I've only had dogs fed whatever the cheap crap is and the only health problems they've had were old age and my Chow had GDV (which is a common issue in large breeds and not related to diet for the most part, oils and fats to increase the risk though).
Many health problems go undetected as many owners don't have their dogs given much more than just 'shots' each year...if even that at times.
People can survive a long time on diets of fast food and soft drinks, but they aren't going to feel as good as someone on a more proper diet.
Working in a vet I have witnessed issues coming from cheap foods especially major allergies that can result.
A lot of pets with hair issues actually have food allergy issues.
A lot of that sounds like bad owners more than bad food. If the dog is having problems, even minor ones, with a cheap food (due to some of the ingredients), that is not inherently the food's fault.
Things like coat health is probably also effected by the higher end food, as it is supposed to contain less filler, but unless you have a show dog, that shouldn't be a real concern. If the cheap food doesn't cause any problems, there is no reason not to use it.
I've been feeding Nature's Domain food to my Corgi. I'm not sure if he likes it though.
Sometimes he seems to go days without eating it or eating much (but he does eat it when used as treats and eats other stuff so he's not starving).
I've been using the turkey flavor. maybe i should try the salmon flavor.
Are you feeding him at the same time every day?
Not necessarily true at least in dry foods. While seeing meat as a first ingredient is good, being it's so high in moisture-content; you want to see something like another meat and/or especially a meat "meal".
I've been feeding Nature's Domain food to my Corgi. I'm not sure if he likes it though.
Sometimes he seems to go days without eating it or eating much (but he does eat it when used as treats and eats other stuff so he's not starving).
I've been using the turkey flavor. maybe i should try the salmon flavor.
A lot of that sounds like bad owners more than bad food. If the dog is having problems, even minor ones, with a cheap food (due to some of the ingredients), that is not inherently the food's fault.
Things like coat health is probably also effected by the higher end food, as it is supposed to contain less filler, but unless you have a show dog, that shouldn't be a real concern. If the cheap food doesn't cause any problems, there is no reason not to use it.
FWIW, she's a pitbull mix (we're not sure what, exactly). See my avatar.
roughly...although i leave the bowl there for him so if he doesn't eat it one day, it's still there the next.
i know some people say to feed and give him some time to eat, if he doesn't pick it up and try again later.
Counterpoint, not that I really care what you feed your dogs, but just for the sake of discussion:
This is the analogy that I use with my wife. There's tons of kids out there who eat McDonald's or comparable crap every day and they don't have any diagnosable condition. It might be hard or impossible to ascertain the affect that the McDonald's diet has on their health. Heck, there are even a few professional athletes that claim to eat McDonald's every day (who was that NFL player who claimed to eat McDonald's every day? I want to say he was a wide receiver and had a reality show). That doesn't mean that McDonald's is OK and it sure as hell doesn't mean we're feeding our kids McDonald's every day.
I don't think feeding your kids McDonald's every day rises to the level of child abuse, so I don't care if you do. Same with feeding your dogs Iams. But I do believe there's a tangible benefit to feeding dogs higher quality food, even if it isn't definitively linked to any diagnosable condition.
I have a 7 year old pug
The last time I read a thread like this, it was about doggy snacks/treats, and after reading all the responses I immediately changed what I was giving pups for snacks. After experimenting with bacon (she barfed) I now make her homemade peanut butter treats which she loves.
Now I'm reconsidering her food as well. So Pedigree small breed is shit? We used beneful for a little while, but she was shitting her brains out on it, so we tried prescription dog food from the vet which costs an absurd amount and pups was finicky with it anyway, now we give her Pedigree. Pups is an allergy sufferer (she tends to rub her ass on the carpet as if satisfying an allergic related itch) so that's something to take into consideration.
So, basically, what you'e saying is "despite anecdotal evidence contrary to my beliefs, I choose to believe this because of <insert some witty term for absolutely zero research on the subject> and <quip about how there is literally zero requirements for pet food makers to prove claims made on their products>."
If you do have some research proving that the expensive food makes dogs (or cats) healthier, please do provide it. Otherwise, nobody cares about your flawed McDonalds analogy. Dog food, no matter how expensive, is made from scraps from human food production (no matter what they say on the bag or commercials). Your dog isn't getting fresh from the butcher beef because you pay 5x the amount I do. The only difference is generally in the amount of corn (or grain).
Also, the majority of health issues in humans is caused by obesity. The nutritional value of McDondald's food doesn't contribute nearly as much as how calorie dense it is and the amount consumed by someone. You could be just as unhealthy eating 5000 calories of broccoli a day, although, I'd imagine it would be pretty hard.
I haven't heard bad things about the Kirkland brand - wish I had a Costco nearby. The most common type we get for the dogs is pedigree. The pyrs eat about 60 pounds of dog food a week, plus all types of table scraps. I'd go broke trying to feed them more expensive food.
No it doesn't work like this at all....calories are an aspect, however; almost all fast food and processed food is extremely stripped of nutrients....one cannot just look at just the macros.
You are wrong about all dog food coming from second production/scraps of human food. Also some pet food manufacturers volunteer to be inspected at the same levels they would for human food production.
You are trying to defend "ol' roy" as being just as good as any other food; but you are simply wrong.
Again, please do link studies concerning dog food brands and health of dogs. Minus allergens of specific ingredients, I can find absolutely nothing that isn't opinion. Only studies showing domesticated dogs can can process starches better than wolves, as they have adapted. Nothing about health conditions.
All dog food meets the minimum standards set forth, and the other claims put on the labels are not subject to proof. The FDA doesn't investigate claims on dog food, and much of it is a bunch of crap.
FDA Regulation of Pet Food
There is no requirement that pet food products have pre-market approval by the FDA. However, FDA ensures that the ingredients used in pet food are safe and have an appropriate function in the pet food. Many ingredients such as meat, poultry and grains are considered safe and do not require pre-market approval. Other substances such as sources of minerals, vitamins or other nutrients, flavorings, preservatives, or processing aids may be generally recognized as safe (GRAS) for an intended use (21 CFR 582 and 584) or must have approval as food additives (21 CFR 570, 571 and 573). Colorings must have approvals for that use as specified in 21 CFR 70 and be listed in Parts 73, 74, or 81. For more information about pet foods and marketing a pet food, see FDAs Regulation of Pet Food and Information on Marketing a Pet Food Product.
Labeling
Pet food labeling is regulated at two levels. The current FDA regulations require proper identification of the product, net quantity statement, name and place of business of the manufacturer or distributor, and proper listing of all the ingredients in the product in order from most to least, based on weight. Recent legislation in the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 requires FDA to establish by regulation (1) ingredient standards and definitions with respect to pet food; (2) processing standards for pet food; and, (3) updated standards for the labeling of pet food that include nutritional and ingredient information. FDA is working on this legislative mandate. Comments concerning this initiative can be made at http://www.regulations.gov to Docket No. FDA-2007-N-0442. Some states also enforce their own labeling regulations. Many of these regulations are based on a model provided by the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO). For more information about AAFCO,disclaimer icon please visit its website. For more information about labeling requirements, see Pet Food Labels - General.
FDA also reviews specific claims on pet food, such as maintains urinary tract health, low magnesium, tartar control, hairball control, and improved digestibility. Guidance for collecting data to make a urinary tract health claim is available in Guideline 55 on the CVM portion of the FDA internet site.
change brands not flavors. The dog may have associated that food with not feeling well due to an ingredient that does not sit well with him.
So, basically, what you'e saying is "despite anecdotal evidence contrary to my beliefs, I choose to believe this because of <insert some witty term for absolutely zero research on the subject> and <quip about how there is literally zero requirements for pet food makers to prove claims made on their products>."
If you do have some research proving that the expensive food makes dogs (or cats) healthier, please do provide it. Otherwise, nobody cares about your flawed McDonalds analogy. Dog food, no matter how expensive, is made from scraps from human food production (no matter what they say on the bag or commercials). Your dog isn't getting fresh from the butcher beef because you pay 5x the amount I do. The only difference is generally in the amount of corn (or grain).
Also, the majority of health issues in humans is caused by obesity. The nutritional value of McDondald's food doesn't contribute nearly as much as how calorie dense it is and the amount consumed by someone. You could be just as unhealthy eating 5000 calories of broccoli a day, although, I'd imagine it would be pretty hard.