What it says in the title really, I don't particularly believe in puppy or junior versions of food, and have yet to be convinced that they are anything but pure commercialism.  And in some cases, having looked at different brands, have found that puppy versions are just milled into different (usually smaller) shapes, but are pretty much the same or in some cases exactly the same ingredients, and much more expensive than the adult varieties.  I also believe in allowing dogs to mature slowly, it's taken three years for my bitch (Labrador) to really mature, and she's only just within the last six months looked adult, instead of gangly teenager.  So what's your thoughts?  Do you think that the foods for different stages do have a place in feeding regimes?  Have you got a niggling doubting question at the back of your mind asking why they're on the shelves and more expensive, or do you just accept what the various companies tell you that they are the best option for your pup/dog?  I would be really interested in hearing people's views, particularly from those who remember the days before all these various foods were available, and whether you think they've benefited dogs in any way, or created faddy eaters, etc. 

I'm with you, I think it's just a marketing ploy. In most foods the only difference is a higher fat content, and even that is by 0.5%, hardly very different is it?

Of course the vets would have new puppy owners believe otherwise and the vet nurse was pushing a particular brand that they stocked at the puppy socialising class.

I pondered this question many times when my little dog regularly turned up her nose at puppy food, yet was more than willing to eat the adult version of the same brand.  I kept asking myself - surely dogs grew up and had a normal life expectancy before puppy food existed didn't they??

When Sadie my elderly lab was youngster she was on the go only slept for short periods she was so funny she used to stand at the bottom of the bed at 530am barking in a very cheeky way for her breakfast,I took her to the vet due to her hardly sleeping,he told me she was having to much protein, I was amazed when I had a look at other makes the difference in the protein levels.as of course to much protein was making her hypoactive

Sheila

> And in some cases, having looked at different brands, have found that puppy versions are just milled into different (usually smaller) shapes, but are pretty much the same or in some cases exactly the same ingredients,

Which ones are the same?

Puppy food generally has a higher protien content and a slightly altered calcium:phosporous ratio (for skeletal growth).
Puppy food also generally has a higher content of vitamins than the adult versions.

I think the breed of the dog plays a great role in wheather puppy food should be considered or not. The smaller the dog, the less food is can eat in one sitting so the more 'rich' that food needs to be to sustain the dogs growth rate. At the other end of the scale, many people belive that too high a protein intake in a growing giant pup can cause problems (it did in my dog, mostly rectified when switched to an adult food with much less protein) .

I would not use a puppy food for a giant breed again, but would use one for a much smaller dog.

From memory (and I apologise if I've got this wrong because I've got a terrible memory) it was Skinners that has exactly the same ingredients but is milled differently.  I can't remember the ones that are similar, but there are a lot as you say, that have slightly altered ingredients, but really aren't all that different.  I actually raw feed, but if I do ever get round to breeding, if I ever get the time, I wouldn't, given my current knowledge, wean pups onto puppy food, but a good quality adult food.  Hence the question. 

I had a friend with GSDs some years ago, and one of his pups had awful problems because her bones grew too quickly, and that was down to a high protein puppy food according to the vet. 

particularly from those who remember the days before all these various foods were available, and whether you think they've benefited dogs in any way, or created faddy eaters, etc. 

I do remember those days a tin of dog food was a tin of dog food. :-)

What we do have today though is a lot of science behind everything, we didn't have that way back. Baby animals need things that adults don't need, extra vits, fats, calcium etc, senior animals again may need slight adjustments, as we age we change our diets when we're older certain foods our bodies can no longer take and we supplement for things our bodies no longer make enough of, it is the same with animals.

When we have a pregnant and lactating bitch we put them on puppy food, because it has extra vitamins and calcium in it.

So yes, these food tiers of puppy, adult and senior do benefit a large majority of dogs, everything is carefully balanced to accomodate the 'normal' body changes throughout age.

It's just that we know more now. :-)

Of course if it is not on offer the body will try to compensate some will do it with ease, some will have health problems caused by lack of vits and calcium, proteins etc.  Dog food manufactures try to give that healthy diet when required to help ease these problems if they are to show themselves in some dogs, as the saying goes prevention is better than cure.

But do we change our diet as we age?  I haven't, my diet hasn't changed since I was a child, and I don't think it will change any at all as I get older.  I eat good fresh foods and vary my diet, I love things like fresh fish, and cook most of my own meals from scratch. 

With dogs, I know they're domesticated etc, but they managed perfectly well without these stage in life foods before they came along, and I struggle, really struggle to think that they are of any value, except to convince us that we're doing the best for our dogs.  I know what you're saying about science, but science has changed it's mind so often, one minute red wine is good, one minute it isn't, what the heck, I'll take my chances and go with it's good for me, lol! 

As I raw feed, if I ever get round to breeding, then I'll be upping the portions for Tau accordingly, and any pup(s) I keep will be weaned onto raw, but any that go to new homes where they want to feed a complete, I can't see the point of using a puppy or junior, particularly for up to 18 months as some of them recommend.  I dunno, I think it's difficult to separate the science from the commercialism, because most of the research is obviously done by the food companies.  Hmmmm, goes off to ponder and possibly get a nice cold beer out of the fridge.......

>But do we change our diet as we age?

Yes - elderly people have different dietary needs to those younger and fitter. Ageing organs would otherwise get put under unnecessary strain. Babies and toddlers also need a different balance of nutrients to older children, and they in turn have different requirements to adults.

Ok, how do they need different foods?  I'm not trying to be obtuse, but genuinely curious, perhaps I'm from the wrong generation but I ate the same food as my parents when I was younger, obviously when very young it was mashed up or cut into small bits for me.  And my parents, now they're older, haven't changed their diet either, except my mother's a hypochondriac and self diagnosed herself with every food allergy under the sun and now takes any multivits she can get her hands on, hasn't altered her health one bit I might add.  I'm struggling to think how an older person's diet changes, the only real change I can think of was with my Nan, who had to eat soft foods only, as her false teeth didn't fit, and so she had to gum everything to death to swallow it. 

And, if that's the case, and I'm just thinking on my feet here, why don't we see different age range foods, obviously we have baby foods, but a lot of people cook their own and blend it, there's not really any difference there.  But we don't see age range foods for 4-6 year olds, 6-10 year olds etc, unless you're posh and shop at Sainsbury's for their Blue Parrot range.  And other than the strawberry cream tart aisle (which always attracts the oldies) why isn't there a senior range of food, mind you, on pension day you wouldn't be able to get your trolley down the aisle!

I think we don't digest food as well as we get older, so it's important we get as fresh as possible a source of food, but does it change that drastically that we need different ranges of food for different age groups, or should we be able to gain the nutrients our body needs from a good food source?  And if that's the case for us, why isn't it the same for our dogs??

Hmmm.... off to go sit in the sunshine again with my beer and do some more pondering....

> Hmmm.... off to go sit in the sunshine again with my beer and do some more pondering....

LOL, beer, that's a diet change that comes with age :-D

Like you SleepingLion, I ate what my parents ate as a child, smaller portions and mashed up, but the same food nevertheless. As an adult I now eat the same foods as my elderly mother but she has smaller portions.

I recently lost Charlie, at 17+, and he was fed the same diet as my 2 year old. As he wasn't as active he was fed less, but it was the same food. The other 4 dogs, ranging from 5-10, again get the same, it's only the quantity that alters. They are mainly raw fed, including bones (lamb ribs), with a handful of high meat content complete.

As an example - babies and toddlers should only be given full-fat milk and not semi-skimmed or (worse) skimmed milk. Also remember that blood pressure tends to rise naturally with age, and so the elderly should be even more careful to avoid foods which would encourage this further. Kidneys also become less efficient and so care should be taken that the diet is such that they can still function.

Ok, milk I'm not sure is a good example, as really the best milk is breast milk, which hopefully no one would think to semi skim or skim.  And goat's milk is a much better alternative in any case, which I actually do give to my dogs, full fat of course.  But, I still don't see how you can't obtain the nutrients you need from a wide and varied diet.  Or, are the dog food companies, shooting themselves in the foot by saying that their food isn't really that good nutritionally, so you have to supplement pups and seniors??  I can't think that dogs are living longer healthier lives than they used to when fed on scraps, lots of things have changed, people tend to take pets to see a vet probably more than they would do, and vets are diagnosing more illnesses, but I can't think that these foods have made much more healthy robust dogs for us today?  Thanks for the input so far, interesting debate :o)

When my children were babies none of their food had salt added to it but as they got older they ate exactly the same as we did.

In my vet's waiting room there is a stand of free samples for food - can't remember the brand - and they were breed specific which I did think was very OTT. I can understand a different food for dogs such as dalmatians who can suffer from stones or for dogs in general that have food allergies but not different food for different breeds. My dogs are raw fed anyway but if I had to switch to kibble fed I wouldn't be looking at a food for their specific breeds - and it would be very difficult to work out which one was aimed at my mongrel :-)

I am sure when you were a child you did not eat the smae as yoru parents, you were given more milk for example, lighter but more nturitious food.  You probably ate more often than an adult, and poind for pound more food.

Honestly, I did eat exactly the same as my parents, we all sat down at the table and had a meal together, the same food, different sized portions.  I wasn't given much milk, maybe a glass at suppertime, corporation pop was cheaper ;o)  Mind you, I am only 5' 3 1/2", perhaps I should have been given more milk!!!  My mother made baby food, it just wasn't available then as it is today, particularly as we lived abroad until I was ten, and she added salt, a huge no no nowadays, although to be fair, she didn't add much.  I probably did eat more often than as an adult, but it was always things like fruit or perhaps boiled egg and soldiers, or even bread and jam.  I remember living in Cyprus as a young girl, and the vegetable delivery man always used to give me a cucumber, that was a treat!  We couldn't afford the ice cream van!!  I know I wouldn't eat boiled potatoes till I was eight years old, and I still won't eat offal, but I always was a fussy eater, according to my mother. 

Dogs in the wild don't get differing diets. Pups would get milk early on then whatever their mother has eaten, but regurgitated.

I agree with Harley, these breed specific diets are OTT and a complete scam IMO. Why would a Labrador need a different diet to a Golden Retriever for example?

As the cubs would be allowed to eat first they would get the best and most nutritious parts of any kill, and also the fact the food is regurgitated it will have enzymes to make it easier to digest.

Pups don't go to kills, adults take back food and regurgitate them, which, I suddenly realised, whilst eating a bacon buttie for my tea, isn't really much of an appetising prospect.  But, aside from the added bile, there is no difference whatsoever to their diet, and, in actual fact, it's usually the 'baby sitters' so those who don't get to eat first at a kill, that regurgitate food for pups.  Not those who get the prime bits. 

Gimmick - also seems to make pups grow bigger than they really ought to though some would say thats a good thing, I personally dont think it is.

Once weaned human children don't need anything different to adult humans - there are things adult humans hae that children SHOULDNT but these are bonkers ideas humans came up with such as skimmed milk (milk actually already IS a low fat food!), and indeed drinking the milk of another species.. something a huge number of people have ill effects from anyway.

IS there any other species where weaned youngsters eat a different (asides from different in texture..) diet to the adults?

I can't think of one..

But, I still don't see how you can't obtain the nutrients you need from a wide and varied diet.

Of course you can obtain the nutrients this way and we and our dogs do. :-) However, the problem is the body changes for various and many reasons throughout our lives and even humans and dogs eating a very nutritious diet will find that their body needs even more or sometimes makes too much of, due to certain hormones needing a change in vitamins, proteins, minerals, iron etc, the young need extra for growth, menopausal, elderly for hormone deficiencies (iron, calcium etc) the way the body processes everything changes. Why do you think our shelves are full of tablets vits, cod liver oil, calcium, iron, the list goes on for us because it is a fact our bodies need more than foods often give at certain periods of our life, we need a top up too. Lack of calcium alone has a dire effect on ours and a dogs body.

You have a choice as always, dog food nutritionists have taken years to test and assess what extra is needed in dog foods to give the best diet possible for all the changes bodies make.

However, some I agree put the extra and correct vits, calcium, iron etc in a food, but then skimp on the actual meat content and add other contents instead, so in effect they are not actually topping up requirements at all, not all dog foods are good, you have to read the labels but the concept of puppy, adult, senior is a very good thing.

BARF diets and others are good enough, but throughout a dogs life a vet will spot when a dog needs extra things to keep it healthy and will prescribe them, dog food manufacturers just try to do that for you. :-)

Completely agree with you theemx, having bred tropical fish (for my sins) and budgerigars, none of those species need different nutritional requirements as youngsters, just smaller bits to swallow and a bit of help swallowing them.  The only thing I can think of slightly different with fish, is that some fish (cichlids) produce a mucus for the fry to feed on, the adults exude it through their skin, and the fry graze along the flanks. 

Do we change that dramatically?  Once we've got all our organs and faculties (well some of us perhaps never get that bit) in place, we're ready to enter this world, and we've been weaned, aren't we ready for what life throws our way? 

I think I look at it from a possibly old fashioned point of view, we've survived this long, dogs have survived this long, on the food we/they eat, so why try and fix a problem that didn't exist, really??  Or maybe that's too simplistic a view.  I am a confirmed cynic, and I'm afraid I don't subscribe to the nutritional experts who decide what's best for our dogs, after all, they also sell us what's best for our dogs.  And, owning one of the most popular breeds there is, actually the most popular breed there is, is it any coincidence that there are ranges of food aimed specifically at them??  Off to go take my cynic hat off, I think I'm getting a bald patch....

At that stage they will still be reliant on Mum, but older pups will be allowed first at kills.

>we've survived this long, dogs have survived this long, on the food we/they eat, so why try and fix a problem that didn't exist, really??

Do we know that there wasn't a problem? There are the many dog feeding evangelists on this and other fora who will assure you that your dog might seem outwardly and behaviourally healthy on what you feed it, but is surviving rather than thriving. (Then they come in with the guilt trip ;-)) I admit I don't personally buy into this, and I don't think that labradors need a different diet to a poodle, for example, but I do believe that a young growing body needs a different nutritional balance to an adult maintenance diet, and yet again some slight changes for the ageing body. We want our dogs to live far longer, healthier lives than they would 'in the wild', where once they've reproduced Nature considers them to be, by and large, dispensible.

Actually, that's not entirely true, there are a lot of myths surrounding kills.  It depends entirely on the availability of food, if there is a lot to go around, it might be that the dominant pair ensure their young feed well at a kill, although not necessarily first just that they get a place; if there isn't much food, the survival of the adults, to possibly help breed again when there is more abundant food, is more important and pups will starve.  But even so, their food is no different at all to the adults, they eat what they can get, they don't pick and choose which bit to eat, it's where you get into the carcass first and what you can get before someone else eats it. 

Having watched lions first hand at a kill, I can assure you, there's no decorum in feeding, it's strongest first; and lions often steal hyena kills, many think it's the other way around, but lions are very much scavengers and opportunistic feeders when it suits them.  I was also lucky enough to see a pack of African Wild Dogs having just eaten, relaxing in a puddle, I so wish I'd actually seen the kill, they are amazing animals!!  

>their food is no different at all to the adults, they eat what they can get, they don't pick and choose which bit to eat

Which could be why they're one of the many species where few of the young make it to adulthood ...

Damn, cross posted, apols as I'm not used to this forum yet.

Unfortunately, I don't think we'll know if our dogs are surviving or thriving, until we can possibly compare several generations?  I do know, having rescued a couple of oldies, both really weren't interested in commercial dog foods, and believe me I did try them because I didn't want to change their diet.  Both (rescued at different times) were eventually swapped onto raw, and did really well on it, the first was given six weeks to live because of cancer, and lasted seven months.  The second, of indeterminate age but well over 10, was handed in to a rescue to be pts, she lasted 18 months before she finally started to go downhill.  Now I'm certainly not saying everybody swap to raw, but I'm not convinced a senior complete would have helped them any more??  I think we all feed what we think is best, but I think a lot of people just read the label and go with their conscienced, rather than really read into it a bit more.

Damn, cross posted again - it could also be because they are one of the most persecuted species on the planet?  Their environment has altered inexorably, including vet fencing and the wonderful introduction of rabies. 

One of my breeds is very small, and I would never give them an adult food as youngsters.  Preferring the higher protein and nutrient content of puppy food.

 

OK let's look at the differences then. Is there such a vast difference that a puppy or senior wouldn't do equally well on the adult food? A couple of their other varieties are marketed as "All Life Stages" (and so was the Adult until recently) so what makes them suitable? As long as the food is a good quality food in the first place I don't think it's necessary to swap to a puppy version no matter what size the dog.

PUPPY
Protein 40%
Fat 20%
Fibre 3%
Moisture 10%
Calcium 1.6%/1.8%
Phosphorous 1.2%/1.4%
Omega 6 3.2%
Omega 3 1.2%
DHA 0.7%
EPA 0.4%
Carbohydrate 18%
Glucosamine 1400 mg/kg
Chondroitin 1200 mg/kg
Microorganisms 120 M cfu/kg

ADULT
Protein 40%
Fat 16%
Fibre 2.5%
Moisture 10%
Calcium 1.5%/1.7%
Phosphorous 1.2%/1.4%
Omega 6 3.0%
Omega 3 1.0%
DHA 0.6%
EPA 0.3%
Carbohydrate 20%
Glucosamine 1200 mg/kg
Chondroitin 900 mg/kg
Microorganisms 120 M cfu/kg

SENIOR
Protein 40%
Fat 15%
Fibre 6.0%
Moisture 10%
Calcium 1.6%/1.8%
Phosphorous 1.1%/1.3%
Omega 6 2.5%
Omega 3 1.0%
DHA 0.6%
EPA 0.3%
Carbohydrate 20%
Glucosamine 1400 mg/kg
Chondroitin 1200 mg/kg
Microorganisms 120 M cfu/kg

All have a pH of 5.

Pedlee from your notes:

Senior: is low fat, high fibre - makes sense.  Puppy: is high fat, low fibre - also seems sensible.  Puppy and Senior also have slightly higher calcium, again what one would probably expect.  Does the kibble also have different sizes too? 

For the average pet owner, choosing food from the supermarket or pet shop - life stage food is a good idea.  For more experienced feeders it may be less important if you also make other adjustments.  I'm not sure that companies can really justify the price difference however...

But in the great scheme of things there isn't THAT much difference. The calcium difference is 0.1%, hardly a great difference. The fat difference between adult and senior is 1%, although puppy to adult is 4% (large breed puppy however is the same as adult). Fibre difference between puppy and adult is 0.5% although adult to senior is 3.5%.

The kibble for puppy is very slightly smaller, but the kibble sizes vary anyway.

I'm sure if all ages were fed the "adult" variety, there really wouldn't be much, if any difference in development/condition.

Just a comment on milk! It is a myth that full fat milk has more calcium that skimmed or semi - actually there is more calcium in the Skimmed! its only the fat content that is different. If you dont believe me take a look on your milk carton label.

>It is a myth that full fat milk has more calcium that skimmed or semi - actually there is more calcium in the Skimmed! its only the fat content that is different.

Exactly - and it's the higher fat content that's needed by babies and toddlers for correct growth. If they're given semi-skimmed or skimmed milk they need to drink a much higher quantity to get the calorific value, which means they not only wee a lot more, they also have far too high a ratio of calcium.