Thanks everyone for your comments.  I would like to point out that I did try to change their diet gradually and it was over a period of time.  I am not completely happy about having gone back to Bakers, but I dare not trying anything else at this stage and risk making Molly ill again.  As for being hyperactive - no they are not - they are just young, playful, inquisitive, intelligent, faithful, gorgeous bundles of joy.  I did take a bit of an exception to someone saying, I have better things to do with my time then argue over what one person wants to feed her dogs, I thought the whole idea of this forum was to help one another?  I probably concern myself more than normal, with Molly being a rescue dog (god knows why - she's a treasure) I want to ensure that the second chance she has got is the best possible life a dog could have. There will obviously always be debates over the best way to feed your dogs, if things change I will certainly post on here and let everyone know. Thanks again.

It was me who made that comment and I did because - I've put forward my point of view and given you what I consider to be the "help" you asked for.  It might not have been what you wanted to hear (ie - great - go ahead and feed Bakers again), but it was my honest opinion and was given with my best intentions.  Unfortunately it developed into a "food fight", like so many of the food threads do, and I just don't have time for that sort of thing.  At the end of the day - Isabel and I can argue forever about what you "should" be feeding your dog, but I could see that you're not changing your opinions as a result of what you're reading here, so what's the point in continuing the debate??

Carol, there are other foods to try besides JWB, all of which are better than Bakers, imo.

How long is it acceptable to keep trying other foods when the porblems caused by these foods result in ill dogs needing antibiotics?

>How long is it acceptable to keep trying other foods when the porblems caused by these foods result in ill dogs needing antibiotics<

I would give it at least 2,maybe 3 weeks.There are an awful lot of dogs out there with sensitive tums ,owners may decide to change their food and their dog may throw up or do any one of the other multitude of things sensitive dogs do when a new food is introduced,the owners panic after a day or 2 or 3 and promptly swap them back to the food their bodies are already used to,even tho given a little time they may have also got used to the new food.

> 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?<

How long did you let your do go without for before you gave in? Had you given into his whims on prior occasions?How old is he? These answers to these questions will help alot in deciding how long you should let your dog go without for.

>caused so many problems to all dogs, people would stop buying it? <

When people see immediate problems such as skin disease(allergies),runny eyes,sloppy stools,scurfy coat,some people are clever enough to relaise that the food may be the culprit, alot are not! :rolleyes:
However when things like kidney and liver disease,cancer etc etc rear their ugly heads people are not going to blame themselves for fi fi dying because of the food they have made her eat for the last umpteen years,that would make her death their fault Nor are most people going to connect the ethoxiquin that is in their dogs food(this is the preservative proved as causing cancer when fed over a period of time,no matter in how small amounts ;) ) of causing its demise from cancer.Most people will not conect BHA and BHT to their dogs crippling kidney disease or the wasting away and over ageing of its liver. However a handful will make a connection,these are the people who will research what goes into their future dogs food bowls and will want to share what they have learned and experienced with as many people as will listen :) Its a shame to say that the average pet owner is nutritionally challenged and wouldnt have the first clue on how to even read or decipher an ingredient label letta lone know what those ingredients are or where they come from or their potential hazards :(

>she needs to grow and at least bakers has some good in it!<

Can you please show me where this *good* is? Seriously,as i cant seem to find anything good about this food.

There are many more comments from this thread i would like to address,but this post has turned out far to long as it is and i know how much i hate reading over long posts

These preservatives are been thoroughly tested and in use for decades they have never been found to cause cancer at anything approaching the permitted levels let alone the levels actually used.  I did not think ethoxiquin was used in the UK where abouts are you Ktee?  The studies show that dogs have never been healthier and yet the vast majority are fed the very foods that you condemn.  Quite frankly, if a dog is living umpteen years the food is working!
People may be "nutritionally challenged" as you so condescendingly put it, although I suspect many that you consider so, have read the same sort of stuff as you but drawn completely difference conclusions, but the nutritionists employed by the manufacturers are not.
As for your idea of "research" it is clearly not my understanding of the subject nor anybody that has any study skills.  I suggest you have a look at this site (or have I given you that one before ;)) and learn to evaluate the evidence rather than adopt the unqualified manner of trawling poor quality sources only for the evidence that appears to support your theories.

What foods, onetwothree?

What foods are better than Bakers??  Er... all of them!!!!  Seriously, even Pedigree is better than Bakers since it contains fewer colours and no sugar. 

If you mean - what would I suggest she try - I would suggest Arden Grange, Burns, Almo Nature, Nature Diet, Natures Menu, Forthglade - I could go on but I don't think she will have tried many from that list so that's plenty to start with!

Of course dogs like Bakers - it tastes blimming fantastic - but kids like strawberry laces and chocolate, chips, cheeseburgers and pizzas and we don't feed them that every day!  (At least most of us who want healthy kids don't!)

>strawberry laces and chocolate, chips, cheeseburgers and pizzas

Again, not formulated or sold as complete diets, no comparison at all.

Think you should tell that the the millions of parents in the UK who do routinely give their kids chips, burgers and pizzas on a daily basis, not to mention what they get fed in their school canteens.

Yes, I would like to :)  I often think it would be better for them if we put it into the hands of nutrionists to just formulate an appropriate complete food (and no, students, I don't mean Potnoodle ;)) but of course humans have, well, human weekness and opt for just what they like :)

Food can cause such problems........lol. I firmly believe that if your dog is fit and healthy, and enjoying its grub, then don't chop and change. Sugar does cause tooth decay, thats why we have to clean our teeth after each meal, to remove any debre and to clear off sugar. Any midwife/health visitor/dentist will tell you with babies/toddlers that water is the best drink (after their milk) because anything suggary will decay the teeth before they emerge, never mind afterwards, because of the sugar content in soft drinks and fruit juices. When they have their teeth they need to be brushed after each drink if it contains any sugar, and the same goes for choccy/sweet treats before and after teeth emerge. same goes for older teeth too, so i dont think there is any dispute that sugar causes rotten teeth. Its how you monitor the teeth that helps prevent it.

Some addtives and colourings do cause hyper behaviour in kids/adults. various coladrinks, orange juice, choc, etc have an awful effect on some. I don't know if it would be a food allergy, I always think of allergies as having a physical effect, such as water retention, rash, breathing problems etc, these behavioural effects seem to come with no other symptoms. i don't know if this effects dogs, but once again, I would say that if the dog is healthy and well, its not having a poor effect.

                                                                              
                

Mc Donalds, like any fast food, is not something you would want or be able to safely live on, I think that was proved, although I did read in a womans magazine that a single profesional woman, with a liking for Mc D actually lost weight (a lot) on a diet of Mc D! She read all about calls, fat etc content, and made herself a diet consisting of that! I thought YUCK, but it worked for her. My view is that, if eaten as a treat and the main diet is a healthy one, then the odd treat (and choccie bar) won't hurt. My fave treat is steak with a rich sauce followed by 'death by chocolate' but that is a rareity lol Damn dieting again.....lol   months worth of calls in that meal lol.........;)

Everyone has their own views on feeding, and when an opinion is asked its good to know what works for someone else, especially if its the same breed. i wouldnt pass on a food that my dog was doing well on though. so, my opinion stands that if the dogs well, its not broke so dont fix it! :)

Even those who regularly clean their dogs teeth will not be able to do a through enough job of it to risk feeding sugar to their dogs on a daily basis especialy as it is totally unecesary. 

Adding fat to the diet as a flavour enhancer is less harmful (especialy in a dog that won't eat well) as dogs do not have the same problems with fat as we do.

Another food that many picky dogs do well on is Skinners Ruff and Ready or the Working Muesli (same thing) and again that is because it has mollases in it that make it attractive, but again the teeth problem, and they use coloured biscuit, cheaper I would imagine than Bakers.

I never clean my dogs teeth, they get regular marrow bones or cow hooves to chew.

This site has a review of most foods and their ingredients,I wouldn't bother looking at anything over 3 stars though as they are all only available in the US :rolleyes:

http://www.dogfoodanalysis.com/

I disagree.  If the level of sugars, and there are many sugars other than the refined types in foods, does not exceed the ability of mastication, cleaning, bone chewing etc there is no reason at all for a build up to occur. Clearly the levels here are well below those found in sugaring drinks etc. I really can't see what the fuss is about, many acid fruits are bad for teeth too but we see no issues in eating them in moderation.

I will not feed my dogs food with added sugar.  It's best not to feed it and while it may be true that it does minimal harm or no noticeable harm to most dogs - why feed it at all? 

The comments that I find somewhat amusing are a few posters that rage about salt added to complete foods.  Comments like "it's being used as a preservative" and "dogs do not need added salt" I find rather strange coming from some self-proclaimed dog diet experts.  Dogs need salt to survive.  No salt - dead dog.  If a food is labeled as complete it has to contain the minimum amount of salt necessary for dogs to thrive.  Without adding salt some complete foods would be deficient. 

Stacey