Talk:Dog food

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Fvialard (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Lissy04.

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)

YOu no dog food is good for the heart!!!!!!!!111  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.123.158.54 (talk) 21:21, 27 October 2009 (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)

Hey man whats upi(----)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.78.55.63 (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The person disparaging the AAFCO standards is an AAFCO panel expert, a DVM. He IS saying that the AAFCO standards are not adequate. "some of the foods which pass AAFCO feeding trials are actually inadequate for long term nutrition." Couldn't be more clear. The AAFCO standards are not worthless, they are "better than nothing". I guess we can find sources that explain why it is "better than nothing." The AAFCO profile was last updated in 1995 so whatever progress the field is making, it is not reflected in the profile.

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

The studies the panel expert guy is talking about is studies that show/disprove that the AAFCO profiles are reliable ways to measure long term nutritional adequacies, it has nothing to do with comparison to non AAFCO-profiled foods. If we want to make the distinction between feeding tests and profiles, he says that profiles are "better than nothing, they provide false securities. I don't know of any studies showing their adequacies and inadequacies.", feeding tests are (paraphrased by the article writer) "inadequate for long term nutrition". He criticized both the feeding test and the nutrient profile.

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.

Not necessarily true. A serving of wet food is much heavier than an equal serving(calorie-wise) of dry food. When you compare the as-fed protein level, wet food is likely to have more. For example, a 6.5 oz can of by nature cat food(150 kcal serving) contains 0.65 oz of protein(10% protein). The dry food is 460 kcal per cup, so a 150 kcal serving is about 1/3 cup. It is stated that one cup holds 4.2 oz, so 1/3 cup is 1.4 oz. With 33% protein, that works out to 0.43 oz of protein, about a third less than the canned food. I presume the same would be true for most dog foods. Lets not forget that a significant amount of protein in dry food is plant protein while canned food is mostly meat protein.

it should also be noted that dog food must meet certain nutritional standards to be AAFCO certified.

It already says that. "dog foods labeled as "complete and balanced" must meet standards..." There is a "Further information" link to Pet_food#Labeling_and_regulation which explains the testing requirements. Or are you are talking about the actual individual nutrients? --Dodo bird (talk) 04:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Pets in pet food

I removed the part that says

The AVMA and FDA confirmed in 1990 that some pet food manufacturers were using euthanized pets in their dog food.Dog Food Ingredients

The FDA's own statement contradicts that. And consumersearch does not meet Reliable Source standards. Please try to find the original FDA statement which confirms that. Of course even without dogs and cats, that pentobarbital is/was found in pet food should be mentioned.--Dodo bird (talk) 06:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Some claims here.--Dodo bird (talk) 06:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Vegetarian dog foods

There are vegetarian dog foods on the market. Why is any discussion of them in the alternative dog food section always deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.106.191 (talk) 15:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The unproven belief that vegetarian dog food is unhealthy may have lead a person or group of people to remove it, or perhaps someone just thought it wasn't significant enough to mention. Personally, I think it's an important enough part of the dog food industry to warrant an entry, so I will add it to the alternative food section.Kay320 (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It's because of their lack of ground for their insists. They provided "Vegetarian diets, low-meat diets and health: a review" for the citation for "studies have demonstrated that a plant-based diet can be just as edible and palatable as animal-based diets for dogs", but that citation is not for the dogs but for the humans.

Criticism of wet dog food

Several places in the article assert that wet dog food is nutritionally inferior to dry. These are loaded with uncited claims and weasel words, which I have marked.

If there is in fact evidence to support these claims, I think it should not only be cited, but also explained in the text. The claim as it stands is counterintuitive and causes the reader (me, at least) to suspect that the author is confused or trying to be misleading. It is not at all clear why higher moisture content would be a problem; surely if it causes the dog to consume more water than it needs, the dog will simply urinate more. Of course, it does mean that a given weight of wet dog food will be less nutritious than the same weight of dry dog food. But surely this just means that a dog has to be fed a greater quantity of wet food than dry, which is patently obvious. It isn't evidence that wet dog food is inherently inferior to dry, which is the impression given by the present text. It looks like the author is worried that some reader may switch their dog from 200g of dry dog food to 200g of wet dog food per day and thereby starve it to death.

By the same token, one might say that oatmeal porridge is less nutritious than dry rolled oats, and therefore one ought not eat the former!

I have changed it. I have researched and found no evidence of any kind to support the author's point of view. Kay320 (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Statistics

It is said that "The acceptable level of bacteria in meats sold at grocery stores is 30% or less because it is meant to be cooked." This sentence is irritating as it is not said what 30% refers to. It does surely not mean that 30% of the mass of the dog food canbe made of bacteria. So what does it mean? This should be explained further or deleted from the article 78.54.89.176 (talk) 10:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

128.84.234.60 (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Horse meat

I removed "* Horse meat " because horses can no longer be slaughtered in the U.S., even for pet food. The article seems US-centric. Please replace this if you can find a better source. Gigemag76 (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Not dog meat

Anyone object to me removing this from the top? "Not to be confused with Dog meat, which covers human consumption of canines." While humorous its extraordinarily unlikely that anyone assumes that "dog food" refers to people eating dog meat.--RobertGary1 (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Also note that the opening paragraph makes it very clear that it is food designed to be consumed by dogs. I think that makes it clear enough. Agree? --RobertGary1 (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Dog meat and Dog food

This terminology is not universal. The article as an article 'topic' can be called Dog Food but Dog Food Meat here in Australia is usually referred to as Dog Meat, i.e. Meat for Dog consumption. This article implies that calling meat for dog consumption Dog Meat is incorrect when it is not, perhaps it depends which country you are in. And no, we don't have any other Dog Meat here - we Australians don't consume dogs. We also often refer to food for cats as catmeat if it is meat too.

--ZhuLien (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Dog Food facts

I have undone the user Hilo48 change. I guess they have never done any research into this topic like some people have. Here is a list of print references that most of this info can be found in that are not selling pet foods. I'm sure if I took more time and looked threw all of my books and did a little research online I could give a lot more references for whats not covered by the ones listed below
Healing Pets With Nature's Miracle Cures By Henry Pasternak DVM CVA,
Natural Pet Cures by Dr John Heinerman
Food Pets Die For by Ann N Martin
Home Safe Home by Debra Lynn Dadd
Prisoned Chickens Poisoned Eggs by Karen Davis PhD
Fluoride The Aging Factor by John Yiamouyiannis
Mad Cowboy By Howard F Lyman
Everyday Health Tips by Prevention Magazine
mvarney85 was right in stating that this is info that all pet owners should know, I have known it for years. Just because something sounds disgusting and revolting doesn't mean its not true.
Moose278 (talk) 02:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Moose278. I was trying to make a list of references as I originally wrote this 2 years ago and it was taking me a little while to find them, but you beat me to it. Thank you for your help
Mvarney85 (talk) 02:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the source offered by User:Mvarney85 and now restored by User:Moose278 does not look at all reliable. The only link associated with it that gives any indication about who is providing the information is to a seller of dog food. And that's still the only source provided. It's not acceptable. As seeming newcomers to Wikipedia you may find it helpful to look at Wikipedia's policy on sourcing of article content. You need to follow those guidelines to add suitable references to the article, otherwise that content cannot remain. As for those printed sources you have listed above, although it's difficult for me and others to check them right now, they could be acceptable if you provide an indication of where someone else can find them. ISBN numbers for books others could find in a library can be useful. However, I do have my concerns. A publication titled "Fluoride The Aging Factor" immediately raises concerns. It may be promoting what is widely regarded as the fringe view that fluoride is dangerous. That won't work here either. Are the others of that nature too? Finally, it's not a matter of this content being disgusting and revolting. It's a matter of it being hard to believe without very reliable, mainstream, verifiable, independent sources. HiLo48 (talk) 02:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

As I wrote this a while ago give me a few days and I will find all the references you need and ad them to the site.
Mvarney85 (talk) 03:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Moose is an obvious sock of Mvarney and is now blocked as such (just look at their use of hard breaks). Given that Mvarney's name also appears in the URL of the website they're plugging I'm blocking them as well. HiLo, your good faith is appreciated... Drmies (talk) 03:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Dog food/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The mention of euthanized pets/animals in petfood (meat/by-product meals specifically) should be removed. The footnoted reference(11) cites (improperly) articles written in 1990 and 1981. Both are seriously outdated and non-applicable to the current situation. I did research on this at University and in the USA, euthanized animals cannot find their way into meals coming out of rendereing facilities. The regulations around disposal of euthanized companion and stock animals are strict. Also the veterinarian that wrote the footnoted reference is extremely biased against commercial petfoods, so while his spirit has the best of intentions regarding the animals, it does fall far left of center when it comes to unbiased, scientific fact. Woody 18:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)GGWOODY

Last edited at 18:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 13:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dog food. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090117095239/http://aafco.org:80/Portals/0/Public/Q-AND-A-REGARDING-PETFOODREGS.PDF to http://www.aafco.org/Portals/0/Public/Q-AND-A-REGARDING-PETFOODREGS.PDF
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081127020446/http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/oct03/031001a.asp to http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/oct03/031001a.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dog food. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130509101944/http://www.petfoodratings.org:80/ingredient-glossary/ to http://www.petfoodratings.org/ingredient-glossary/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081017172555/http://www.api4animals.org:80/facts.php?p=359&more=1 to http://www.api4animals.org/facts.php?p=359&more=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Raw dog food

I changed the raw food section to better reflect the content of the raw feeding article Fvialard (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)