I spent much of November and early December researching different dog foods as I had decided I wanted to switch my girl to a 'better quality' food (ac cording to comparison websites) although the food she was on was of above average quality, I just wanted to give her something 'better'. So after much dithering and many emails backwards and forwards to manufacturers, many of which weren't very helpful, I finally decided on a new kibble with plans to introduce the wet food as well in the future. So just before Christmas I sat down and worked out the quantities of the new food (based upon calorific value) for the changeover and for daily feeding. Well here we are some two weeks later with soft poo, and it's been getting softer day by day. Not due to overfeeding as all amounts are based upon calorific content not manufacturers guidelines and if I reduced her calories anymore there would really be some complaints . So I've just gone online and ordered a bag of the previous kibble with which we had no problems and fingers crossed that it will resolve our 'poo problems'. It would seem that the advice we often give is true, the food that we can afford, that suits our dogs and that isn't always the most highly rated on comparison sites
The rules of choice should be 1) Dog will eat it 2) Suits dog/poos are good 3) can afford it 4) "quality" Perhaps 2 & 3 are joint second. I think we are increasingly made to feel guilty by media/social media/comparison web sites etc - if we are not feeding the most expensive/raw/latest fad we are bad dog-parents.
I think that is so true. The food I had been feeding was rated 3.9 for the kibble and 4.5 for the wet meat and swapped to a 4.9 kibble as it was a cold pressed food and 'better'. Still back to last food which will make my girl happy as there will be more to eat (and firm poo )
I vote for getting rid of the guilt. I've not fed daily kibble for years (even when I had a dog of my own) but rest assured even if you do feed raw or non-commercial you still don't get off the guilt train. I never ever met a vet who wasn't horrified that I fed Brogan raw and then home-cooked. After being lectured and dooms-dayed from here to eternity if I told a new vet what he actually ate, I learned just to say "Oh, he's really happy on his food" to side-step the issue when asked what I was feeding him. When choosing an 'emergency' kibble for fosters, my favourite strategy is to do a bit of research online, look at the ingredients list myself, and go with what seems closest to what I'd cook/eat myself. Expensive foods do seem to have less grains and fillers ("meal"), but that's not always the case.
I agree. My pup is on Royal Canin maxi junior - I don’t buy it, it’s all paid for. My own dog is on Skinners salmon and rice at less than half the price. It’s just as good as the RC, has fewer iffy ingredients and Tatze has lovely firm, kickable poos. Most expensive does not = best! .
Totally agree , re the guilt ! My big dogs have been fed on Skinners duck and rice , suited them down to the ground and yet its rated as medium on the dog food sites . They surely must all be different with different rates of digestion , if is suits the dog and pocket ,and it isn't full of rubbish , don't worry x
I'm making the slow transition from royal canin satiety to skinners duck and rice, (slow cos I've got kilos of RC left.) Nothing really wrong with RC, but the price difference is huge, I can get 2 bags of skinners for every bag of RC, i agree the ingredients list for skinners looks better and Monty loves them both equally. The saving will probably cover an extra 3or 4 hydrotherapy sessions each year, which I can't claim back on my insurance.
I totally agree - when I had a 4 y/o Lab and then had a new puppy turn up - looked long and hard at food. Mostly based on an article in the Daily Mail/Express (not my read I have to add) that the majority of kibble contains all sorts of rubbish - from concrete dust to whatever animal bits were left around rotting on the factory floor. Living near the biggest canned pet food plant I can only imagine what goes in that too. Speaking to a the puppies vet he too was horrified I wouldn't buy 'his' brand of kibble with warning upon warnings. All it did was reinforce the newspaper article that vets do nothing but promote on the basis of commission. A sad fact of the world we live in I guess - I.E. the guilt train. So in the end it was calculated I could have a fresh chicken baked/boiled with veg - shredded and in the fridge cheaper than most of the basic German discount stores over the period of a months food bill. In theory anyway- it worked fine until this got forgotten and then that got forgotten and in the end Lidl's own brand was a regular feature. Both fussy hounds scoffed it down with a spoon or 2 of Butchers premium canned (mostly) tribe and they were fit and slender chaps. My laziness puts me off going back to fresh to be honest but when it comes to £40 a bag kibble vs £10 with a few cans of taste I would need some convincing it was a bad idea/unhealthy. IMHO of course.
I think there are limits, but the nutritional aspects aside, cheaper food is often a false economy. I convinced my mum to give Skinners a go for Conchita, as it has added chondroitin and glucosamine and reasonable ingredients. She wanted to feed Bakers because that's what her old dog was on, but I pointed out that, although Bakers is a lot cheaper per bag, it works out almost double the price because of the quantity needed to feed the dog!
I`m old enough to remember the times before commercial dog foods , we could buy a biscuit mixer which was basically flour and water, to which we added scraps from the farm kitchen and raw meaty bones from the butcher . I used to cook liver, lights ( lungs ) and heart , free from the butcher , all done in a pressure cooker , the stench was awful but our farm dogs were a healthy bunch ! Looking back , our dogs had a pretty great diet, without us realising it x
Yes I remember those days too, and I'm sure I've read a comment from Pippa some where,probably in one of the poo eating articles, that back then most dogs ended up with a good balanced diet. Our family dogs always has scraps, on Saturdays they had a tin of Chappie for a treat after a long family walk! They all lived till early /mid teens, as fit as could be. I confess to having switched Cassie to Burns, more pricey than I ever thought I would, but I am pleased with the change. She enjoys it, and her poo's are small and hard, provided I can keep her own ideas of supplements to a minimum . She started to have anal gland problems, was a bit smelly and farty, but that has stopped now. There is much less interest in eating her own or other dogs poo, although it hasn't stopped completely. It's easier to pick up the poo, and has virtually no odour. And no EU permitted additives, which may or may not have contributed to her hyper behaviour earlier in the year. But I'm tempted, down the line, to try Skinners Duck and Rice, since it gets good press on here.
Stanley gets fed Canagan. It is expensive in terms of the price per bag but we pay £32 per month for a 6kg bag so in reality it's pretty affordable. He was on James Welbeloved and his poos we're always soft which is why we switched. I have to confess my method for change was hunting around the shop and I saw "chicken and sweet potato" checked on some comparison sites and saw it had good ratings and thought that sounded yummier for Stanley than chicken and rice He enjoys it, he's healthy and has good poos so I have no plans to change it for now. I mentioned Orijen to OH but that was more out of guilt than necessity and he convinced me to just keep on what we're on because it works.
Even the ones that are considered to be expensive foods aren't that expensive if we compare them to how much we pay for our own food. I bet most people can't be fed a nutritionally balanced diet for £32 a month! Although I looked up Ziwipeak which is one of the most expensive. £80 for a 4kg bag and a 30kg dog should be on about 8kg a month. Yeah, I probably don't spend that much on my own food
Move away from that thought , if Burns suits Cassie leave well alone !! I've learned from experience not to meddle
Slight spin-off, but my dog has never had kickables. Thus far he's been on high protein kibbles, and I'm wondering if that doesn't agree with him (Orijen and currently Millie's Hunter mix). Our other two eat the same food and theirs are perfect, but I think this one is a bit more sensitive. As he's never had firm poos I kind of resigned myself to that just being how he is, but maybe there is a dog food that will agree with him more. It hasn't been a problem per se, just not that absolutely ideal state. I'll see about slowly transitioning him onto Skinners and seeing if that agrees with him more.
I changed Finn’s kibble a few month ago. I searched on the internet and compared the ingredients list of most kibble. The kibble I had my former dogs on and what Finn was having had changed, not only the by appearance but also on ingredients. Now he is having a good quality of food, ingredients ‘better’, his fur is softer, less shedding and the price comparable! His poos are firm. So all in all very satisfied!
I feed Arden Grange Lamb and rice and very pleased with it. However, as I now have damaged my sacroiliac joint, I can't lift the 12kg bags, so having to think of something different in smaller bags. Probably AG do do smaller bags, but will be expensive, must do some research!
You could try reducing the amount of kibble to produce a firm poo, I know it's what Millie's say to do with their food (been there/fed that ) . Over feeding can be a cause of soft poo so worth a try first off rather than changing. I think Millie's suggest reducing the amount slowly (10g or so) until a firm poo is achieved We had firm poo on Millie's but struggled with weight due to higher fat content.
This is definitely something we forget to check regularly. Manufacturers do change ingredients without notification which may not suit our dogs as well. Glad to hear than Finn is doing well on his new food
