Molly is a beardie x rescue dog I have had for a year, and Max is her son, 1st birthday in 9 days time.  Molly weighs 17.5kg and Max 23kg. They were eating Bakers (which they liked) but then I got concerned after reading loads of posts on this forum that long term it wasn't suitable, full of additives and by products so I changed to James Well Beloved, they liked it at first and then feeding became difficult and I started adding things to encourage them to eat it, boiled chicken, sausage, bits of ham. Molly has had a couple of stomach upsets whilst eating it and has had to have courses of antibiotics to clear it up and Max has brought it back undigested a few times.  So again, I thought it wasn't suiting them and changed - took advice from good pet shop and am trying Purina Pro Plus - lamb and rice flavour as they said this would be kindest on Molly's sensitive tum...........but, they aren't really enjoying it.  I've tried it dry and soaked, I'm trying to avoid putting boiled chicken on it as Moll may have an intolerence to poultry.
My question is, will it be Ok to change yet again, and if so, what would you suggest?  I need something I can feed them both, just increase the quantity for Max, not poultry based, additive free, and gentle on the digestion.  Thanks.

I'd go back to the Bakers if it suited them before, why mess around like this?

I absolutely agree with Isabel. Nothing more to be said really. Get down the shops and get Bakers in.

Dawn R.

Thanks, shouldn't I be too concerned about the ingredients in it then? - lots of people on the forum have said it's rubbish!!!!!!!!!!  Got to say though, Molly and Max looked healthy and their poos were regular and normal on it.

No, a handfull of people say it is rubbish :).  On closer examination you will see that many think those views are unfounded.  For instance what exactly does byproducts mean.  Offal?  Dogs love it!  The scraping from the bottom of the tin from a roast dinner?  Dogs love it and we make gray out of it!  Addatives?  What does that mean?  I add carrots and cabbage to my plate to add the vitamins I need, if you are formulating a complete food you are not going to forget to do something similar.  Or do they mean, preservatives?  All preservatives used in the UK are perfectly safe and personally I would not consider using a food that did not contain one of the highly effective preservatives that modern science has given us as vitamins are notoriously short lived and loose their value very easily.  The only thing some dog foods could really do without is colouring as this is totally wasted on the dogs :)  but again perfectly safe unless you are one of the unlucky ones owning one with an intolerance for it but as your dogs were previously well on Bakers that is clearly not the case although it would appear that messing about with their food may have upset their digestions since.  I just hope they settle down again and those that spread these alarmist views will read this, cogitate that their, often strident views, have contributed to two dogs going through painful upsets, requiring treatment with antibiotics! :( and think again.

Totally agree with isabel, if Bakers suited your dogs then stick to it.
If you are, on the other hand, worried about the artificila colourings etc.. then you need to make sure that any change to your dogs feed is introduced gradually over 2-3 weeks to prevent stomach upsets.

Arden grange is a good feed for sensitive tums and my dog loves it, but again, all dogs are different (and all owners opinions on different brands are too) so you really just have to go with what suits your dogs and your budget.

Thanks Isabel and Poopysmum, you have put my mind at rest - off to the shops to get their Bakers.  Molly and Max say a big thankyou too - back to what they like best!

Whoops sorry for the spelling -  Poppysmum, must have poo on the brain!!!!!!!!!!

Personally there's no way I'd put them back on Bakers.  Of course they like it!!!!!  It's like Doggy McDonalds!!!!  It has high amounts of sugar, colours, preservatives, flavourings and who knows what else in it!!!  Just like in the human world, things which taste great often aren't good for you and shouldn't be eaten in high amounts. 

The mistake you made, carol, was to add things to it when they went off it.  You should have just taken it away and re-offered it to them until all was eaten...

McDonalds is not formulated to be eaten as a complete meal, not even they would claim that, so I have no idea why people attempt to compare it .
Sugar is totally harmless, it is not poison.  Too much can cause weight gain and damage teeth but, as I have said, both of these can be easily monitered and changes made if at all necessary.  Flavourings are enjoyable!  Colourings, OK not necessary, but also harmless when no intollerance is present, similarly, the perfectly safe preservatives doing an excellent job maintaining maximum benefits from the vitamins and minerals.
Reading what Carols dogs went through with upset stomachs, antibiotics etc this sort of stuff actually makes me quite angry :(

Actually, McDonalds IS formulated to be a complete meal, which is why a film was recently made called "Super Size Me", in which someone ate McDonalds and nothing else for a month, because it was claimed to be healthy to do so, and subsequent tests found that it greatly affected his health.

Sugar is a highly processed product, unavailable in this processed way in the wild and incomparable to other sugars like fructose, which WOULD be available to a dog in the wild.  ANY sugar damages teeth, it's just a matter of how often it's eaten as to the resulting damage which is done.  Eating it twice a day in a dry food which must be crunched up by the teeth is the most damaging way in which it can be consumed in terms of dental health. 

Flavourings might be enjoyable but they are also artificial and additives and, like all artificial additives, are linked to many diseases and also to hyperactive behaviour.  Colourings and preservatives - the same.  Colourings are added not at all for the dog's benefit, since dogs don't care what colour their food is and are largely colour-blind, but are added for the human consumer only. 

I'm not sure why any of the health problems Carol has experienced can be related to the food.  She doesn't make it clear that the dogs immediately came down with any of these problems, rather that they were problems experienced during the period of time she fed the food.  Well - many other things can cause upset stomachs and cause dogs to require antibiotics besides diet.  It is jumping the gun a bit to assume this was caused by the change of food.  If the dogs just don't like the taste of the food then adding a tablespoon of Natures Menu or Nature Diet usually makes any dog eat any dry food.

McDonalds did not make the film "Super Size Me"  Have you actually seen it?  I could not understand the premis of it at all.  It seemed to be based entirely on the fact that it was suggested at the counter that you might like to size up.  It certainly never demonstrated that McDonalds were suggesting that you ate that everyday!

>ANY sugar damages teeth

That is patently not true :)

>Eating it twice a day in a dry food which must be crunched up by the teeth is the most damaging way in which it can be consumed in terms of dental health. 

You make it sound as though it is a physical process rather than a biochemical one :D

>are linked to many diseases

Not in any thing like the permitted quantities have they ever been linked to disease

> also to hyperactive behaviour

As I have said, only if you are one of the unlucky few with an intolerance which Carols dogs clearly did not have.

I am going to send a link to this thread to Bakers - see if they can't get someone on board to comment on some of these claims :)

I am going to send a link to this thread to Bakers - see if they can get someone on board to comment on some of these claims

Wouldnt that be great :) But i hazard to guess that not even they would be able to justify the contents of their food and that it should be fed everyday ,i seem to remember one of their reps calling bakers their *junk food line* and is only good for supplemental feeding,eg for a treat every now and then,because as we all know junk food should only be eaten in moderation and i believe this food is no different :) I would also LOVE to ask then why they HAVE to put a health warning on their food

What health warning?

Has anyone thought of the simple fact that IF Baker's caused so many problems to all dogs, people would stop buying it? Yet it clearly sells very well in supermarkets. Not all foods suits all dogs, doesn't mean it's bad for all.

No, hyperactivity is not caused by an "intolerance" Isabel...

I didn't say that McDonalds made the film Super Size Me - and yes, I have seen it.  It was not based on the fact that you should size up - it was more about the ingredients in the products and the disregard which the company has for the health of the consumer, putting their own financial gain before the consumer's health (hence asking already obese people if they would like to super size). 

It IS patently true that ANY sugar damages teeth.  Have you never studied the effects of sugar on the enamel of teeth?  The fact that sugar feeds the bacteria in the mouth which in turn produce the tartar which in turn degrades teeth??

It IS a physical process in that the more prolonged the contact of the sugar with teeth, the worse the effect is on the teeth.  Food which goes in the mouth and is swallowed instantly and barely chewed does not have prolonged contact with teeth.  Food which is crunched up and pushed into every crevice in every tooth and particles of which then often sit there until dislodged by chewing is obviously having prolonged contact and a worse effect as a result.  To this end, yes it is a physical process which causes the biochemical one to be worse.

I'm not sure why you would want to consume, knowingly, additives which have in any quantities been linked to disease _when_ there is a choice not to (by feeding a different food, for example). 

I'm not sure that many hyperactivities are down to food anyway, but yes if it is, it's an intollerance because not everyone/dog will suffer it, in fact the majority won't.
Yes I do know how sugar can affect teeth, wasn't sure that you were when you talked in terms of crunching :).  Tartar does not inevitably develop from plaque if the food also has a abrasive effect as most dry completes do or if other means are used to remove it such as bones and anyway, complete foods just don't seem to be pushed up into the crevices it clearly gets washed away with saliva as many of us that feed it keep attesting to but, as I keep saying :), it's the easiest thing in the world to monitor.
By additives I presume you mean preservatives and the reason I want to use them is because they have never caused any harm at the anything approaching the levels permitted but offer huge benefits in terms of preserving the quality of the ingredients.  Why do you use smoked foods when there is Food agency advice to limit them?

We can quite happily go round in circles here forever, and quite frankly I have better things to do than bicker about what one dog owner chooses to do with her dogs.  Like my old maths teacher used to say regarding trying to teach us maths - You can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

I've made my points and I stand by them.

;)

You misinterpreted the question I didnt mean length of each trail as I think two courses of antibiotics meant the food was tried for longer than 2-3 days as each course would last at least 5 days. I mean't how many different foods upsetting the dog each time is acceptable? Bearing in mind over use of  antibiotics is not recommended and gut flora will be affected each time.What longterm affects will that have?

Actually, McDonalds IS formulated to be a complete meal, which is why a film was recently made called "Super Size Me", in which someone ate McDonalds and nothing else for a month, because it was claimed to be healthy to do so, and subsequent tests found that it greatly affected his health.

No, McDonald's REPLY to the film was that it had never said their food was for eating every day and every meal.

McDonalds actually refused to comment on the film or to participate in it in any way, despite the guy making the film pursuing them nearly every day.

Um, I heard a McD's rep followed the filmaker round on all his promotional visits!

Well, that's just hearsay Chloe and wasn't presented in the film.  In the film we see the guy repeatedly trying to make contact with McDonalds to interview them for a statement, but McDonalds refusing to co-operate.

http://www.supersizeme-thedebate.co.uk/

This is McDonald's views.

That basically says that McDonalds have responded to the film by introducing healthy eating options into their restaurants.

However, even their healthy options have an incredible amount of fat (salad dressing) and other nasties in!!

The point is, nobody, least of all McDonald's suggest that this is an appropriate daily diet.  It's a treat and always has been.

I seem to remember Morgan joking about them following him round at the end of the film

>The mistake you made, carol, was to add things to it when they went off it.  You should have just taken it away and re-offered it to them until all was eaten...

Ok, onetwothree, what do you suggest in the case where food has been taken away after 10-15 minutes and re-offered at the next meal and the dog still refuses to eat?

Just wondering what fool-proof solution you can offer before my still growing giant breed literally fades away. Incidentally, this is a dog who was raw fed but is currently refusing every kind of meat available. Tried Burns and Naturediet (as that is what she ate before being on BARF) and initially ate a couple of meals but is now refusing that too. No health problems/allergies detected and recent vet check says shes fine if a little underweight and now becoming more so by the day :( I'd love to know what mistake I have made?

I would also be interested in this. Willis was underweight when he was on Burns, with ND - and the cost in wasted food that he just wouldn't eat was ridiculous. Raw Green Tripe and Bakers equals a cleared bowl - so, if he likes it, and is happy - I'm happy :)

No suggestions then, onetwothree? :rolleyes:

My main argument agons Bakers is the high amount of sugars (which dogs don't need) and the unecesary colours.

You're right, dogs don't need sugars - but they get them in treats from owners anyway - cups of tea, chocolate, etc etc. My mums dog even has custard LOL.

Yes but feeding it to them in their daily diet?  Mine get the odd biscuit (definately not chocolate as it can kill, and I don't want them getting a taste for it).  Certainly they would get very littel sugary human food.

I am very careful with treats, I use mainly sausage, cheese, ham for training and they occasionally have a rich tea biscuit, never any chocolate and not many dog treats - although they do like smackos.  On reflection, and bearing in mind I had a CKC with a heart murmour from the age of 7 that lived to be nearly 14, and always ate Bakers, I feel a bit guilty for disrupting Molly and Max by changing their diet. I've decided to go back to Bakers and keep my fingers crossed all the problems settle down.  Thanks for your help everyone

The only problem with excessive sugars is weight gain or tooth decay both of which can be very easily monitored for.

Mine get Milky Ways on quite a regular basis and all have their own teeth & svelte waistlines! ;)

That may well because you are more aware than the average dog owner. My dogs get Bakers, Tripe and all the kitchen scraps - and they are very healthy indeed thankfully :)

I have a 13 month giant breed old who appears to have gone on hunger strike :rolleyes: I am seriously considering offering her Bakers to see if she'll eat it as she really can't afford to lose any more weight.

I haven't got much knowledge of giant breeds, but all I can tell you is I gave my two Bakers for their tea, they showed interest when I was putting in their bowls (haven't done that for a while) and they ate it straight away, and all of it. We've just come back from a run on the fields and they are 2 contented little darlings!

Excellent news, jobs a goodun.

Dawn R.

I for one like to see my dog enjoy his dinner so glad to hear they are happy again!

have PM'd you shaynlola

glad you got it sorted ..Carole

Mine are fussy eaters, and I have thrown a fortune away in Burns, JWB etc etc. Bakers - they clear the lot AND it keeps weight on stress-head Willis.

This has not come in the place it should have so I've deleted the message.

We had our puppy on bakers for awhile as it was the only thing she would eat (apart from raw chicken) and although I don't like the food she has to eat something or she won't grow.  I don't want a 4 month old puppy missing a days food because she won't eat something.  she needs to grow and at least bakers has some good in it!

Oh dear, I seemed to have started a bit of a debate going!  All I can say, is that I adore my dogs and want the best for them, which is why I tried to change them (gradually) onto foods that had been recommended as being healthier than Bakers. Unfortunately this doesn't seem to have worked for them.  I can relate their problems (sicking up bile, runny poo and being generally off colour) to the food because of the timing and also the vet suggested it could be food related.  When I took them off JWB they returned to normal, I'm not saying it's a bad food, just that it didn't suit mine.  They are beardie x and collies can tend to have intolerance to certain foods. The next food I tried they just didn't like.  I've gone back to Bakers, they seem happy, and as I said before, previous experience does tell me it's not bad as some say it is! 

If Bakers suits them then keep them on it ;)

I tried my two on it and it turned them into even more loopy girls than they already are so swiftly took them off it :D

As people have said feed your dog what suits them so long a sthey are happy and healthy

One of mine had just eaten a half rotten seagull carcuss so dread to think what will come out the other end later