Golden Retriever Dog Forums banner
1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Golden Ret Enthusiast
Joined
·
2,203 Posts
I did a search for the name and it was a kennel with oh by the way we sell and breed Goldens. No link to any dog, names or OFA/K9Data. I must of gotten a different site then.

Edit, I followed your link and on teh K(data page I got a TOTALLY different site. The one I found was black with gold text
 

·
Golden Ret Enthusiast
Joined
·
2,203 Posts
I can only get that site on my phone... If I put in the site on my PC it comes up with the page you linked... Very very odd. I will try and post the screen shot. The URL shows westbengoldend but on the sure shows westergaard... Very strange... But the actual sure looks very good
 

Attachments

·
Golden Ret Enthusiast
Joined
·
2,203 Posts
Typical contact but feeding an 8week old puppy pro plan sport 30/20 all life stage shows the lack of education on dog nutrition and that food could very well lead to joint issues like pano and dysplasia. This may be why they don't guarantee hips and elbows.

That food is 100% the total opposite of what should be fed. If you go with this breeder and get a puppy, I would certainly after 2 weeks start transitioning to the pro plans larger breed puppy food. Don't wait as they grow the faster the younger they are to that controlled grow is most important from 8 weeks too about 7-9 months. 30/20 is way too much for a puppy at 8 weeks and all life stages means it's set up for small breed puppies. This usually means around a 2:1 calcium to phosphorus ratio. For controlled growth you need to be at 1.1 - 1.4 to 1 calcium to phosphorus. Honestly, they are being lazy and don't want to feed the puppy a different food than the adult dogs or they just don't know any better.
 

·
Golden Ret Enthusiast
Joined
·
2,203 Posts
Eric - pro plan sport 30/20 is AAFCO approved for the growth of large breed puppies (70 pounds or more as an adult) per the Purina website. The Calcium content is 1.0% and the Phosphorus is 0.9%, making that a 1:1 Ca : P ratio. What's wrong with that?

I can't speak to the 30/20 protein/fat content, but I know I fed Kaizer a 26/16 all life stages food and he does not have joint issues.
The calcium and phos may be ok but there is no way a 30/20 is ideal or generally safe for a large breed puppy. Plus the vitamin and mineral balance are for an adult dog, not a puppy. You only feed more or less of the salsa ratios. Also, it is an all life stage food with means be definition, it has to meat the requirements for the small breed puppy with us significant more then the large breed puppy.

Plus that food is for a working dog that is in the field for 4-6 hours. There is no way a puppy 8, 10, 16 weeks of age will ever need that much extra.

Also the definition of large breed puppy is 50lbs and above, giant breed is 100lbs and above.

You were feeding a food that was at the to end of protein and fat for a large breed puppy. 30/20 is on the extreme. Plus it's not 100% you will get joint issues but certainly you increase the chance a good bit. It would be better to feed an adult food than an all life stage food.
 

·
Golden Ret Enthusiast
Joined
·
2,203 Posts
The AAFCO statement on the Pro Plan 30/20 bag says "Animal feeding tests using AAFCO procedures substantiate that Pro Plan Sport Performance 30/20 Formula provides complete and balanced nutrition for all life stages of dogs including growth of large size dogs (70 lbs. or more as an adult)." (which is where I got my "70+ pounds as an adult" from).

A search of the AAFCO website tells me this means that the manufacturer not only put a sample of the food through laboratory testing to verify that the food meets AAFCO nutrition standards, but also put the food through AAFCO-standardized feeding trials. AAFCO protocols give a set of parameters for the feeding trials including length of the test and diagnostic tests which determine the success. The FDA website tells me that this specific nutrition adequacy statement essentially guarantees that the food was found to provide proper nutrition. Since AAFCO and the FDA are currently the US's leading organizations on pet food, I'm inclined to trust them when they say a food is OK for large breed puppies.

Since your opinion is clearly different, I'm curious if you can provide any studies/research that indicate an all life stages food is NOT suitable for large breed puppies?
I know what the AAFCO statement says. But read the definition of what all life stage says. It states it must require the for to meet the nutritional needs for the dog with the highest needs, which is the small breed puppy food. That means the highest protein and fat content, the horse calorie content as smaller dogs but more energy just waking around (more steps) and the vitamin and mineral packs must be set for the small breed puppy. Then as an adult you are feeding the same ratios of all the vitamins and minerals to an adult dog, which the adult dog does not need and should not consumer the same as a puppy. The same for people... kids, adults and seniors shouldn't be taking the same vitamins. Their requirements aren't the same as a kid to seniors.

Let me explain a little about the AAFCO feed trials. They only need to be fed for 6 months and to 20 dogs and only 10 dogs info is used to base the findings. No puppies need to be used. They can use the adult dogs info for the puppy food bags. They can use that info and decide that it's reasonable to expect similar results in puppies and seniors and I'm not talking all life stage formulas. This is for puppy, adult and senior formulas from feed trials on adult maintenance formulas. Also the protein levels AAFCO states as safe for puppies, NOT large breed puppies, is 15-30%. Large breed puppies should not exceed 26% and most nutritionists would say 24%. So by AAFCO guidelines, 30% would be ok. In reality it is not. Also, AAFCO doesn't even enforce ANY OF THIS. Companies like Hill's will do random tests, on as many as 1600 a year on different companies like Blue Buffalo or Merrick and if their guaranteed analysis test is different then what is supposed to be in that bag, they will inform that company, and if nothing changes, they report it to the FTC (Fair Trade Complain) this is how foods get policed, not by AAFCO. They could care less. Their guidelines were set in the 1980' and haven't been updated at least till 2016 (last time I heard). If the company doesn't make any changes, the FTC will threaten fine until they are made. I can tell you this happened back between 2012 and 2014 (can't remember exactly) when Blue Buffalo had that excess of vitamin D and was harming foods, a few does I think. After they where informed of this excess (another for company found it) they ignored then, it was reported to the FTC and after nothing, FTC threatened 1 million a day fine till it was corrected. This is how the dog food industry is policed, not by AAFCO.

I've been to every major dog food manufacturing plant and the R & D facilities and more that a handful of some of the more smaller companies and spoke with their nutritionists. Most people have no clue what's allowed and now allowed to be on the bag, front or back. Ingredients are allowed to be left of the ingredient panel as well in certain circumstances.

You work for a pet store. Ask your manager or a food rep for the rules on what they can say on a bag and what certain words mean. I'll give you an example. When a bag days "with" on it like chicken with beef. Beef only will be 3% of the diet, never more, regardless of where it is in the ingredient list. Anything after salt will never be more than 1.3% of what makes to the kibble.

WOW, lol this was not how I was planning to spend the last 45 min. A huge portion of what I just wrote is NOT what the dog food industry wants you to know about. Also what people don't know is that there no such thing as voluntary recall in the pet industry with treats or food. The FDA forces them. They allow the companies in their statements to save a little face and say it is a voluntary recall. But this is another can of worms.
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top