after all) what would be healthy things to feed them. I live in the country in Ecuador at the moment and sometimes it makes more sense for me to cook food for my dogs instead of feeding them dog food. When I do this, I try really hard to make it balanced. Nonetheless, I've found little information on the internet about dog nutrition so it's made this more difficult.

Thus, I advise either adding a section about the nutritional requirements for dog food (this might be more useful than a list of ingredients) or make a whole new article about dog nutrition. Saritamackita (talk) 05:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

For min and max nutrient values you can refer to AAFCO Dog Food Nutrient Profile.--Dodo bird (talk) 01:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Dry Food Beneficial

Is there any evidence to back up the suggestion that dry food is beneficial to tartar build? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajshep1984 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. This page is to discuss the article, not to ask questions. However, if what you say is true it would be a good addition to the dry food section. So, research the subject and when you have found out the answer, with references, add it to the article in the dry food section. Thanks. Bob98133 (talk) 13:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

http://dogfoodchat.com

The reviews and comments on these pages are my opinion. These opinions are based on information gained from the research of these dog food brands. Further research is needed and your vet should be consulted when choosing a new brand of food. The owner of http://dogfoodchat.com can not be held accountable for any information given on this website.

The disclaimer above [1]indicates that this page is personal opinion and so does not meet the requirements for a Wiki EL. Please discuss your rationale for adding this link prior to reverting. Bob98133 (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Meat byproducts

I removed this part from the Contents section as it only contained one source which was listed as a single employee of a single plant. The reference website 404ed when I tried viewing it. It was not a reliable source, but with the webpage out of existence, this section has no basis and was removed. Feel free to add it back if proper sources and references are listed. --Elysianfields (talk) 21:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi - I agree previous ref was shaky, but the info was OK. I found some new refs from reliable sources (AVMA,AAFCO) and reworded new info. This is pretty gross stuff that is generally not mentioned, so I think it is good for it to be included in the article. Pls check it out and make changes if needed. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 15:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

POV Template

I find this article written in an unfair manner. It insinuates in every section that dry dog food is unilaterally harmful. Please help to re-write sections for a more neutral point of view. Teque5 (talk) 10:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi - I just re-read this and don't agree with your POV tag. Can you point out specificially what sort of changes might be needed, or where the article disparages dry dog food. It seems pretty balanced to me but maybe I'm missing something. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 14:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I find I have to agree with Teque. The introduction, for example, basically notes that some people have positive opinions of non-commercial dog food, and some people have negative opinions of commercial dog food. There is no point in either of those statements. The "Commercial dog food" section appears to make a comparison of canned and dry food, where the facts in question are that dry food is cheaper, lasts longer, and is "more convenient", and that canned food spoils faster but has a longer shelf life, and contains more protein on a dry matter basis. This isn't exactly appropriate, and all of these facts are mentioned again in the article, so this comparison seems intended to criminalize dry dog food. Further, the concept of "dry matter" probably needs to be explained, as anyone who hasn't taken a Nutrition course is unlikely to know what that means. If you dried out wet dog food, and then— without the water weight— compared it on a gram to gram scale with dry dog food, yes, it would have more protein. However, a serving of wet food is mostly moisture, while a serving of dry dog food is mostly dry matter. So, as I understand, a dog gets a higher quantity of protein from a serving of dry food than a serving of wet food. I haven't added this to the article myself because I'm only repeating what I've been taught, I'm not intimately familiar with the subject. Moving on, in the "Alternate dog food" sections, it is insinuated that commercial dog foods have no or significantly less nutritional value than alternate dog foods (freeze dried, I believe, to be specific); a more appropriate statement would possibly be that freeze dried foods retain more of their natural nutrients, while processed foods add nutrients back artificially. Next, the statement "Many commercial dog foods are made from materials considered unusable or undesirable" is entirely opinionated. A statement that some ingredients can be unhealthy could be acceptable if backed by a citation of scientific research. Further, any list of "contents" should not include only "undesirable" ones. It should include all common ingredients. Otherwise, the list should be removed, as it draws focus to those specific ingredients. I just have to note, the only line in this section that suggests dry food has any value whatsoever is that expensive foods may contain "suitable" ingredients. It's true that the cheapest brands have the quality of shoe leather, and any brand with adequate nutrition will be more expensive, but no note is made that the expensive food brands tend to be, nutritionally, very healthy for dogs. As well, there is mention of some of the less savory by products that are allowed into foods by AAFCO, but no mention of the nutritional requirements necessary to be AAFCO certified. I'm not saying that having cow brains in dog food is desirable, but it should also be noted that dog food must meet certain nutritional standards to be AAFCO certified. Generally, the difference is considered to be that between "complete" and "complete and balanced". A dog can survive on a solely complete diet, whereas a balanced diet is actually healthy (and necessary to be AAFCO certified). Interestingly, many prescription diets aren't AAFCO certified, because they will often deliberately reduce some kind of nutrient, like sodium. While this might have ill effects on a typical dog, it's more healthy for one having heart problems. On the same topic, under "Labeling", AAFCO certification is disparaged. However, the only source for this is a person's opinion. The main point seems to be that AAFCO standards are worthless— whether or not they are, I couldn't say— but the point should be that the organization requires food to meet healthier standards. Next, a question— if there's an entire article on 2007 dog food recalls, is it necessary to go into such detail here? A more abridged form, like that used for "past recalls", that directs readers to the separate article might be more appropriate. Overall, the article focuses on negatives of dry dog food and does not allow for the facts that some types of dry dog food are very healthy, that some types of wet food may be unhealthy, or that some alternate foods may not be healthy. Further, there is an over-reliance on this type of statement: "Some argue..." "Some maintain..." "Proponents criticize..." "Supporters believe..." "Critics argue..." The majority of which, I'd like to note, promote negative opinions of dry dog food. Just because it is someone else's opinion, though, does not make it any less of an opinion. Most of these statements lack any support or citations, as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.78.55.63 (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, upon checking the source of the person who disparages AAFCO, I find the text to read thus: " 'Although the AAFCO profiles are better than nothing, they provide false securities. I don't know of any studies showing their adequacies and inadequacies.' Rogers also states that some of the foods which pass AAFCO feeding trials are actually inadequate for long term nutrition, but there is no way of knowing which foods these are under present regulations (Smith, 1993)." The article in question is from 7-8 years ago, and the quote from said article is over fifteen years old. Further, I think omitting the second half of the quote misrepresents the meaning behind it; it implies that Rogers does not believe AAFCO is adequate, where in reality, he was noting that there were not studies at that time to prove either way. Considering how far this field has come in the last fifteen years, I find it unlikely that there have been no studies of the health differences between an AAFCO certified diet and one that is not certified, making this quote outdated.