Yesterday when I was at the supermarket the lady in front of me hard a large bag of economy complete dog food. It scanned at £1.46! I did a double take as I'd just paid almost £40 for my sack. Don't worry I'm not thinking of swapping over but just wondered what on earth is in such cheap food? Surely it must have passed the relevant safety checks and dogs must thrive on it. It just made me think that  the supermarket must be making a profit to sell it at that price so how much profit are the more expensive companies making or are they're ingredients so much more expensive?

Well when it's full of cereal and feathers........   Doesn't cost much to produce.

Now at £40 a bag I bet the majority ingredient is meat, and you don't have to feed as much :)

Not necessarily so not feeding as much ;)

http://www.pet-food-choice.co.uk/Skinners_dog_food_review.htm

Goodness knows what's in that food tough?

>and dogs must thrive on it.

I would seriously question this... There's a huge difference between thriving and surviving :(
For some clueless pet owners,they think as long as their dogs eats/likes the food,then that's all that counts,it must be good,Grrrr!!
I dread to think how much they have to feed of this stuff to get the "required nutrition" and I bet their garden looks like a cow paddy field.
In this case,I think you definitely get what you pay for.

Completely agree Eden. Dogs might well survive for a time on this rubbish but I think you have to look a few years down the line when they're suffering from illnesses caused by malnutrition.

>I bet their garden looks like a cow paddy field.

Not necessarily. There used to be a poster on here who assured everyone that if you fed a particular cheap food then your dog would produce massive cowpats, and simply refused to believe those who actually had experience of using it that it in fact had quite the opposite effect!

> Dogs might well survive for a time on this rubbish but I think you have to look a few years down the line when they're suffering from illnesses caused by malnutrition.

If dogs suffered from malnutirion from eating cheap food, do you think it would still be allowed to be sold as complete food?

FOOD 1
Wheat Flour, Wheat Bran, Meat And Animal Derivatives, Poultry Fat, Dicalcium Phosphate, Copper, Vitamin E, Vitamin A, Vitamin D
Coloured With EC Additives contains: Amaranth, Sunset Yellow FCF

Protein 18.5g
Fat 9.5g
Fibre 2.5g
Ash 8.0g
Vitamin E 4.5mg 
Copper - 1.8mg
Vitamin D3 - 450iu/kg
Vitamin A - 4500iu/kg 
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

FOOD 2
Maize, Chicken, Wheat, Sorghum, Barley, Animal Fat, Poultry Meal, Dried Beet Pulp, Chicken Digest, Dried Whole Egg, Brewer's Dried Yeast, Calcium Carbonate, Potassium Chloride, Sodium Chloride, Sodium Hexametaphosphate, Fish Oil, Dicalcium Phosphate, DL-methionine

Protein 20.0%
Moisture 8.0%
Oils and Fats 10.0%
Fibre 3.0%
Ash 7.0%
Calcium 1.1%
Phosphorus P 0.80%
Vitamin A 14,000IU/kg
Vitamin D3 900IU/kg
Vitamin E (a-tocopherol) 140mg/kg
Copper added as Copper II Sulphate 20mg/kg
L-Carnitine 50mg

Anybody like to guesse the price per KG of the above foods?

Food food 1 I would doubt much of that protien is any good for a dog. 

Food two, Well I hope it's a light food to get away with Maize first and not your £40 bag of normal food!

> Food food 1 I would doubt much of that protien is any good for a dog.

Cheap food, 'own brand' 46p per KG

>Food two, Well I hope it's a light food to get away with Maize first and not your £40 bag of normal food!

Iams light :) @ £30 per 15 kg = £2 per kg

Food 2 is over 4 times more expensive than food 1, but from the ingredients doesn't look as if it would actually cost that much more to produce.

Marketing, I think plays a large part in the price tag. 15 kg of whole chickens can be bought from a supermarket for as little £25, just imagine how cheap dog food manufaturers get hold of the ingredients for. I'm not disputing the fact that there is a difference in quality between foods, but I don't believe that many warrent the price they charge.

I agree with I'm not sure how prices are THAT high but it's all about profits and ALL companies they want to make a profit, and the biggest one possible for the share holders.

the own brand food contains ANY animal.  So one bag could be beef and next time you buy it, it could be chicken, or a mixture.  Then the dervervtives are whats left over (feathers, beaks, heads,feet, tails etc) that isn't used for human consumption.  Chicken means....Chicken....Chicken Meal is what is suitable for human consumption but more of a "left over" type of meat.

Now to source chicken would be more expensive then to source any animal deveratives.

also cost comes in where was the food manufactured.  Higher priced ones are normally prodcued in the UK, some even sorce the ingreedeints, where possible, fro the UK.  cheeper ones most likely produced in Far east.  Then can we REALLY tell what animal Dervatives are if it's made a China or Thailand for example, I dred to think and hope not...

So many factors why food 2 is 4X more expensive but costs will be greater and yes, profit will be greater but Iams is owned by P&G...a mulitinational company that to the best of my knowledge is doing quite well at the moment.

Actually, on the strength of the ingredient list alone the Iams is a better food.   Foods which do not even list the species of animal used as the source of meat protein are the lowest of the lowest in terms of quality.  

If I had to pick between the two for my dogs, I would not hesitate to pick the IAMs. 

Useful link about labelling definitions.

I suppose how the food is made would have an effect on costings too.....Extruded food is a lot cheaper to produce than baked food.

i dont agree,
my three are feed on rc ( not cheap ) but i know many dogs fed on cheap supermarket foods and all seem fine to me.
happy , heathly and full of entry just like my three.
howver i would not feed it myself as my three are doing really well on what they are fed and there coats are to die for.

i know a rescue dog who was a MESS when the owners got him. bad teeth & gums, horrible coat and they fed him Wagg.  His gums got better and teeth were OK.  Coat always shiniy and glossy....

However my dogs do have an extra sparkle about them.  I don't know if thats food, nature, nuture or just luck.  Maybe it's because in MY eyes I'm a pedigree dog lover and friends dog is a crossbreed (although lovely looking and had nicer conformation and movement then some pedigree's I know!)

i personally believe that BARF is the best diet for dogs and now all my dogs are fed barf and i would never in a million years go back to the so called 'dog food' diet, i always knew that barf was better but then i bought the book called 'give your dog a bone' by Dr. ian billinghurst and i knew right away that my dogs would no longer be fed on biscuit, complete food and/or what ever else the food market wants to call the crap that millions of dog owners feed their dogs for their own convience and not for the good of their dog, dogs are designed to eat flesh, bones and raw food, not cooked food or biscuit

do you think it would still be allowed to be sold as complete food?

yes of course it would

What do you think we fed 30 odd years ago....yes just meat and biscuit, normaly pal, chum or bounce...and winalot.
There was not much choice of complete foods then.
All my dogs lived to ripe old ages on that and looked good.

But now i would not even dream of feeding any of those things,i buy the best complete that my dogs will eat for their health and coats,and most of all digestion.
I do know people that still feed these feeds ,and their dogs do look good,whether we like it or not.

> i personally believe that BARF is the best diet for dogs and now all my dogs are fed barf and i would never in a million years go back to the so called 'dog food' diet

You you really believe that?  Do you believe ALL dogs suit BARF?  And if you got a dog that didn't suit BARF would you not have no choice but to go to the "so called dog food diet"

At the end of the day different foods suit different dogs (hense why we have 4 dogs on 3 different brands) and right now I wouldn't change any of their foods.  I have an 11 year old male who has never looked so good, a whelping bitch who still looks fantatsic if you minus her boobs! and two other oldies, one looking fantatsic, the other looking like an 11 year old spayed bitch who's coat has been left to it's own devices (but is brushed so knot free!):-D

Now whenever someone asks would we be intrested in trying a new food?  The answer is always no.

BARF suits ALOT of dogs, but not all.  It also doesn't suit alot of owners.

> the crap that millions of dog owners feed their dogs for their own convience and not for the good of their dog,

bit of a sweeping comment is it not?

> crap that millions of dog owners feed their dogs for their own convience and not for the good of their dog

Could you be more insulting?

so you know for a fact, that the crap I feed one of my dogs is for my own convenience? 

> i always knew that barf was better

In what way? and what dog/s in particular are you talking about?

>i personally believe that BARF is the best diet for dogs

Well good for you. I know dogs that have terrible colitis if they get raw meat - for them it would be cruel to feed it to them.

Humans are designed to eat raw meat and plants, but I'm sure your diet consists of other things - crap fed for your own convenience and not for your own good.

I do honestly belief "if it aint broke, don't fix it!"    Our dogs have lived HEALTHY lives up to the ages of 14/15+.   They are not fed on the cheapest food, nor are they fed on the most expensive or exclusive diets.   They - like us - are fed according to our budget at the time time of purchase of food - just as some months I can afford to feed us steak/salmon, some months, its mince and mixed Seafood!

Our 10 year old Aussie has just won  2 1st places at a local companion show - ok - its a companion show - but she won best vet and also best pedigree - even beating our (fat!!!) 4 yr old lab!

As a paediatric dietician said to me years ago, its not what you feed on a week to week basis, its on a long-term basis that counts!   And Hayley - I would like you to reconsider your statement "or what ever else the food market wants to call the crap that millions of dog owners feed their dogs for their own convience and not for the good of their dog, dogs are designed to eat flesh".  

Just as humankind has evolved from neanderthal man in what we need to eat, so tohas canis lupus familiaris evolved - until the late 20th century it has survived on scraps from the tables of humankind.

Just as those of us who have a certain amount of intelligence feed our children on the best foods that we know, we do the same with our dogs!

I feed mainly BARF to my adult and it suits him, though he has Orijen at times.
My pup is on complete with raw tripe. he has tried a chicken carcus and he loved it, but i'm not convinced its best for him at this time and he appears to thrive more on complete at this time.

Each dog is different as is each person so what suits one dog won't always suit another.

> howver i would not feed it myself as my three are doing really well on what they are fed and there coats are to die for.

And this is the important thing.  I feed RC to the majority of my dogs, but my BC boy only does well on Supadog Sensitive, and tinned Chappie. And the vet commented on his superb condition last time he had his health check.  Most of us feed what suits our dogs best.

just to add this is my opinion which i am entitled to,

also every dog ive owned have eaten BARF to varying degrees just not as their whole diet unlike my dogs now and none of my past dogs had any problems with BARF if a problem does occur with any future dog then ill cross that bridge when i come to it but until then i stand by my opinion that BARF is the best for me AND my dogs and i would recommend it to anyone as i already have

Are we not  going 'off topic' Ladies??

Given that the BARF (or whatever the nom de jour is!!) v Commercial diet ('Kibble') Bunfight is one that can and has run and run (Ad Nauseum) It may well be better to stick to the OP:
'How can a feed be manufactured/sold so cheaply'?

Anyone wishing to further debate 'BARF' v Commercial can spawn their own thread, as it's unfair to have someone else's locked!

:) Simpulz!

Sticking as instructed to the topic....

Food based on cereals can be produced incredibly cheaply because those cereals are the lowest grade waste product from other manufacturing processes (human food, bread, beer etc).

So before the advent of the 'dog biscuit', such by-products were considered waste and had to be removed and disposed of at cost to the manufacturer. Now.. they sell them to the dog food manufacturer at a very low price (since theres not really any other use).

Quite literally, money for old rope.

Some of the other content of cheap dog foods is gained in a similar way, such as beet pulp, grape pulp!!!!! and animal fats, and the meat/animal derivative stuff is also whats left after all the manufacturers higher up the 'food chain' have had their cuts!

And all this takes neat advantage of the fact that dogs will survive on some seriously substandard ingredients, and will eat them with gusto if you spray them with some fat and flavourings.

There isnt half as much cr*p in catfood - because cats have a horrible tendancy to refuse to eat it if there is (there IS still cereal and vegetable matter as fillers in cat food, but not NEARLY as much because cats are a lot more specific in their requirements), and also to die if not provided exactly the right stuff.

>Surely it must have passed the relevant safety checks and dogs must thrive on it.

If it was manufactured in the UK then all ingredients must have been passed as being 'fit for human consumption' (not necessarily so with food manufactured abroad). However as we all know not all parts of an animal carcase cost the same at the butcher; shin of beef is a lot cheaper than a rib-eye steak, with the portions that culturally we don't eat (although they're perfectly good nutritionally) being valueless and either destroyed or used for animal feed. So part of the price difference is down to the cost of ingredients.

But why do Heinz baked beans cost so much more than Value baked beans? Nutritionally there's no difference!

" But why do Heinz baked beans cost so much more than Value baked beans? Nutritionally there's no difference! "

Maybe, but maybe not.  There was a recent programme on TV where they analyzed the nutrional value of different fresh foods, most vegetables as I recall.  They compared the same veg in the value range to the high end, high priced ranges.   I assumed there would be no nutrional difference, in fact, there was a difference.  The value veg was lower in nutrional value than the higher priced equivalents.   The researchers said that most likely the difference was that the value veg are tend to be grown very quickly to maturity, they are selcted to be fast growing and grown in conditions that get the to maturity the quickest.  As a result, they lose out in nutrional value.

For people, having "value" whatever as a part of a very varied diet is no big deal.   For dogs, where the same manufactured food may be fed every day as their main source of nutrition, it may very well make a difference.

>As a result, they lose out in nutrional value.

But is this difference in nutritional value enough to actually make a difference to ones health?

The NHS have a topic called 'Eat well on the cheap' the only thing I can find on it re. quality of friut & veg is this:
"Remember when it comes to fruit and veg, dried, frozen and canned (in juice, not syrup) are just as good as fresh."

Another bit on fruit & veg taken from NHS 'Food For Vegetarians' - 'Is it healthier to eat organic fruit and vegetables?
At the moment we don't have a clear picture on that. Vitamin and mineral levels in food varies so much depending on the soil used in growing, when the food is picked, and other factors, that it's impossible to say that organic food is healthier.'
I can't find anything that suggests fruit & veg has to be expensive to be of nutritional value. Expensive fruit & veg may have a slightly different nutritional profile to cheap stuff, but it doesn't appear that it matters to ones health.

I personally think that marketing plays a huge part in price, 'branding' is big buisness as it makes such a huge difference to price. If our health service see no wrong in cheap fruit & veg for us, from a nutritional & health perspective, I think we can take some comfort in the fact that just becasue food is cheap, doesn't mean it's useless.

I am only reporting what scientific tests showed when value veg was compared to standard and higher priced veg. I didn't mention organic food at all, whether it is organic or not is not relevant.  What is relevant is that if a veg is rushed to maturity it does not have time to develop the full amount of nutrients. 

The point I made was that people eat a very varied diet, so if you skimp in one area you are likely to make it up somewhere else, or on another day.

You cannot compare human diets to a dog's diet.   Some people feed their dogs the same thing, every day, for years. (I don't think the NHS would recommend that for people, do you?)  I think in those circumstances that the quality of food would make a difference.  Whether the cheapest of the cheap foods is good enough, I don't know.  I am not talking about name brands from leading manufacturers sold at supermarkets, but the real bottom of the barrel when it comes to dog food.

We always hear people that said they fed their dogs cheap foods and they never visited the vet and lived to a great old age.  Wonderful.   You always hear about people that smoked, drank, and ate greasy, fat laden foods their entire lives, never had a day where they felt ill until they died sharp of mind at 100 years old.  What does it prove?  Nothing.

No 1 son got his labrador puppy from yorkshire (500 mile round trip to collect).   She had been weaned onto a food that he'd never heard of, but one that the well-respected breeder uses.   So he has carried on with it - and with marvellous results - we've had no tummy upsets from day 1 - and now, at just 16 weeks, she is a lithe, muscular little lab puppy weighing in at 11 kg.    We're so happy with the results that we shall continue using it for Dyssi - it is a complete food but cheap its not - £48.50 per 15 kg sack.   Shall we continue using it when she's fully grown?   Maybe - or it might be used as a back-up when necessary.  

Oh - its Salters btw.

>You cannot compare human diets to a dog's diet.   Some people feed their dogs the same thing, every day, for years. (I don't think the NHS would recommend that for people, do you?)

You miss the point I was making. If cheap food is fine for humans, then cheap ingredients should be fine for dog food. The difference between human & dog diets is that humans should eat a variety of foods so as to ensure they are eating the 'complete' range of nutrients, a dogs diet is allready complete (if feeding a 'complete' food).
A complete food would not work for humans becasue we enjoy the variety of colours, textures & flavours not because of any dietry reason but for dogs, food is food.

> We always hear people that said they fed their dogs cheap foods and they never visited the vet and lived to a great old age.  Wonderful........ What does it prove?  Nothing

That's a good point! If a dog lives a long and healthy life on a cheap diet, but the fact it's on a cheap diet proves nothing, then surely dogs that live a long & healthy life on an expensive diet does not prove that it's the diet that contributed.

Maybe some dogs will live long & healthy lifes regardless of what we feed them, and others need all the nutritional help we can give them?

In any case, I think people who do feed thier healthy dog(s) on a cheap diet, should not be made to feel like they are 'clueless', or doing wrong by thier dog(s).

>> We always hear people that said they fed their dogs cheap foods and they never visited the vet and lived to a great old age.  Wonderful........ What does it prove? Nothing
>If a dog lives a long and healthy life on a cheap diet, but the fact it's on a cheap diet proves nothing, then surely dogs that live a long & healthy life on an expensive diet does not prove that it's the diet that contributed.

Excellent point. It works both ways!

>> Oh - its Salters btw.

I feed my staffy salters and am very happy with it but like yourself had never heard of it.  I was recommended it alongwith a spray to deal with my dog's reoccurring interdigital cysts.  I changed from Burns to salters and what a difference - no more cysts!  I had a query about the ingredients so phoned Stephen Salter to quiz him about them and was really happy with the response.

I buy it direct from Salters but have to buy 3X bags at a time to qualify for free delivery and it makes me wince every time to spend £120 on dog food but the pup is on orijen and the price is similar.  Ouch!

"A complete food would not work for humans becasue we enjoy the variety of colours, textures & flavours not because of any dietry reason but for dogs, food is food.

Hmmm.  Based on the number of people who have fussy dogs, I expect many would disagree that "food is food".  My two will eat just about anything, and then some.

Your premise is based on the assumption that a "complete" food is perfect from a nutrional standpoint.  Even for people who choose to feed only complete dog foods many experts recommend switching between brands, soley to be extra certain that the dog is getting everything it needs nutrionally.

Agree that some dogs are genetically programmed to live long healthy lives - whether they are fed rubbish or the most expensive food available. 

I think that people who think it is okay to feed their dogs the cheapest food available - and nothing else - are doing something wrong.   If people are going through hard times and have no option, that's another situation entirely.  If they supplement with human leftovers, that's a plus.  However, if out of choice people choose to give their dogs the cheapest food they can find and nothing else I think it speaks to their general attitude toward that dog - do the minimum possible. 

As i've said before i feed my dogs on a supermarket brand but not the cheapest one and all three of my dogs look great on it. don't know about the economy food but the one i use works for me and saves a lot of money.
i did however feed all three the breeders recommended food for the first 6 months then over a couple of weeks swapped over.

I said - "A complete food would not work for humans becasue we enjoy the variety of colours, textures & flavours not because of any dietry reason but for dogs, food is food.

You said - Hmmm.  Based on the number of people who have fussy dogs, I expect many would disagree that "food is food".  My two will eat just about anything, and then some.

I know there are fussy dogs, just as there are also people that would happily eat a complete food instead of a varied diet,(my OH would love to be able to eat 1 little tablet that contained all the nutrition he needed, instead of meals as he finds eating so boring), I just didn't see the point in going into all the exceptions to the statement as in general dogs are not fussy and people prefer variety.

>However, if out of choice people choose to give their dogs the cheapest food they can find and nothing else I think it speaks to their general attitude toward that dog - do the minimum possible.

Even if a person has plenty of money & could afford to buy the most expensive food, but buys the cheapest, yet thier dogs are fit & healthy then what is wrong with that?

Just a thought.
Human used to eat the same thing pr day.
Ie Monday - tripe
Tuesday - beef
Wednesday - fish
etc etc etc
Well isnt that the same as dogs???
My dad ate the same thing week in week out for 20 year.
It wa only when he met my mum that he changed his eating habits.
They have been married 36 years this year and it is only in the last 2 years he has started to eat garluic!!!!!!( I have MAJOR problems with this as I love garlic, and work with him every day!!!!) sio it snt as if she changed his eting habots over night
But he is healthier thann most 60 year olds.I can see him working for another 10 years as at his health check a few weeks ago he was given the ckean bill of health  abd told that she wishes all her oatients even younger were as healthy as him!!!!.
He lift more than I can and ~I can kift over 50kg!!!!!
So isnt it the same with dogs???#
Unfortunatly, unlike humans, they cant tell us what they feel. so for one, like my dad, theyu can eat the same day in day out, and not eat a varied diet and still be healthy whe  people his age are dropping down dead. Or they can d the same and drop down dead a quater of their life time before they odo???
IU would like to know if anyone has done an IN DEPTH study of what brand we feed dogs and how lng they live for before making any genuine analasis!!!!!!!
Alo what alargies they have??????
If anyoe has that report then pleae link it here :) :) :)
Sorry for spelling (key board is ***** LOL()
Lea :) :)

Lea,

But what you've just described is a varied diet, you dad may have be very regimented about which foods he ate on which day of the week .. but he didn't eat the same thing every day.  Garlic?  Very bold.  LOL

Agree though that there are multiple factors which determine how healthy we are - some of us seem to get away with anything - and others that live a healthy lifestyle are cursed with bad health.   I expect it works the same with every living creature.  All we can do is do the best for ourselves .. and our dogs.

Mastifflover,

Clearly we are not going to agree.  The cheapest food uses the cheapest ingredients and the cheapest ingredients will in most cases be the least digestible and the least nutritious.  Again, I am not talking about Aims or any of the mulitcoloured Purina brands or the like.  Although I might choose not to feed them to my dogs, I don't think they are going to do the typical dog any harm.

By cheap,  I mean the "no name" bottom-of-the-barrel stuff - the £1.46 for a large sack that original poster mentioned.  If you think a food selling for £1.46 is of the same quality and nutrional value as a food selling for more than 20-30x that amount (again, refer to original post); then 99.9% you must think most of us are real dopes for paying any more.

Cairnmania,
I do agree that we're not goignt to agree :)

>and the cheapest ingredients will in most cases be the least digestible and the least nutritious.

or the least value to the human food chain which, largely based on looks, not nutrition. (chicken feet are happily eaten by other cultures, yet I've never seen one for sale in a supermarket).

I allready said early in thread that I'm not disputing differences in quality of ingredients between food, I'm merely defending those who feed cheap food to thier healthy dogs. I think it's unfair that people feeding cheap food should be made out to be cluelss, selfish or careless if thier dogs are doing well on the food.

I feed Beta, which is not on everybodys 'wish lish' LOL, but I can respect the differences in choices people feed either side of the spectrum - the expensive food and the cheapest.

I really think the most important part of feeding our dogs, is how they are with the food, in body condition & health, if people can attain that on the cheap food - good on 'em! If people don't even want to try the cheap food and thier dogs do well on expensive food - good on 'em :)

Our dogs are all individuals and should be fed that way, what suits one will not suit the other and this applies to quality of ingredients as well as different brands, some dogs don't appear do well on the expensive foods, it doesn't mean the expensive food is bad, just not suitable for that dog & vice-versa :)

Don't you think tho it's more about the dog than the food, for tummy upsets etc?

I have three dogs,

One will have tummy upsets if you give her any meat.

One can eat absolutley anything and be completely fine, and I mean ANYTHING.

One I guess is in the middle between the two dogs.

All are the same breed, all are fed on the same food.

Some of the dogs I know in the best condition living to the longest ages are fed on the worst foods.

To me it makes sense dogs should be fed on diffrent foods very regularly since you cannot get the same nutiriton from chicken than you do lamb etc.

>It just made me think that  the supermarket must be making a profit to sell it at that price so how much profit >are the more expensive companies making or are they're ingredients so much more expensive?

One thing that has not been mentioned so far is the proportion of the price of a bag of dog food that is caused by advertising, fancy packaging and profit margins.    

Given that not all expensive foods have any better ingredients/nutrition than cheaper brands, we only have to look at the TV and Dog magazines to see that many Dog food companies spend huge sums of money on advertising/branding etc. in addition many dog food companies are now owned by large conglomerates who have to satisfy their share holders.  It's hardly surprising then that the foods produced by these 'multi companies' are expensive given the ingredients when compared to dog food manufacturers whose main business is to produce dog food and are willing to take a smaller profit margin and don't spend on advertising, branding and fancy packaging. 

So the own brand food in the supermarket may be very cheap to buy, but I doubt it will have worse ingredients than the better known brands in the supermarket despite being much cheaper ;) 

Similarly, foods produced by smaller/lesser known Dog Food manufacturers could be just as good as more expensive brands since they spend little on packaging/advertising compared with their more expensive rivals ;)

One thing to be borne in mind about the "expensive" branded foods.

When I worked for a tea-trader blender, the cheapest teas were purchased by all the leading brands of the day - typhoo, pg-tips, etc etc who would pay a lot less than tea blenders who would blend teas for the leading supermarkets, etc.   The market leanders attained their market placing by advertising/branding.    The actual cost of the content of tea in these teabags would cost less than the cost of the paper for the teabags!!!.    This was 30 years ago - but I've no doubt that marketing costs/advertising will still contribute to more than 50% of the actual cost of the contents of the food.

I'm far happier to purchase a food that is not advertised nationally but is recommended by other owners/breeders than I would be to purchase a brand leader.

I would just like to stick my oar in into this debate! regarding the fact that in the 'old days' dogs regularly lived till x years old and led healthy lives.
I'd love to ring up pedigree and ask them what they put in their canned food 20 years ago, but i've got the feeling that they won't be very forthcoming. It was more than likely offal. I don't want to go down the whole barf/ kibble arguement, I personally sit in the middle, as i feed a grain free kibble. But the fact is that you can in no way compare the way that dogs used to be fed and how they are now. Not only will anyone be able to find what was in the food ( unless we have some ex-manufactuers on the forum), but the advancement in both nutrition and medicine has been massive over the past years. Its the same with humans - people ask where are all these diseases coming from? but chances are they have been here all along but not diagnosed. IMO all dogs are different just like us and some will do better on some foods than others, if you have made an informed choice on the way and type of food you feed, then you can feel that you are doing best you can for you dog

By way of advancing the discussion, a good quality natural dog food costs  somewhere around £8-10/15kg to make if you're having it made for you by a co-packer (like many of the brands out there that aren't owned by Pedigree or Mars).

Obviously there are overheads by the time it goes through wholesalers and retailers who want their cut, and there's advertising/sponsorships/transport and staff costs - but I do think it's a bit rich when these companies sell direct to the end user (by-passing their pet shop stockists) and still charge £40+.......... that's a BIG profit!

Companies like Pets at Home can charge less for their foods because they are the brand owner and the retailer (no chain in the middle)

:¬)