Golden Retriever Dog Forums banner
41 - 57 of 57 Posts
Well this has been an interesting discussion. I have to say that I have been feeding the ProPlan for almost 2 years and they have been doing really well but with the hubby being out of work for a year and the debts building higher and higher, I am just trying to find a way to help save alittle each month. He is now working but it is a big catchup for awhile.
Having said that, I did buy a small bag of the Authority and they have been doing really well on it mixed in with the ProPlan. No diarrhea with it and their energy has been great, no ear issues or itching. Some people may think the food is junk but for awhile they may be on this unless something happens with them, then I will just bite the bullet and go back to the ProPlan. In looking at the ingredients, I couldnt find alot of difference between the two foods and wanted to ask some others on what they thought of the food. Thanks for the feedback.
Glad to hear your initial transitioning to Authority is going well. As I said in my first post (#4), I'd choose it myself over what you were feeding, but for reasons other than financial. Hopefully you'll feel fine about the change also.
 
In reply to the above discussions ...
Personally, I CANNOT trust ANY company that claims "healthy diets" while using carcinogenic ingredients.
Minimal dose you say ?
Not in a dog's lifetime.
Yes, FDA approved ...
And which the cancer society is doing nothing about.
So no, I no longer donate, until a much bigger chunk of the billions $ collected go towards prevention and not all towards damage control.

Here are the top 10 global pet food players !
( Not to worry ... Holistics are not at the top ... )
http://www.petfoodindustry.com/Top10extras.aspx

And here is just one of too many links on how well our pets are doing in the "real world"
http://www.acfoundation.org/faq/faq.php

Scientists used to claim diseases were 75% genetic 25% nutrition/environmental
They have since reversed those numbers ...
And many doctors will agree, although some may only do so behind closed doors.
 
In reply to the above discussions ...
Personally, I CANNOT trust ANY company that claims "healthy diets" while using carcinogenic ingredients.
Minimal dose you say ?
Not in a dog's lifetime.
Yes, FDA approved ...
And which the cancer society is doing nothing about.
So no, I no longer donate, until a much bigger chunk of the billions $ collected go towards prevention and not all towards damage control.

Here are the top 10 global pet food players !
( Not to worry ... Holistics are not at the top ... )
http://www.petfoodindustry.com/Top10extras.aspx

And here is just one of too many links on how well our pets are doing in the "real world"
http://www.acfoundation.org/faq/faq.php

Scientists used to claim diseases were 75% genetic 25% nutrition/environmental
They have since reversed those numbers ...
And many doctors will agree, although some may only do so behind closed doors.
Thank you for the link to the Animal Cancer Foundation. I was not aware of it. We lost our Aussie at age 7 a few years ago to lymphoma. Since then, I've paid much more attention with my other dogs regarding vaccination protocol, nutrition, and products I use in my environment. There is never one clear answer. To me, it's all about stacking the deck in your dogs' favor in multiple areas, knowing you've done what you can, and then sit back (or run out the door) and enjoy your dogs.
 
Is that comment in reference to menadione? A substance that even in the most hysterical links posted in this thread has never been linked to cancer?
It's probably short-sighted of us all to limit the discussion of menadione solely to potential cancer links.

There are on-going studies being funded (including at the human level) regarding menadione and DNA damage. It doesn't take much searching to ferret out multiple sites showing scientific research on the subject. One example: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/10715769709097790
I don't believe this could be referred to as a "hysterical" link.

No one study provides definitive answers. The fact that multiple studies are being funded in a variety of venues does indicate concern in the scientific community. That fact alone is enough for me to choose among dozens of dog foods that do not contain menadione. Others may feel differently. Some pet food companies used to include menadione, but no longer do - Eukanuba being one of them.
 
There are on-going studies being funded (including at the human level) regarding menadione and DNA damage. It doesn't take much searching to ferret out multiple sites showing scientific research on the subject. One example: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/10715769709097790
I don't believe this could be referred to as a "hysterical" link.
Neither hysterical nor particularly relevant to the discussion of dietary menadione. Again, just because a study found damaged nuclei or DNA strand breaks doesn't mean a compound is dangerous in dietary usage. As I pointed out previously, NaCl is quite dangerous in the wrong place in the body or a cell or in the wrong concentration, yet it's necessary for life and nobody would say dog food should be free of it.

No one study provides definitive answers. The fact that multiple studies are being funded in a variety of venues does indicate concern in the scientific community. That fact alone is enough for me to choose among dozens of dog foods that do not contain menadione. Others may feel differently. Some pet food companies used to include menadione, but no longer do - Eukanuba being one of them.
I find it odd that I'm defending a substance that's not added to the food I feel my dogs, but I do find it necessary to point out that the fact that a number of studies exist does not indicate any actual concern among scientists, but rather curiosity. Any vitamin additive is subjected to all kinds of small studies about the different consequences it might have in different body systems.

A lot of the food arguments here are caused by the fact that non-scientists try to get into scientific literature, which is great, but has the side consequences of uproars occasionally getting created where none needs to be. The media is constantly doing this—taking one study or one series of studies and drawing conclusions that no real scientist would. Most studies are extremely limited in scope and extremely careful about what conclusions they draw.
 
Neither hysterical nor particularly relevant to the discussion of dietary menadione. Again, just because a study found damaged nuclei or DNA strand breaks doesn't mean a compound is dangerous in dietary usage. As I pointed out previously, NaCl is quite dangerous in the wrong place in the body or a cell or in the wrong concentration, yet it's necessary for life and nobody would say dog food should be free of it.



I find it odd that I'm defending a substance that's not added to the food I feel my dogs, but I do find it necessary to point out that the fact that a number of studies exist does not indicate any actual concern among scientists, but rather curiosity. Any vitamin additive is subjected to all kinds of small studies about the different consequences it might have in different body systems.

A lot of the food arguments here are caused by the fact that non-scientists try to get into scientific literature, which is great, but has the side consequences of uproars occasionally getting created where none needs to be. The media is constantly doing this—taking one study or one series of studies and drawing conclusions that no real scientist would. Most studies are extremely limited in scope and extremely careful about what conclusions they draw.
I believe you are confusing naturally occurring Vitamin K1 and Vitamin K2 with the synthetic man-made form known as K3 (menadione).

Please reference this link from the Oregon State University from which I've included a small portion: http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/vitamins/vitaminK/

Toxicity

Although allergic reaction is possible, there is no known toxicity associated with high doses of the phylloquinone (vitamin K1) or menaquinone (vitamin K2) forms of vitamin K (22). The same is not true for synthetic menadione (vitamin K3) and its derivatives. Menadione can interfere with the function of glutathione, one of the body's natural antioxidants, resulting in oxidative damage to cell membranes. Menadione given by injection has induced liver toxicity, jaundice, and hemolytic anemia (due to the rupture of red blood cells) in infants; therefore, menadione is no longer used for treatment of vitamin K deficiency (6, 8). No tolerable upper level (UL) of intake has been established for vitamin K (22).


Once again, while the studies are human-based, I don't choose to daily feed my dogs a man-made substance that is in question when there are so many other food choices available.
 
I need to immediately go check to see if my poor dogs are dying from toxicity. I mean, after all of these years being exposed to all this stuff you'd think that I'd have deformed puppies and cancers at an early age (I'm not having cancer at all, but if they lived longer than our 14 year average I'd surely start seeing it...)

Sorry, but this stuff drives me nuts. (Short trip, I know...).
 
I believe you are confusing naturally occurring Vitamin K1 and Vitamin K2 with the synthetic man-made form known as K3 (menadione).
My "necessary for life" comment was clearly in reference to salt. Also, it is inaccurate to say Vitamins K1 and K2 are "naturally occurring," since they have synthetic forms. K3 does typically refer to a synthetic compound as well, though there are several compounds that can be called menadione.

Please reference this link from the Oregon State University from which I've included a small portion: http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/vitamins/vitaminK/

Toxicity

Although allergic reaction is possible, there is no known toxicity associated with high doses of the phylloquinone (vitamin K1) or menaquinone (vitamin K2) forms of vitamin K (22). The same is not true for synthetic menadione (vitamin K3) and its derivatives. Menadione can interfere with the function of glutathione, one of the body's natural antioxidants, resulting in oxidative damage to cell membranes. Menadione given by injection has induced liver toxicity, jaundice, and hemolytic anemia (due to the rupture of red blood cells) in infants; therefore, menadione is no longer used for treatment of vitamin K deficiency (6, 8). No tolerable upper level (UL) of intake has been established for vitamin K (22).


Once again, while the studies are human-based, I don't choose to daily feed my dogs a man-made substance that is in question when there are so many other food choices available.
So, as with many substances, if you inject large amounts, it causes damage. This still tells us nothing about the small amounts that are found in some dog food. Many healthy, necessary compounds are useful and healthy in certain amounts and dangerous in huge amounts. You've not yet given anybody any reason to think that the amount of this substance added to dog food causes any harm. Quite the contrary: it seems to have a small positive effect on coagulation (not as good as K1, but still good).

Yes, there is no damaging dose of K1. Yes, it's a superior additive. That doesn't tell us that K3 is bad.
 
My "necessary for life" comment was clearly in reference to salt. Also, it is inaccurate to say Vitamins K1 and K2 are "naturally occurring," since they have synthetic forms. K3 does typically refer to a synthetic compound as well, though there are several compounds that can be called menadione.


So, as with many substances, if you inject large amounts, it causes damage. This still tells us nothing about the small amounts that are found in some dog food. Many healthy, necessary compounds are useful and healthy in certain amounts and dangerous in huge amounts. You've not yet given anybody any reason to think that the amount of this substance added to dog food causes any harm. Quite the contrary: it seems to have a small positive effect on coagulation (not as good as K1, but still good).

Yes, there is no damaging dose of K1. Yes, it's a superior additive. That doesn't tell us that K3 is bad.
In response to your words I've bolded is information from the American Cancer Society: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3X_Vitamin_K.asp

Vitamin K is an essential nutrient that is needed by the liver in order to form proteins that promote blood clotting and prevent abnormal bleeding. There are 3 forms of vitamin K: K1, K2, and K3. Vitamin K1 (phylloquinone or phytonadione) is a natural nutrient found in green leafy vegetables, such as lettuce, cabbage, collard greens, broccoli, and turnip greens. Some oils, such as soybean oil and canola oil, contain vitamin K. It is also found in beans, olives, cereals, dairy products, some fruits, liver, and pork. Cooking does not remove the vitamin. Vitamin K2 (menaquinone) is a natural product of bacteria that reside in the lower intestinal tract. Vitamin K3 (menadione) is a potent synthetic (manmade) form of vitamin K.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not allow menadione (vitamin K3) to be sold as a dietary supplement for humans, although it is allowed in some feeds for farm animals.


As far as the remainder of your post, I feel a little bit like I'm dealing with someone who still insisted the world was flat even after Columbus' voyages.
 
may I respectfully ask that posts not addressing Carol's original question be diverted to a different thread, rather than arguing your points here?
Thank you.
 
In response to your words I've bolded is information from the American Cancer Society: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3X_Vitamin_K.asp

Vitamin K is an essential nutrient that is needed by the liver in order to form proteins that promote blood clotting and prevent abnormal bleeding. There are 3 forms of vitamin K: K1, K2, and K3. Vitamin K1 (phylloquinone or phytonadione) is a natural nutrient found in green leafy vegetables, such as lettuce, cabbage, collard greens, broccoli, and turnip greens. Some oils, such as soybean oil and canola oil, contain vitamin K. It is also found in beans, olives, cereals, dairy products, some fruits, liver, and pork. Cooking does not remove the vitamin. Vitamin K2 (menaquinone) is a natural product of bacteria that reside in the lower intestinal tract. Vitamin K3 (menadione) is a potent synthetic (manmade) form of vitamin K.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not allow menadione (vitamin K3) to be sold as a dietary supplement for humans, although it is allowed in some feeds for farm animals.


As far as the remainder of your post, I feel a little bit like I'm dealing with someone who still insisted the world was flat even after Columbus' voyages.
There are synthetic varieties of K1 available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17158229. It is naturally occurring, but it can also be synthesized.

And, if we're being honest and you're insulting me by calling me a moron, then let me be honest and say that I feel a bit like I'm dealing with somebody who does not grasp how the scientific process actually works nor the basic logic required to understand that a substance can be harmful at extreme levels and still be entirely harmless and even beneficial in smaller doses. Vitamin A toxicity is an excellent example of this principle.

While I'm being so fully honest, let me continue. I believe that the advice you give to avoid particular ingredients because of unreasonable panic may actually harm the people and dogs you advise. By panicking over things that are probably harmless and shunning well-tested foods, you prioritize rumor and insinuation over verifiable data. You perpetuate the myths that allow boutique dog food manufacturers to charge high prices for foods which may not only lack proven benefits but may actually be inferior in the nutrition they provide. All they have to do is comply with a small handful of prejudices and they can charge well-meaning people a lot more.

The fact remains that, despite extensive testing, there is no proof whatsoever that this chemical his harmful to dogs. You're welcome to avoid it, but that's not what you're doing here. You're telling other people to avoid it to, and you're saying we should let that fear drive our decisions about the food we give our dogs. Furthermore, your support for the idea that this chemical causes cancer is particularly egregious, since there is no evidence whatsoever, and tactics like yours make people feel guilty and horrible when their dogs do get cancer, as if they could have prevented it by following your advice. It's cruel.

Now you're going to add being insulting on top of that, simply because I routinely point out that your ultimate logic rests on the idea that if you give a dog enough menadione, you might hurt him, and therefore any is too much. That is a false syllogism, no matter how you spin it. Let me be clear that I'm not saying menadione is a good chemical, but rather that you do not have evidence for the claims you are making, and your so-confident claims have unintended consequences.

If you're going to be polite, I can be patient. If you're going to be rude, then I don't feel so bad being a bit blunter.
 
Carol - I would also suggest that since your dogs have done will on the Pro Plan formulas, that you might consider trying Purina One. I know a lot of folks who, due to finances, have had to choose a more economical food, and they've been very happy with One.It is available at most large grocery stores now, too.

And I'm sorry for going off topic, but the entire premise of buying into very biased websites evaluations and ratings of foods frustrates me no end when the foods they claim are bad have performed so well for SO many for SO many years.
 
tippykayak,

With all due respect ... how is it that YOU can go ON and ON and ON preaching about what you feed but others cannot share their views or post links they've drawn their conclusions from, without being referred to as a threat to mankind & dogkind ?




may I respectfully ask that posts not addressing Carol's original question be diverted to a different thread, rather than arguing your points here?
Thank you.
DONE :) http://www.goldenretrieverforum.com/showthread.php?p=1050073#post1050073
 
Authority

As a PetSmart associate I can tell you that the Authority food is actually PetSmart's store brand sub-premium food. When you look at the pet stores they usually have 3-4 different levels of food. In my 9 years experience working in the pet industry I would say that there is no one best food for all dogs. Each dog is different and it is important to know about how to look at dog food to make good choices.

Your lower level foods include: Pedigree, Purina Dog Chow, Ol' Roy, etc. These are classified as lower level grocery foods as you can usually find them on the shelves at your local grocery store.

The next level up is Sub-Premium which include: Iams, Authority, Benful, and Nutro Max. These are better quality nutrition than your grocery foods but still not the best.

Premium foods include: Nutro Natural Choice, Pro Plan, Eukanuba, Royal Canin, Nature's Recipe, Biljac, Science Diet, etc. These are foods that are tested and designed to be very good for your dog in terms of nutrition. Some foods, like Pro Plan and Eukanuba have recently added Probiotics to help with brain and immune activity.

Super-Premium foods include: Blue Buffalo, and Nutro Ultra. These are classified as Holistic foods. Currently there is a debate if they should be seperated into another category as some of these diets can equate to similar nutrition as the premium levels.

So in all, the best thing to do is look for quality versus price that you can pay. If price is more of an option look for sub-premium over grocery. My biggest suggestion that I always tell my dog training students is to look at the price per ounce. Recently you could purchase the Nature's Recipe large breed puppy for 6.4 cents per ounce, which was the same as the Pedigree price per ounce. It was a larger bag, but was the same overall.
 
excellent post, thank you.



As a PetSmart associate I can tell you that the Authority food is actually PetSmart's store brand sub-premium food. When you look at the pet stores they usually have 3-4 different levels of food. In my 9 years experience working in the pet industry I would say that there is no one best food for all dogs. Each dog is different and it is important to know about how to look at dog food to make good choices.

Your lower level foods include: Pedigree, Purina Dog Chow, Ol' Roy, etc. These are classified as lower level grocery foods as you can usually find them on the shelves at your local grocery store.

The next level up is Sub-Premium which include: Iams, Authority, Benful, and Nutro Max. These are better quality nutrition than your grocery foods but still not the best.

Premium foods include: Nutro Natural Choice, Pro Plan, Eukanuba, Royal Canin, Nature's Recipe, Biljac, Science Diet, etc. These are foods that are tested and designed to be very good for your dog in terms of nutrition. Some foods, like Pro Plan and Eukanuba have recently added Probiotics to help with brain and immune activity.

Super-Premium foods include: Blue Buffalo, and Nutro Ultra. These are classified as Holistic foods. Currently there is a debate if they should be seperated into another category as some of these diets can equate to similar nutrition as the premium levels.

So in all, the best thing to do is look for quality versus price that you can pay. If price is more of an option look for sub-premium over grocery. My biggest suggestion that I always tell my dog training students is to look at the price per ounce. Recently you could purchase the Nature's Recipe large breed puppy for 6.4 cents per ounce, which was the same as the Pedigree price per ounce. It was a larger bag, but was the same overall.
 
41 - 57 of 57 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top