Crappy Food

[*blackrose]

I think it depends on the level of "crappy". Grains and named meat byproducts? Eh. Nasty preservatives, sugar, food dyes...I'd switch.

[TuffStuff]

Originally Posted by Southpaw

I tend to believe that a dog that's fed Ol Roy might look fantastic, but that doesn't mean it's the best food for them or that it's actually healthy. Nutrition is nutrition is nutrition. I pretty much eat nothing but junk, outwardly it probably doesn't show (I won't judge myself ) but yeah I know my diet isn't doing me any favors and that it'll catch up with me.

Now if I were just fostering I don't know that I would really go too wild and crazy with my food choice. I'd probably feed something better just for the plain fact that I think cheapy foods smell bad and are nastily greasy. Wouldn't put as much thought into it as I do my own dogs though.

This...except I normally feed fosters raw if for no other reason than to keep kibble poop out of my yard. lol Plus it's just kind of easier for me to feed everyone the same thing.

[Ivy]

I would never personally feed crappy food (Pedigree, Ol Roy, etc) to my guys. I am switching my current foster to TLC food soon.

[Emily]

Originally Posted by TuffStuff

This...except I normally feed fosters raw if for no other reason than to keep kibble poop out of my yard. lol Plus it's just kind of easier for me to feed everyone the same thing.

Same.

When I had Ketchup and Mustard I fed them kibble only because they needed enormous quantities of food to regain condition. I started them on Diamond Naturals because my bank account was tight and again, they needed LOTS of food. (5 cups per day, EACH, so 10 Cs per day). When they were down to normal rations on put them on TOTW.

But generally, yeah, I have a big freezer full of raw food, so feeding fosters raw is actually easier for me. Otherwise I have to go out and get kibble.

Even if fosters appeared to do fine on crap food, I'd switch them to something decent. I can't imagine going out and buying a bag of Pedigree, LOL. I don't if I could make myself buy it, actually. I just can't spend my money on something like that. LOL

[JacksonsMom]

Originally Posted by *blackrose

I think it depends on the level of "crappy". Grains and named meat byproducts? Eh. Nasty preservatives, sugar, food dyes...I'd switch.

Yeah, this.

I really believe that Ol' Roy, Beneful, etc are the crappiest of the crappiest. I don't think any dog deserves to eat that crap.

But when it comes to food like Science Diet, Purina Pro Plan, Eukanuba, Royal Canin... to be honest, I've seen a lot of dogs that do very well on these foods.

I don't think food makes *that* much of a difference in the overall scheme of things. I much more believe that things like over-vaccinating, spaying/neutering and at what age, exercise, lifestyle, and genetics play a much greater role.

I still couldn't get myself to feed a lot of those foods, but lately I don't really pay as much attention to ingredients, but moreso WHERE the food is coming from, how trustworthy the company is, where it's being manufactured, recalls/how many/how it was handled, etc. Diamond foods could have the best ingredient list in the world and I still wouldn't feed it. Same with Purina (the whole "lets not pull these chicken jerky treats even though they're killing dogs" rubs me horribly).

But really there is WAY too many factors out there to say "this dog did better on x food and this dog did better on y food". Raw is not the magic answer for every dog, just as any kibble is not going to work for every dog.

The only way to even get somewhat of an understanding of how certain foods work for dogs would be if there was a study that took 100's of dogs, fed a group of them one food, another group another food, and they each got the same amount of exercise and came from good genetic backgrounds as far as we could tell, and then see if one group lived longer and healthier than another, etc. Which is most likely never going to happen. The feeding trials they do on foods is such a joke... so they're impossible to tell. But I agree, that I prefer to see a food with SOME kind of feeding trial. I don't really want my dog being the guinea pig.

As far as oral health, if I don't brush Jackson's teeth EVERY day, plaque and tarter creeps up real quickly. He had a dental at 3 years old in Nov. 2011 and will probably need another one this year. And I brush at least 3-4x a week, he gets bones, and other oral care. And it doesn't matter what kind of food he's on.

[sassafras]

Honestly for a foster who is feeling well I would just leave them on whatever they are eating rather than change the diet, then have it potentially be changed again going to the permanent home. Whatever the dog eats for a few weeks or months in my home isn't going to impact their long term health.

[JessLough]

Originally Posted by JacksonsMom

Yeah, this.

I really believe that Ol' Roy, Beneful, etc are the crappiest of the crappiest. I don't think any dog deserves to eat that crap.

But when it comes to food like Science Diet, Purina Pro Plan, Eukanuba, Royal Canin... to be honest, I've seen a lot of dogs that do very well on these foods.

I don't think food makes *that* much of a difference in the overall scheme of things. I much more believe that things like over-vaccinating, spaying/neutering and at what age, exercise, lifestyle, and genetics play a much greater role.

I still couldn't get myself to feed a lot of those foods, but lately I don't really pay as much attention to ingredients, but moreso WHERE the food is coming from, how trustworthy the company is, where it's being manufactured, recalls/how many/how it was handled, etc. Diamond foods could have the best ingredient list in the world and I still wouldn't feed it. Same with Purina (the whole "lets not pull these chicken jerky treats even though they're killing dogs" rubs me horribly).

But really there is WAY too many factors out there to say "this dog did better on x food and this dog did better on y food". Raw is not the magic answer for every dog, just as any kibble is not going to work for every dog.

The only way to even get somewhat of an understanding of how certain foods work for dogs would be if there was a study that took 100's of dogs, fed a group of them one food, another group another food, and they each got the same amount of exercise and came from good genetic backgrounds as far as we could tell, and then see if one group lived longer and healthier than another, etc. Which is most likely never going to happen. The feeding trials they do on foods is such a joke... so they're impossible to tell. But I agree, that I prefer to see a food with SOME kind of feeding trial. I don't really want my dog being the guinea pig.

As far as oral health, if I don't brush Jackson's teeth EVERY day, plaque and tarter creeps up real quickly. He had a dental at 3 years old in Nov. 2011 and will probably need another one this year. And I brush at least 3-4x a week, he gets bones, and other oral care. And it doesn't matter what kind of food he's on.

That study wouldn't work, unless they cloned the exact same dog multiple times.

[sassafras]

Originally Posted by JessLough

That study wouldn't work, unless they cloned the exact same dog multiple times.

Not really, otherwise no one could ever do any studies on anything. The goal is to eliminate as many differences as possible, but you can never have a totally uniform study population.

[JacksonsMom]

Originally Posted by JessLough

That study wouldn't work, unless they cloned the exact same dog multiple times.

well, I wasn't really thoroughly thinking out a study or anything lol. I mean I came up with it in .5 seconds for my post. All I mean is that extensive studies would have to be done to prove if food even makes that much of a difference in most canines and well... that's not going to happen. That's my only point.

[milos_mommy]

Originally Posted by sassafras

Not really, otherwise no one could ever do any studies on anything. The goal is to eliminate as many differences as possible, but you can never have a totally uniform study population.

Aside from the fact that a study from entirely cloned dogs would only tell you what the food would do for THAT dog. It wouldn't tell you what impact diet was having on the general dog population as a whole. With a general pulling-dogs-off-the-streets study, there are going to be too many outside factors, but having a population with the same general health status and exercise would certainly be a legitimate study...most likely way more legitimate than one with dogs with the same genetic makeup.