# real chicken vs by product



## Webbs515 (Feb 6, 2010)

I'm sure this has been discussed before on here but what are your thoughts on dog food. i feed EUK 30/20 because of the real chicken. but i have heard people promote other brands that have chicken by-product as primary as just as good or better. i would rather eat a steak than a hot dog lol. isnt that the same is some ways


----------



## Rick Hall (Jan 21, 2003)

Webbs515 said:


> i would rather eat a steak than a hot dog lol.


Canids' tastes differ from ours:









Never touched the steak...


----------



## J. Walker (Feb 21, 2009)

Webbs515 said:


> I'm sure this has been discussed before on here but what are your thoughts on dog food. i feed EUK 30/20 because of the real chicken. but i have heard people promote other brands that have chicken by-product as primary as just as good or better. i would rather eat a steak than a hot dog lol. isnt that the same is some ways


Here's a good article on the subject:

http://www.peteducation.com/article.cfm?c=2+1659+1661&aid=702

By-products have a lower biological value due to their being harder to break down and metabolize. As a result, the protein that's there is less "efficient." The best proteins, apart from eggs which have a biological value of 100, are single ingredient meals such as chicken meal, fish meal, lamb meal, etc. This should not be confused with "Beef and bone meal" which pulverized and processed bones and whatever meat may have been attached to the bones. In other words, it's mostly bones.

The food I've recently started feeding and that my young dog loves is:

http://www.earthbornholisticpetfood.com/us/dog_formulas/primitive_natural/

He's a really active dog and I train him for field trials. This is a richer food than many dogs may need but he loves it and is doing well on it. I pay $41.00 + tax at a local feed store. It's not cheap but no food is going to be cheap with turkey meal, chicken meal, and whitefish meal as the first three ingredients.


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

Dogs need protein. Proteins are made of amino acids. Different proteins have different amino acids. If you feed your dog protein derived from chicken lungs (one meat by product) it will get a different complement of amino acids than a dog eating whole chicken. Likewise, corn has protein but plants do not have the same composition of amino acids as animals. 

Commercial dog foods contain supplements to make them nutritionally complete according to ACVO so one way I like to compare quality is to look at the guaranteed analysis and the kcal per kg of food: the cheap ones usually are less nutritionally dense so you have to feed the dog more of it.

Edit: Oops I think I meant AAFCO not ACVO.


----------



## J. Walker (Feb 21, 2009)

mitty said:


> Dogs need protein. Proteins are made of amino acids. Different proteins have different amino acids. If you feed your dog protein derived from chicken lungs (one meat by product) it will get a different complement of amino acids than a dog eating whole chicken. Likewise, corn has protein but corn does not have a full complement of amino acids.
> 
> Commercial dog foods contain supplements to make them nutritionally complete according to ACVO so one way I like to compare quality is to look at the guaranteed analysis and the kcal per kg of food: the cheap ones usually are less nutritionally dense so you have to feed the dog more of it.


Guaranteed analysis really doesn't mean a whole lot. I could make a food comprised mostly of shoe leather and vegetable oil and end up with convincing protein and fat percentages. Coat that with some vitamins and minerals and throw in a little beet pulp and I'd have a "complete and balanced food." Dogs would struggle to digest and assimilate the protein and fat, of course, but at least the percentages would look good. Unfortunately, MANY companies rely on chemistry and just chemistry to dupe dog food buyers. Many food companies split corn into two or three ingredients just to keep it from being the first ingredient. Corn gluten (meal) is, chemically, the primary protein component in corn. However, with a biological value of less than 50, more than half of what a dog eats, goes right out the back without ever being utilized. This is just another example of percentages on labels not meaning much in and of themselves. Feathers are protein as are chicken beaks and there's a certain number of them always in "chicken by-product meal." The problem is, of course, that they cannot be assimilated so it's protein in and protein right back out the rear end. Calories per cup is misleading as well. Again, I could add just a small amount of used corn oil from a deep fryer to bump up the caloric content as animal fat, butter, corn oil, and pretty much any kind of fat is chemically comprised of 9 calories per gram. Proteins and carbohydrates have only 4 calories per gram so it takes very little in the way of an extra fat source to make a food look like it's really packing a punch. You really have to look at the quality of the ingredients first, then look at the analysis to see if the percentages are being provided by ingredients with the best digestibility and bioavailability. 

One last thing to remember is that dogs have absolutely no need for carbohydrates. Since dogs can easily convert protein into blood glucose should their fat stores run low, carbohydrates are a non-nutrient for dogs. Carbohydrates are quickly converted into blood glucose so you get spikes in blood glucose which can lead to obesity, just as in humans. Proteins provide a more stable conversion into blood glucose. Many foods are LOADED with carbohydrates from corn, rice, wheat, oatmeal, barley, and so on. Research has shown that wild canids (wolves, coyotes, foxes, etc.) have diets that consist of 5%-9% carbohydrates and those are only because they've eaten the contents of their preys' digestive tracts. It's almost impossible to avoid carbohydrates even in the most premium foods but they're pushing 50% or more in many foods.


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

J Walker, the guaranteed analyses I'm talking about are the energy values that are metabolized by the dog. So if it all passes it does not get counted. I think these are reported on the package nowadays. 

I would not design my dog's diet like that of a wolf. Dogs are not wolves. If you want to give your dog an evolutionary based diet, let it scavenge from a garbage pile on the outskirts of town. I'm not recommending it, just saying.


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

By the way J Walker I don't think we disagree a whole lot about what makes a quality dog food. I think dogs ought to eat real food.


----------



## jtfreeman (Jan 6, 2009)

Webbs515 said:


> I'm sure this has been discussed before on here but what are your thoughts on dog food. i feed EUK 30/20 because of the real chicken. but i have heard people promote other brands that have chicken by-product as primary as just as good or better. i would rather eat a steak than a hot dog lol. isnt that the same is some ways


Webbs,

If you are looking to feed a quality food and willing to pay the price it takes to produce the best then click on this link and watch this video. Champion is one of if not the best food on the market in addition to being an environmentally responsible company. If you do this you can forget all that steak vs. hotdog stuff.

http://www.championpetfoods.com/


----------



## J. Walker (Feb 21, 2009)

mitty said:


> J Walker, the guaranteed analyses I'm talking about are the energy values that are metabolized by the dog. So if it all passes it does not get counted. I think these are reported on the package nowadays.
> 
> I would not design my dog's diet like that of a wolf. Dogs are not wolves. If you want to give your dog an evolutionary based diet, let it scavenge from a garbage pile on the outskirts of town. I'm not recommending it, just saying.


True and not so true. While I understand that dogs are not wolves, the protein and fat requirements are basically the same. It also doesn't change the fact that canids, whether wild or domestic, have absolutely no biological need for carbohydrates. The biggest difference really applies to those who try to feed raw diets including bones to their dogs. Domestic dogs' teeth are far different from their wolf cousins' teeth. Research has consistently shown that when wolves consume bone, they consume skin and fur as well. The fur encapsulates the bone during digestion and protects the digestive tract. Dogs fed raw diets don't get a whole lot of fur, other than maybe from the family cat, so bones often cause serious injury to domestic dogs. As for metabolizable energy, unfortunately, there are two acceptable and standard methods for calculating metabolizable energy (M. E.) One method is from actual feeding trials where what goes in and out of the dog is carefully measured and analyzed. The other, far more popular method, is basically what I previously described in which standard, established calorie counts for nutrients are calculated, regardless of their biological value. The article below explains both methods. _Notice the very last sentence of the article_.

http://www.peteducation.com/article.cfm?c=1+2243+2244&aid=2842

For obvious reasons, it doesn't take a scientist to realize that manufacturers of foods with marginal ingredients are going to using the mathematic basis rather than the feeding trial basis as it makes their foods look comparable when they're really not. It doesn't seem right to me but that's the AAFCO for you. It's a non-regulatory, non-profit organization so they can only recommend or approve certain methods. They cannot really require anything unless it's something the FDA or USDA has also mandated.


----------



## MikeB (Jan 9, 2009)

Webbs... Check your PM mail.


----------

