We have been asked to stock Burns in our shop and so we saw the rep very helpful and stocked up on the food.
Pet food manafacturers have to list their ingredients in decending order , what the first ingredient is on the packet is the highest in quantity ie if it states oats first then chicken there are more oats than chicken and so on an so forth.
I was very supprised to find that their range of lamb/chicken and maize product was 70% min maize and only 20% chicken/lamb meal , same with their rice foods rice first then meat.
The only food i find with meat first is pro plan and arden grange.
Be interesting to see what other people have on the foods that they use.

Peanuts

Burns is marketed as being very high in carbohydrates... which it appears does suit some dogs, hence the high content of oats, rice or maize. Whatever you think about that content, it's indisputable that many dogs do well on it. I don't choose to feed it, but that's my choice and for the price (and lack of availability in my area) I can find something equivalent or better, which includes Arden Grange, CSJ or raw.

I think that some of the carbs in Burns pass through the dog anyway. I recall a friend telling me that she visited relatives with her dog and ran out of her usual food so bought some Burns. There was a bit of a problem with wild rats in the area at the time and she was disgusted to see the rats snacking happily on the dog poo in the garden! (Sorry if you were eating, there!). Next time she went her dog was being fed raw and although the rats were still about, they had no interest in her dog's by-products. If I want to bulk up my dog's food I will add raw carrots or veg; why I would buy a dog food at that price full of carbs that appear to pass straight through? But then I have researched diet probably a lot more than most pet dog owners and as I said before, Burns really does suit many dogs.

I queried that same question with the maker of Salters dog food that one of my dogs is on.  The owner/producer told me that chicken wasn't at the top of the ingredients list because he had 3 sources of chicken in the food and each of these was counted seperately e.g. chicken meat, chicken meal and dried chicken for example (as I don't have a bag to hand to check).

CSJ lists meat as first ingredient. I feed CSJ and raw to my large dogs, Nature Diet to my toydogs.

> CSJ lists meat as first ingredient. I feed CSJ and raw to my large dogs, Nature Diet to my toydogs.

CSJ is an excellent food. I'm proud to say mine has been on it for most of his life and I have no complaints whatsoever. I did my research before I even got him as a pup and worked it out - CSJ's customer service is also second-to-none. Other people cannot believe I can feed a 26kg dog for under £2.50 a week with such condition & fitness. If I was able to feed raw I would - but for me it's not practical at the moment. But if I could I would do mainly raw and have CSJ as a back-up, and I'd never change.

I prefer the foods like AG and Proplan that list the minimum amount of meat, about 26 - 30% for their adult ranges of meat meal.

It is easy to make meat appear to be a larger ingredient by ingredient splitting.

For example a food could have meat as the first ingredient and it still be less than the food as above that gives the percentage of meat.

As an example a food could be just 15% meat meal but it be the largest ingredient with say 10% Oats, 10% Wheat, 10% Beat pulp, 10% Rice, 10% maize, 5% Vegetables (that's already 70%) and other ingredients making up the rest.

I looked at a dry food in Lidl's.  It showed the nutreitn percentages as similar to AG and Proplan with 26% protein etc.  I looked at the ingredient list, the meat content was only guaranteed as 4%!!!

My two boys are on arden grange and my girlie is on orijen.  I have used burns in the past and had to use it at christmas as I hadnt been able to order any of our usual food in but I hat the high amount of rice in it and I believe that a common complaint is the lack of oil in it and dogs losing weight on it.

Its worth remembering that the quality of the meat that is included in the percentages can very considerably.  For example, a manufacturer can put 25% chicken, which could consist of chicken skin, feet and even feathers! That's still classed as chicken!
My concern with complete food is you can't actually see whats in those little brown kibble biscuits.  I did feel slightly more reassured when looking at Arden Grange a few years back when it said it was fit for human consumption - don't know if that is still the case now tho. I know feeding raw isnt for eveyone but at least you can be assured of what it is you are actually feeding your dogs without any doubts of whats hidden inside the kibble.

> Its worth remembering that the quality of the meat that is included in the percentages can very considerably.  For example, a manufacturer can put 25% chicken, which could consist of chicken skin, feet and even feathers! That's still classed as chicken!

-------

> I know feeding raw isnt for eveyone but at least you can be assured of what it is you are actually feeding your dogs without any doubts of whats hidden inside the kibble.

I'm sure if you gave a dog a whole raw chicken, the feathers, feet and even the beak will be processed into dog food ;)

>I'm sure if you gave a dog a whole raw chicken, the feathers, feet and even the beak will be processed into dog food

Yep! Not a scrap will be left - it's all valuable nourishment.

Apart from that, chicken feet are a delicacy in certain cultures, so to suggest that they're not fit to eat is amazingly unaware.

Not atall, if your dog food contained feathers (on the bag it said chicken) would you be happy with that?? I know I wouldnt be. I have fed my dogs rabbit, the whole thing, very happy for them to eat the fur and everything same with a whole chicken, my point was that their description can be misleading.

Yep! Not a scrap will be left - it's all valuable nourishment.

And regardless of what part, it's still chicken -not crocodile or anything else. :)

chicken feet are a delicacy in certain cultures

For people!

>For people!

Exactly! It proves there's nothing wrong with chicken feet as a food source. We tend to be shockingly wasteful in our rich western culture. If we're too squeamish to eat various parts of an animal there's no reason to deny it to our dogs, who have no such qualms. Much better that they should be put into dog food than destroyed.

That doesnt prove anything, after all, grapes, mushrooms and onions are good for people, but dangerous to dogs. We should keep in mind that what may be good for us doesnt mean its good for our dogs!
Think we have to agree to disagree on this one, otherwise we could go on and on! :-)

All parts of a chicken are made of chicken. Some is muscle meat, some is organ meat, some is feathers (excellent roughage and vital for the digestive system), some is bone for calcium ... Muscle meat, with or without bone, is an unbalanced diet. The other body parts are vital.

You can buy dried chicken feet bagged up as treats for dogs. I found this out from the yahoo orthodogs group when my dog was having leg troubles. Chicken feet are a brilliant source of either glucosamine or chondroitin (can never remember which!). Yum :-P

All parts of a chicken are made of chicken. Some is muscle meat, some is organ meat, some is feathers (excellent roughage and vital for the digestive system), some is bone for calcium ... Muscle meat, with or without bone, is an unbalanced diet. The other body parts are vital.


I agree..............but how do you know how much of each is in your dog food? If it were all feathers would you be happy with that? Maybe food manufacturers should put more info on their bags then people can decide?

That is why I have always thought it was a waste of money.. a bag of rice :-)

I use the pork and potato Burns, with a bit of raw mince/tripe or tinned fish mixed in. I don't think I would use any of the other varieties due to the low meat content, but I think this one is acceptable. The fat content is a bit low for my liking but as I add extras and use a lot of lamb heart and cheese for treats I don't worry about it too much.

Potato (min 35%), Pork Meat Meal (min 29%), Maize, Peas, Pork Fat, Seaweed, Vitamins and Minerals

> that the quality of the meat that is included in the percentages can very considerably.  For example, a manufacturer can put 25% chicken, which could consist of chicken skin, feet and even feathers! That's still classed as chicken!
>

If it is chicken 'meat meal' then it won't be just rubbish.

>how do you know how much of each is in your dog food? If it were all feathers would you be happy with that?

To be honest I'd consider it unethical if pet food contained a significant amount of meat that, culturally, humans would be happy to eat. Considering the sort of things dogs choose to eat when out on a walk, pet food is the ideal place to use the parts of animals that we choose not to eat (feet, feathers, ears, hooves etc) - far healthier than the manky rotten carcasses that they find so desirable!

don't forget the cat/horse/cow/sheep/goat/fox poo   - all delicacies for some dogs ;)

Yes, but if thats all they ate they would suffer considerably health wise. My moto is you are what you eat.  Its a choice we all have as to what we feed our family, dogs, other pets etc.  I like the fact that we have so much choice these days.

don't forget the cat/horse/cow/sheep/goat/fox poo   - all delicacies for some dogs ;-)

The few time any of mine have taken a fancy to any of these, they have come home and thrown it up - horrible smell to it, hardly suprising it comes back up!

> don't forget the cat/horse/cow/sheep/goat/fox poo   - all delicacies for some dogs ;-)

If it wasn't tea-time I'd mention what the dogs in developing countries survive on.
Ooops...

If it wasn't tea-time I'd mention what the dogs in developing countries survive on.
Ooops...

Survive or thrive? But I get what you are saying. :-)

>If it wasn't tea-time I'd mention what the dogs in developing countries survive on.

That's one of the reasons why they were domesticated in the first place - they kept the area of the human settlement clean. A great advantage in the days before sanitation ...

> Survive or thrive? But I get what you are saying. :-)

*nod nod* and not only that too, on my first visit to the Tropics I saw all the pariah dogs which were everywhere, yet was puzzled why there's less poo on the streets than there is on my pavement at home...

The only dogs I have seen that lived off nothing and fended for themselves was in Sri Lanka, skinny, mange infested and in terrible health, eating whatever they could find I suppose - very upsetting. :-(