HELP! What Type of Food Should I Chose?
By Claire Goyer BA (Hons.), HND
The question of what type of food to offer your dog can be a quite confusing and complex one to answer. Much of what is available will provide the basic nutrients in order to satisfy a dog’s daily requirements, but the quality, economy, and ease of use for each product can differ as greatly as the number of brands on offer.
Dog food itself can be broken down into the following categories; canned, dry, or a natural diet. Each has their own advantages as well as disadvantages, but it is up to the educated owner to decide which category suits their dog, their lifestyle, and their budget.
Good Ole Tins!
The first category of dog food is the traditional canned variety. Canned foods, (or “Moist” as they are more appropriately labeled) provide a complete diet on their own or may be combined with a mixer biscuit to ensure that the correct amount of “roughage” is consumed.
Moist foods can appear on the shelf in all manner of guises (ranging from the basic tin, to the high tech sealed pouch) but all have the following in common; a high percentage of moisture, a very strong smell, and most dogs find them extremely palatable.
Moist foods do have a lot going for them. Because of their popularity, they are widely available in any type of shop (including petrol stations), they are easily stored in any kitchen cupboard, and provided the tin does not receive any knocks or bangs, can be kept for very long periods of time.
Even the fussiest of eaters will be hard pressed to turn their noses up at the contents of a high quality packet of moist food. Its soft consistency makes it a huge hit with puppies as well as seniors who may have difficulty coping with hard kibble. Some breeders of giant breed dogs also endorse wet food as a means of preventing Gastric Dilation/Volvulus (Bloat) although the scientific jury is still out on that one.
There are some disadvantages to feeding moist foods, but perhaps the most obvious is that not all wet foods are created equal. There is a huge difference between the Supermarket Value tin priced at .32p and the Premium Pet Shop pouch priced at .72p, and this difference centres on the quality of the ingredients used. To the uneducated consumer, a tin of dog food is a tin of dog food, and unless you understand how to read the label correctly, you may be exposing your dog to ingredients or additives that may lead to upset digestion or in the case of intolerance / allergy - a serious illness.
On the face of it, paying .32p for a tin of food seems like an economical way to feed a dog. However, if you decide to purchase a better quality easily digestiblewet food, then you are looking at an increased cost and a possible trip to your local stockist in order to obtain it.
For many dog owners this is not an issue if the right product is ultimately purchased, however, it is important to note that this may be a distinct disadvantage for some.
Another disadvantage of feeding wet food is ironically one of its advantages – namely the smell. Dogs love food that smells. You simply cannot put it any plainer than that! For a dog, the world is experienced through its nose, and taste is in some ways a most secondary experience. Unfortunately, that smell can be quite off putting to someone who just simply wants to feed their dog and not inhale “eau du tripe” every time they open a tin. In addition, some owners do not use the entire tin in one feed, and the idea of placing that opened tin next to their own food can be a bit too much to handle.
Wet food is also not appropriate for dogs that are “free feeders”, as it can quickly spoil if left in a bowl all day. This ultimately means that the owner must have the time to prepare the dog’s food at the same time each day, and also be prepared to dispose of any uneaten portions as soon as the dog is finished.
A Sack of Dry Instead?
Dry dog food on the other hand is considered to be the most economical way to feed the family pet, and as a result, it consistently tops the most popular list of pet food categories.
Compared to moist foods of the same quality, dry food can cost as little as one third of the price. Couple this with its long shelf life (depending on the preservatives used) it makes an obvious choice for time pressed families on a budget. Dry food is easy to store, easy to serve, leaves less mess behind in the bowl, and has an inoffensive odor – which for some owners is the greatest advantage of them all! Dogs feed on dry food tend to have fewer bowl movements and harder stools which means less poo to pick up in the garden.
Advances in the extruding process have also allowed manufactures to create kibble of various shapes and sizes which in turn allows for specific breed “bite” preferences. Small kibble for small dogs, larger ones for the giant breeds, and all manner in between. Most prescription diets come in a dry format, especially those formulated to support dental disorders as well as weight control.
You would think that with all these pluses going for it, dry dog food would be the best option for all dogs but dry foods do have their drawbacks and it would be wise for any pet owner to consider these when choosing a food.
First and foremost, most dogs do not like dry kibble and this is especially true for those that have been weaned onto wet, or wet mixed with dry. This is supported by my own observations of assisting customers with dogs who will not eat a dry complete food. I would even go so far as to say that 9 out of 10 customers who are experiencing feeding difficulties have pets who were feed wet foods initially, but are now refusing their new dry food.
The reasons for food refusal (aside from ill health) have yet to be fully studied (See How to Feed a Fussy Dog), but perhaps the very reasons that dry food is so popular with humans makes them less appealing to dogs. Dry food actually contains very little animal fat as protein based fats go rancid very quickly. Since dogs see the world through their nose, dry kibble may not be as appealing as its odoriferous counterparts. Putting aside the dangerous health aspects of not meeting their daily requirements, dogs who refuse food on a daily bases means that more food goes in the bin. This in turn cancels out any economic benefits of feeding dry.
As we previously discussed in the moist food section, dry dog foods vary enormously in quality. Most supermarket value brands are based on cereals, poor protein sources and are preserved using a cocktail of chemicals which fall under the umbrella term GRAS (Generally Regarded as Safe). These chemicals may include BHT (banned as a human food additive in Britain), BHA, TBHQ (mostly used in America), EQ and sometimes Propylene glycol. All are extremely controversial in both the pet and human food industries as some studies claim that they may (among other things) cause cancer, as well as liver damage.
Premium dry dog foods are often preserved “naturally” with tocopherol and ascorbic acid which are found in grains as well as herbs such as rosemary. Natural preservatives are more expensive than chemicals and it is no secret that premium dry foods carry a high ticket price. However, it is worth noting that these often contain excellent protein and carbohydrate sources which are much easier for a dog to digest. It's quality, not quantity that counts and owners are often surprised at relative small amount of premium kibble they would feed per day as compared to the cheaper brands. Ironically, this makes the higher priced dog food better value in the long run.
Meat and Two Veg?
The final feeding method is one of the most controversial areas of pet nutrition. In recent years, Natural Feeding (or to put it plainly -homemade food) has gained an enormous amount of popular support. Books, Internet forums, and even glossy pet magazines have all jumped on the bandwagon claiming that dogs are healthier, live longer lives, and are generally “happier” creatures than those feed on commercial dog foods.
Natural feeding generally conforms to one of two methods. Those that advocate feeding a mix of raw meat, bones and vegetables, and those that support cooking all foods while avoiding bones. Either way, there are good reasons to choose this method over all others, and if done correctly, it can actually be the best choice overall.
Although dogs are not obligate carnivores, they have been designed to primarily eat and digest meat. The Natural Feeding plan taps into the dog’s need to chew real bones and digest large chunks of protein which may lead to fewer dental problems and very little episodes of digestive upset. Advocates of Natural Feeding also report that their dogs never refuse food, seem to be immune to flea/tick infestations, and make fewer trips to the vet than dogs who are feed on a commercial diet.
Unfortunately, the benefits of Natural Feeding are not collectively supported by Veterinarians or Nutritionists and the reasons are very convincing. Sandie Agar in her excellent book “Small Animal Nutrition” points out that veterinary surgeons often have to remove feeding bones lodged in both mouths and throats, as well as treat dogs suffering from constipation - a side effect sometimes experienced on a bone based diet.
A very quick search on Google Scholar will also turn up scientific papers outlining the very real disadvantages of feeding a Natural diet. These range from problems in bone development in growing puppies, to the dangers of Salmonella contamination. One paper highlighted that 30% of stool samples taken from dogs feed on a raw (chicken) diet contained high levels of Salmonella – enough to make a human ill if they came into contact with the infected feces.
Many of these risks are associated with following the raw method where all food offered to the dog is left uncooked or quickly rinsed with boiling water in the naive assumption that this will “kill” any harmful bacteria. If one does chose to feed a raw diet, then food hygiene routines must be strictly followed, as one slip could lead to a potential health disaster for both dog and owner.
One very important disadvantage to Natural Feeding is that is it very easy for the owner to get it wrong. This applies to both raw and cooked diets, and its prevalence has been cited in countless journals and scientific papers. One, published by the American Veterinary Association, cited that of the 70 dogs in their small scale study, a significant number were discovered to have severe nutritional imbalances.
Maintaining the appropriate ratio of trace minerals, vitamins, fatty acids and other nutritive elements can be a difficult trick to master. Unless the owner is 100% committed to preparing a balanced, fresh meal each and every day, then Natural Feeding is not for them. On the other hand, there are many books, web sites, and knowledgeable qualified people available to help design an appropriate natural feeding regime, as well as highlight the issues involved with choosing to go down the natural route.
Still Confused?
Now that we have gone through the various types of food, as well as the advantages/disadvantages of each one, grab a pen and paper and make a note of the top three requirements you have in mind for your dog's food. Then, match them up with the information you have received from this article and the choice should become clear. If you are still in a muddle (and it's OK if you are!), pop into your local trusted pet shop and ask a qualified member of staff to guide you. Remember, we are always here to help!
References
Daniel J. Joffee and Daniel P. Schlesinger, “Preliminary Assessment of the risk of Salmonella infection in dogs feed raw chicken diets” in The Canadian Veterinary Journal 6, 2002.
Diane Morgan, Feeding Your Dog for Life – The Real Facts about Proper Nutrition. Doral Publishing Inc., 2002.
L. Freeman and K.E. Michel, “Evaluation of raw food diets for dogs” in The American Veterinary Association Journal, 2001.
M. Christine Zink, Dog Health and Nutrition – Feeding Your Hungry Hound. Hungry Minds, 2001
Pet Food Manufacture’s Association, “2007 Pet Food Market Data inc Dry Dog Food”, http://www.pfma.org.uk/2005-pet-food-market-data/inc-dry-pet-food.htm . Accessed July 22, 2008.
P.J.Markewell and K. Hurly, Applied Clinical Nutrition of the Cat and Dog. Mairs Graphische, 2001.
Sandie Agar, Small Animal Nutrition. BH, 2008.
