My biggest concern with both of those foods is that neither of them have a nutritionist on staff.  (Not even a people nutritionist let alone a veterinary nutritionist) So what is on the bag can be very different than what is usable to the dog.  I would recommend staying on the same diet honestly for your pup's sake.

aggiebug:

My biggest concern with both of those foods is that neither of them have a nutritionist on staff.  (Not even a people nutritionist let alone a veterinary nutritionist) So what is on the bag can be very different than what is usable to the dog.  I would recommend staying on the same diet honestly for your pup's sake.

Not sure where you got that info, since I can't find anything to confirm OR deny it. Interesting that companies like Iams and Purina HAVE "nutritionists" on staff and their foods are crap.

OP, looks like one of the big differences b/w 4Health and ToTW is that 4Health has grains, while ToTW does not. Grains are not inherently bad for dogs, and it's good to see that they use rice and oatmeal instead of corn. 

There are some things that stick out as not preferable to me (dried beet pulp, egg product) and I'd be curious to know if the fish meal is preserved with ethoxyquin. 

Call and ask they don't have nutritionist on site and frankly when you are feeding the same diet day in and day out it is critical you get it right. We cook a variety of meals for ourselves thus , in general, are able to balance our nutritional requirements over time. Our opinions on what makes a good quality food is drastically different. TOTW, BB etc are not better quality foods. They tend to follow current diet fads in humans (paleo, organic) and thus their popularity. Hills, Purina etc have science and years and years of quality testing and feed trials using actual animals validating their quality. Their "gauranteed analysis" is validated not by formulation (which doesn't take into consideration of availability of the nutrients) but using feed trials and close medical evaluation of real animals. This happened many years ago with Iams. People touted it as the better quality food because dogs had wonderful coats on the diet. Well it turns out their formulation at the time was extraordinarily high in fat which was great for the coat appearance but not ideal for the now obese dog. Their forumla has since changed and their philosophy and company has drastically improved since then. And maybe these companies will improve but I am quite skeptical of their quality control and their actual products at this point. That being said I do not believe a dog has to be fed a specific diet to do well. And if a dog is healthy on TOTW etc then I see no reason to change nor do I think those owners are terrible owners. (which is what Blue Buffalo and some people tend to say of owners feeding other brands)

aggiebug:

Call and ask they don't have nutritionist on site and frankly when you are feeding the same diet day in and day out it is critical you get it right. We cook a variety of meals for ourselves thus , in general, are able to balance our nutritional requirements over time. Our opinions on what makes a good quality food is drastically different. TOTW, BB etc are not better quality foods. They tend to follow current diet fads in humans (paleo, organic) and thus their popularity. Hills, Purina etc have science and years and years of quality testing and feed trials using actual animals validating their quality. Their "gauranteed analysis" is validated not by formulation (which doesn't take into consideration of availability of the nutrients) but using feed trials and close medical evaluation of real animals. This happened many years ago with Iams. People touted it as the better quality food because dogs had wonderful coats on the diet. Well it turns out their formulation at the time was extraordinarily high in fat which was great for the coat appearance but not ideal for the now obese dog. Their forumla has since changed and their philosophy and company has drastically improved since then. And maybe these companies will improve but I am quite skeptical of their quality control and their actual products at this point. That being said I do not believe a dog has to be fed a specific diet to do well. And if a dog is healthy on TOTW etc then I see no reason to change nor do I think those owners are terrible owners. (which is what Blue Buffalo and some people tend to say of owners feeding other brands)

 

I agree, that if a dog is doing well on a particular food that there may be no need to change. However, it sounds as if you're advocating for Iams, Science diet, Purina, etc.....??

I miss the days where regular posters on this board actually gave out GOOD advice. Ba-hum-bug! 

just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean that it is not good advice. I never once said OP should switch to Purina, Hills etc. I just really don't think switching to 4health is a good idea. Yes Purina, Hills, Royal Canine, Iams ARE good foods. I know there is a lot of vocal people saying they are terrible foods but its mostly misconstrued information.

aggiebug:

Yes Purina, Hills, Royal Canine, Iams ARE good foods.

Corn, "poultry byproduct meal" (necks, feet, beaks), corn gluten meal (corn stripped of what little nutrients it has), brewers rice (floor sweepings from making alcohol), and artificial food coloring makes for good dog food?

Sorry, I'll pass.  

1.  AAFCO food trials are a joke.  They only require that 6 of 8 dogs not die after eating a food for 6 months.

2. If iams and purina and science diet have such high quality control standards, why have they been involved in so many recalls? 

There is a lot that is misunderstood on a nutrition label, and the brands that are popular on this board have done a lot to promote that.  I can't say I blame them its a great business strategy and it plays to the emotions of their target buyer.  

Did you know trimmings off of a filet are considered byproducts? Or a piece of breast meat that is perfectly nutritious and safe for US to eat but may appear off in color for a store window is a by product.  Yes feathers can be included in by product, and they are high in usable protein, but honestly they are that beneficial to a balanced diet so very little is actually used in dog or cat food it is primarily the trimmings off of health MEAT. 

Corn in its whole or even cracked corn is not very useable nutrient wise (that is why whole kernels of corn pass through our digestive system and show up in our poop). So they take a very nutrient rich food and make it more utilizable for the dog.

 

The "holistic" foods our however you want to label them are businesses.  They have followed the human trends and found a niche market that is a great business model for them.  Just like people will pay for Organics, which have mostly unproven benefits, people will pay for the same in their animals pet foods.  That is fine, I applaud them for creating a powerful business model, but that does not mean a different business model is bad.

Why have Iams, Purina and Hills had more recalls? because they have been around longer.  That, I truly believe, is the only reason.  This most recent round of recalls cements that idea as well.  It was all "holistic" "natural" brands that were recalled.  Recalls happen. They happen all over the human food industry and they do happen in the pet food industry as well.  And as these brands get bigger I think it will only happen more often.   

aggiebug:

just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean that it is not good advice. I never once said OP should switch to Purina, Hills etc. I just really don't think switching to 4health is a good idea. Yes Purina, Hills, Royal Canine, Iams ARE good foods. I know there is a lot of vocal people saying they are terrible foods but its mostly misconstrued information.

Personal experience has taught me that Purina, etc, are NOT as high quality as these other "niche" brands you're referring to. I have a cat who threw up on a weekly basis when she was eating Purina One, and then Authority brand. Almost as soon as we switched to a food withOUT any source of corn as the grain (our dry food is not grain free) and without byproducts/byproduct meals, she stopped throwing up her food. Both her coat and the other cat's coat become FAR softer and shinier. This is not because the new food is loaded with fats, either; I know, because my overweight cat actually lost a little weight.

I'll judge the food's quality based on my own experience and my knowledge how animals digest food sources differently.

OP: I'd say that if you want to stay grain free, stick to TOTW. If the grain content is not a concern (ie, it's not going to upset your pooch's system/cause allergic reactions), then I'd understand saving some money on the 4Health brand. 

I'm not as informed on the science behind it all as some of the other posters, but I do know that the majority of dogs I've met who are fed Purina, Iams, Hills, etc...has smelled awful, required a lot more baths and had many more cases of diarrhea and upset stomach than the dogs I've met who are fed TOTW or similar quality foods.  With my own dogs and fosters the difference has been amazing when we get them switched over to another food.  Our Mastiff seemed healthier within days of switching from Purina to TOTW.  That may not be science, but it's pretty darn convincing and good enough for me.

Your points about by-products also don't really address the point that the previous poster made about what by-products are ACTUALLY used in those foods.  The things you listed may be considered by-products, but the other, less desirable by-products are also included, so what's the justification for that? 

LuckyAngel07:

aggiebug:

just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean that it is not good advice. I never once said OP should switch to Purina, Hills etc. I just really don't think switching to 4health is a good idea. Yes Purina, Hills, Royal Canine, Iams ARE good foods. I know there is a lot of vocal people saying they are terrible foods but its mostly misconstrued information.

Personal experience has taught me that Purina, etc, are NOT as high quality as these other "niche" brands you're referring to. I have a cat who threw up on a weekly basis when she was eating Purina One, and then Authority brand. Almost as soon as we switched to a food withOUT any source of corn as the grain (our dry food is not grain free) and without byproducts/byproduct meals, she stopped throwing up her food. Both her coat and the other cat's coat become FAR softer and shinier. 

 

Yes I agree it sounds like your cat has a food allergy and I am very pleased you have found a diet that works well for her!  Just like people animals can have food allergies or a food intolerance  (think gluten intolerance in people).  This does not mean that most dogs or cats can't handle that food.  That would be like saying just because some people are lactose intolerant that ice cream is a bad food, or because some people are allergic to peanuts or eggs means that those foods are bad for everyone.  I am very glad we have a lot of options out there for animals now, it gives people who are struggling with allergies many options. It used to be straight to home cooked meals for a lot of dogs and cats and frankly most owners can't deal with that.  

These niche products are just that. They fulfill the expectations of certain buyers and honestly I hope they get big enough that they can actually invest in research and nutritionists so that they too can have the reliability of some of these other well known brands.

 

As far as by products go the definition is quite broad and incorporates a lot of parts, but that doesn't mean they are used.  Why add an ingredient that is not usable to a pet? That is illogical from a medical and a business point of view.  I honestly wish the USDA would change some of these definitions because I think you would see just how misconstrued the information out there is!   

 

My biggest peeve about this whole topic is that many people that feed the niche products feel like they have the right to criticize people that don't feed the niche products.  Its like telling me that because I don't feed only organic foods to my child they are going to be unhealthy.   

 I LOVE animal nutrition.  I am not a certified nutritionist, but I spend a lot of my free time looking at food labels, new research coming out and articles from respected people in animal nutrition. Some does come from the pet food companies but a lot does not.  I strongly advocate to owners to do what is best for them and their dog.  People ask quite often for recommendations of dog foods and instead of just spouting off brands we have long discussions on nutrition and what is best for their pet.  Yes I have my go to brands to start with if that is what they want, but every animal is different every owner is different so what works for each family is different.  The only brand I actively steer people away from is Blue Buffalo.  I don't mention that brand unless they ask about it and I am very upfront about why.  

aggiebug:

Why add an ingredient that is not usable to a pet? 

Because it's cheap. Why include brewer's rice? Why include corn gluten meal (which by definition is what's left after the nutritious parts have been stripped away)? Because it's cheap and makes the companies more money.

Iams, Hill's, Purina -- they are the junk food of the dog food industry. And yeah, if you were feeding your kid junk food day in and day out, I'd judge.  

My ex-husband's labrador retriever survived on Hill's Science Diet. But he had chronic ear infections, his anal glands needed to be manually expressed monthly, and he had diarrhea any time he ate anything other than his kibble (peanut butter, cheese, carrot sticks -- couldn't eat any of it).

But he THRIVED on Wellness CORE. Shinier, softer coat. No ear infections, no need for manual gland expression. Eats cheese, peanut butter, carrot sticks with no problem.

Same for my pit bull. He came home from the shelter (which feeds Hill's) with a rough, scraggly, dull coat. He was itchy. His poops were HUGE. He is now soft, his coat filled in, it's softer. His poops are half the size they once were.  

RedheadBaker:

aggiebug:

Why add an ingredient that is not usable to a pet? 

Because it's cheap. Why include brewer's rice? Why include corn gluten meal (which by definition is what's left after the nutritious parts have been stripped away)? Because it's cheap and makes the companies more money.

Same for my pit bull. He came home from the shelter (which feeds Hill's) with a rough, scraggly, dull coat. He was itchy. His poops were HUGE. He is now soft, his coat filled in, it's softer. His poops are half the size they once were.  

 It's the saying, "The proof is in the poop!" (and if that's not a saying, it needs to be, haha!) WHY are Red's dog's poops half the size? Because he's not eating FILLER anymore. The same happens when humans eat whole healthy foods. The less unusable junk you put in, the less crap you get out the other end, because the body is processing and using almost all of it.

Dogs eating Hills, Purina, Iams, etc, eat a lot of filler, because like Red said, it's cheap. It provides the calories the dog needs to survive and maintain (or gain) weight, but the calories are empty. It would be like me stuffing my face with fries and cookies; sure, I'd get all the calories (and more) I need to survive, but I'm bound to have adverse health issues. This isn't because of food allergies or intolerance; it's because of eating poor quality food that actually doesn't contain healthful nutrients. 

Going back to the original post..

I switched my dogs to 4Health about a year ago after I did some research. I've been pleased with it, and I have no complaints.

The foods you disapprove of are NOT comparable to junk food.  That is precisely my point.   Alpo is junk food.  It is like a vegetarian judging an omnivore for all the meat they eat.

 They aren't fillers.  It still costs money to put the ingredients you claim are "fillers" into the food. So why put something extra into the food if it has no added value and only adds cost to your production.  That thought process doesn't make logical sense.  

 

And people that feed raw diets feel ALL TYPES of "by products"  That is practically what their diet is on a raw diet.  Internal organs, bone, odd pieces of meat...  

aggiebug:

The foods you disapprove of are NOT comparable to junk food.  That is precisely my point.   Alpo is junk food.  It is like a vegetarian judging an omnivore for all the meat they eat.

 They aren't fillers.  It still costs money to put the ingredients you claim are "fillers" into the food. So why put something extra into the food if it has no added value and only adds cost to your production.  That thought process doesn't make logical sense.  

 

And people that feed raw diets feel ALL TYPES of "by products"  That is practically what their diet is on a raw diet.  Internal organs, bone, odd pieces of meat...  

 

I thought you said you researched pet food? 

gingerfeathers:

Going back to the original post..

I switched my dogs to 4Health about a year ago after I did some research. I've been pleased with it, and I have no complaints.

 

aggiebug:

The foods you disapprove of are NOT comparable to junk food.  That is precisely my point.   Alpo is junk food.  It is like a vegetarian judging an omnivore for all the meat they eat.

 They aren't fillers.  It still costs money to put the ingredients you claim are "fillers" into the food. So why put something extra into the food if it has no added value and only adds cost to your production.  That thought process doesn't make logical sense.  

 

And people that feed raw diets feel ALL TYPES of "by products"  That is practically what their diet is on a raw diet.  Internal organs, bone, odd pieces of meat...  

Please stop giving _shitty advice. You're making your fellow aggies (like myself) look like __dumbasses. You obviously have NO idea what in the he77 you're talking about.

For the OP, here is a list of ingredients that are in some dog foods that I avoid. if the food you're feeding doesn't have any of those ingredients in it, you're good to go! http://www.dogfoodproject.com/index.php?page=badingredients

aggiebug:

The foods you disapprove of are NOT comparable to junk food.  That is precisely my point.   Alpo is junk food.  It is like a vegetarian judging an omnivore for all the meat they eat.

 They aren't fillers.  It still costs money to put the ingredients you claim are "fillers" into the food. So why put something extra into the food if it has no added value and only adds cost to your production.  That thought process doesn't make logical sense.  

 

And people that feed raw diets feel ALL TYPES of "by products"  That is practically what their diet is on a raw diet.  Internal organs, bone, odd pieces of meat...  

My dog is fed raw and he does not eat "odd pieces of meat."

You need to do your research on raw diets before you spout off about them because it certainly seems like you have NOT researched raw.

By the way, liver and kidneys are also good for people. Liver is actually recommended for pregnant women to eat because of the iron content. 

aggiebug:

The foods you disapprove of are NOT comparable to junk food.  That is precisely my point.   Alpo is junk food.  It is like a vegetarian judging an omnivore for all the meat they eat.

 They aren't fillers.  It still costs money to put the ingredients you claim are "fillers" into the food. So why put something extra into the food if it has no added value and only adds cost to your production.  That thought process doesn't make logical sense.  

 

And people that feed raw diets feel ALL TYPES of "by products"  That is practically what their diet is on a raw diet.  Internal organs, bone, odd pieces of meat...  

It's called a filler because CORN is a heck of a lot cheaper than meat, etc.

 

Feathers are high in usable protein?  Are you freaking kidding me?  Feathers are high in keratin.  If feathers are good, maybe I'll just start feeding my dogs toenail clippings.  They're both made out of keratin.

And corn?  They're a cheap source of calories.  Of simple carb calories.  They're not very nutrient dense, just sugar dense.

When I raw fed, I did give my dogs byproducts.  But like you said, byproducts are not inherently bad.  They're a great source of nutrients, but it also depends on the source.  No 4 D food for my beasts.  

Additionally, look at a dog's  teeth.  Sharp pointy teeth designed for ripping and tearing meat.  They're missing flat molars that cud chewing ungulates have.  Yes, they are scavengers.  They can survive on pretty much anything.  But surviving =/= thriving.

Hello to a fellow Aggie! Its always nice to find others on here.  How about Johnny Football? This year has made me miss Aggieland so much!

 

Thanks for your opinion. I do know what I am talking about, I just gather my info from many many sources not just dog food adviser (which is based on opinion very little nutritional facts).  I don't claim to know everything about animal nutrition but I like to try and help people make educated nutritional decisions.

pattymctatty:

aggiebug:

The foods you disapprove of are NOT comparable to junk food.  That is precisely my point.   Alpo is junk food.  It is like a vegetarian judging an omnivore for all the meat they eat.

 They aren't fillers.  It still costs money to put the ingredients you claim are "fillers" into the food. So why put something extra into the food if it has no added value and only adds cost to your production.  That thought process doesn't make logical sense.  

 

And people that feed raw diets feel ALL TYPES of "by products"  That is practically what their diet is on a raw diet.  Internal organs, bone, odd pieces of meat...  

My dog is fed raw and he does not eat "odd pieces of meat."

You need to do your research on raw diets before you spout off about them because it certainly seems like you have NOT researched raw.

By the way, liver and kidneys are also good for people. Liver is actually recommended for pregnant women to eat because of the iron content. 

 

Sorry by "odd pieces of meat" that made them sound like poor quality when, in fact, that is not what I meant at all.  Unless you get your dogs meat from the grocery store counter the meat you are getting is probably not sold in the human market for some reason. Typically it is due to the off color of the fat which makes it aesthetically unpleasing for a typical consumer and thus it is not sold for human consumption -although perfectly safe and nutritious.  This is typically considered a by product though and has to be labeled as such in dog food when handled a specific way.   

And yes yes yes! Liver and Kidneys have LOADS of nutrition and are considered by products.  That is my point.  USDA requires them to label their products with the term by product, buts its a very poor terms that encompasses too much.

nital:

Feathers are high in usable protein?  Are you freaking kidding me?  Feathers are high in keratin.  If feathers are good, maybe I'll just start feeding my dogs toenail clippings.  They're both made out of keratin.

And corn?  They're a cheap source of calories.  Of simple carb calories.  They're not very nutrient dense, just sugar dense.

When I raw fed, I did give my dogs byproducts.  But like you said, byproducts are not inherently bad.  They're a great source of nutrients, but it also depends on the source.  No 4 D food for my beasts.  

Additionally, look at a dog's  teeth.  Sharp pointy teeth designed for ripping and tearing meat.  They're missing flat molars that cud chewing ungulates have.  Yes, they are scavengers.  They can survive on pretty much anything.  But surviving =/= thriving.

 

Ahh yes thank you for pointing out my mistake with the feathers.  I definitely misspoke with that one!  Feathers are 100% protein. That is the definition of keratin (as you mentioned which is the basis of feathers, hair and toenails), but in its normal form its is almost 100% UNusable protein for an animal. They can be made into a usable form of digestable protein but it takes quite a bit of processing which is why they aren't* ( I mistyped "are" there as well. Sorry typing is not my forte) used much if at all.

Like PP have mentioned there are a lot of important parts of a nutritious diet that is included in the diet as by product. Liver, kidneys etc. 

 

Thanks again for pointing that out. 

aggiebug:

Hello to a fellow Aggie! Its always nice to find others on here.  How about Johnny Football? This year has made me miss Aggieland so much!

 

Thanks for your opinion. I do know what I am talking about, I just gather my info from many many sources not just dog food adviser (which is based on opinion very little nutritional facts).  I don't claim to know everything about animal nutrition but I like to try and help people make educated nutritional decisions.

Such as? The Small Animal Clinical Nutrition textbook, written by the Mark Morris Institute, which has links to Hill's Pet Food?  

That has some decent info in it yes, and I do think it is responsible to look in that as well as dog food advisor- if only to know what information is out there.  But I have had long discussions with clinical nutritionists.  Read a lot of research papers as well as other veterinary nutritional text books that are available. Some are just on raw diets, or "holistic" diets as well as basic principles of nutrition.  

 

ETA And while they do have a link to Hill's pet food that book spends a lot of time discussing numerous other name brand products (in a positive light) and has an excellent section on home cooking meals, RAW diets etc.  

The point we are trying to make about dog food labels and the therm "by-products" is that when that term is used, it's because the manufacturer has used the SH!T by-products to fill up needed parts in the kibble. It's just like when they write "poultry" or "fish"; they're not being specific, so the consumer has no idea what TYPE of poultry or fish they're getting (that fish could be nutrient-limited whitefish for all we know, not something fantastic like sardine or salmon). I prefer brands that are specifying, "HEY! We include chicken liver/beef liver!" I avoid the term by-products because it doesn't give me a clue what I'm feeding my pet, and I don't want the discarded refuse from the factory floor ending up in my pet's food.

 I feed a raw diet because I know EXACTLY what goes in my dog's stomach that way. Does she eat bone? Yes, but it's bone in its natural form, and encased in meat. She gets fresh, whole organs; I buy her whole chickens, typically straight off my grocery store's shelves; she even gets pork shoulders from the butcher's shop. None of these things are "off" or not being sold for human consumption. The times I do buy things that the butcher sets aside for canines only, I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE. If short ribs have to be classified as by-products because their human sell-by date is a day passed, I'm fine with that. But I won't buy a bag of dry food that lumps together its ingredients in an uncertain amalgamation under a term that is convenient for them. 

LuckyAngel07:

The point we are trying to make about dog food labels and the therm "by-products" is that when that term is used, it's because the manufacturer has used the SH!T by-products to fill up needed parts in the kibble. It's just like when they write "poultry" or "fish"; they're not being specific, so the consumer has no idea what TYPE of poultry or fish they're getting (that fish could be nutrient-limited whitefish for all we know, not something fantastic like sardine or salmon). I prefer brands that are specifying, "HEY! We include chicken liver/beef liver!" I avoid the term by-products because it doesn't give me a clue what I'm feeding my pet, and I don't want the discarded refuse from the factory floor ending up in my pet's food.

 I feed a raw diet because I know EXACTLY what goes in my dog's stomach that way. Does she eat bone? Yes, but it's bone in its natural form, and encased in meat. She gets fresh, whole organs; I buy her whole chickens, typically straight off my grocery store's shelves; she even gets pork shoulders from the butcher's shop. None of these things are "off" or not being sold for human consumption. The times I do buy things that the butcher sets aside for canines only, I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE. If short ribs have to be classified as by-products because their human sell-by date is a day passed, I'm fine with that. But I won't buy a bag of dry food that lumps together its ingredients in an uncertain amalgamation under a term that is convenient for them. 

 

They don't really have a say in what goes on the label when it says liver vs by products.  It all depends on how the "by product" is delivered, what status the manufacturer's facilities have etc.  

 The niche market dogs food are just that designed for a niche market.  Thus their value comes from a specific consumer impression and it is worth investing a lot of money for a label.  

Where as the mainstream premium dog foods are trying to produce a quality product at a much lower price so they do not invest in the process it requires to meet that facility standard which allows for niche market labeling.  Its like Organic vs standard beef production. Farmers invest a lot of money in starting a small Organic herd hoping that the dividends pay out with the premium cost of their beef.  People that want Organic add value to a piece of beef, the Organic processing in its self does not add any value to the beef.