a while ago i read a few posts about food,but seeing as owning a pup is all new to me,reading th threads already about food just confuses me.i have recently changed my boxer from pedigree puppy (because he stunk and i was told on here that changing him when he was well was best),and he is now on eukanuba.i debated with many brands inc science plan,jwb, and wainwrights just because id read advice given out on here.i applied for many puppy packs which came with free sample of food.out of all brands i liked the idea of eukanuba - they sent me a free clicker and some training packs etc and when i rang the helpline they were very good, and helpful.when i went to buy this food it was on buy 1 get 1 free which was a bonus for me (id already decided i would change him to this,so it wasnt just the offer that swayed me).he has been great on it.poo is much firmer and he still smells now n then,but overall quite a bit better.what are peoples opinions on this food?have i made the right choice?

Not bad, but for very similar product and a smaller price tag you could have a  British food.

brainless when you say a british food which one specifically.i dont want to spend anymore than what im paying for eukanuba if i can help it but if this is best for him then id have to make allowances obv.i pay 11.99 at the mo,3kg bag.

My personal favourite is Arden Grange.

in a shop where i live ive seen arden grange for roughly £23.00 for 15kg

so for the the price of two 3kg bags of eukanuba you could get one 15kg bag of arden grange

i dont think that the quality of eukanuba puppy is there anymore when the puppy was was produced in america itwas good but then they moved the production to france and eu laws are different to usa ones where it concerns dog food content

I feed my two on Eukanuba large breed and they are both doing fine on it. We tried Hills but it sent our Bernese a little hyper and loopy. They both scoff every mouthful of the Eukanuba despite being on it for a while, they don't seem bored with it at all. Have even used it in a treat ball for our setter and she loved it. I know everyone has their own opinion on dog foods but you can go mad trying to find the 'best' feeding for your dog, I found myself turning into an 'ingredient junkie' , and just thought enough is enough, I don't check packets that closely when I'm feeding my kids  :D :D. If you find one that suits your dog and your finances then stick with it. I buy mine online from Zooplus, £37.90 for 15kg, 5% off if you use the stock up code and free delivery :D.

I thoroughly recommend Eukanuba if you are planning on feeding  a complete food
Barf is my first recommendation but for those planning on feeding complete then eukanuba is a very good food IMO

i didnt say there was anything wrong with eukanuba food the adult form of it is still very good just the puppy isnt as good quailty food as it was when it was made in america due to eu laws as the eu doesnt say that when you put protein content on packaging you dont have to say wether its full or empty protein. empty protien meaning feather etc which dogs cant extract the protein from.

apparently eukanuba do animal testing not just testing food on them but actual scientific testing and the person who told me this wont even stock their food in their shop

Eukanuba (and Iams) are owned by P&G who do animal testing within other products the own.

Most brands of dog food are tested on animals. There was some bad publicity about testing done on Iams and Eukanuba some years ago. It was a lab contracted by Iams and not owned by them. They have since stopped using the lab, and although test on animals, it is done humanely. Would you realyl want to buy a dog food that wasn't tested on dogs in any way?

Also, the publicity was mainly instigated by PETA and Uncaged, who are closely linked ot PETA, and I would take anythign they say with a huge pinch of salt.

i did say in the post that its not just food they test of course i dont have a problem with them testing food on a dog its the other things i was told today that they did to animals

Perhaps you could elaborate on what you heard they did to animals?

Procter and Gamble, who own Eukanuba (and Iams) are a big company who don't have a 'no animal testing' policy. However, most soap powders, shampoos, body products etc are still tested on animals, and even where products are not tested on animals, often their ingredients have been.

I do feel that is seems odd to buy something for our pets when the company have been involved with animal testing, but unless you are absolutely firm abotu not buying anything else (including human drugs) that has not been tested on animal, then it's a bit hypocritical, in my opinion, to not buy a dog food due to this.

Jackson,

Agree with you re"grain of salt" for PETA, which is a shame.  The publicity about IAMS in particular has been going on for so long that it's reached the stage where I don't believe a word of it.  It's become internet myth.

I am not against animal testing - it's howthe animals are kept and what kind of testing is done that's important to me. 

I've just copied this from one of my previous posts - saves typing :-D

The alleged invasive testing and research occurred while Iams was owned by Clay Mathile, who bought Iams from Paul Iams in 1982. 

The most controversial studies were done by Iams researcher Dan Carey, DVM, between 1987 and 1995. 

Iams was bought by P & G in 1999.  P & G encouraged the publication of the research, in other words 'blew the whistle', which was not described in veterinary journals until after P & G acquired Iams. 

P & G developed a non-invasive alterative for information about feeding. 

I personally wouldn't buy anything from a company owned by Procter and Gamble.Whichever way you look at it testing such products as washing powder and cosmetics on animals is totally wrong and inexcusable.

I don't understand why people would be happier feeding food that had been tested on dogs rather then food that hadn't.

Does the same apply to human food, are there facilities round the country feeding new breakfast cereals to human guinea pigs

Because if they don't test them on dogs, how would we know if it was any good in practice, not just thoery and if dogs liked eating it?

I am pretty sure all foods for human consumtion are at least taste tested. The difference is, breakfast ceral would onyl make up part of a healthy, balanced diet, dog foods are often the sole source of nutrition.

I appreciate all that, doesn't explain the need in the past to remove kidney's, force feed and all that kind of stuff.

In the past. Pretty much everything has been tested like that in the past at some point. It used ot be 'routine' to do invasive testing on animals ffor washing powders, cosmetics, medication etc. Before they started to realise that in most cases it wasn't even beneficial.

You asked why people wouldn't want to use a dog food that wasn't tested on dogs, I gave my answer.

These feeding trials are bumpkiss anyway :rolleyes: As long as the dogs used dont drop dead from eating the food within a 6mth period then it's passed. The only tests i want done on my dogs food is a palatabilty test,which does not need a labratory setting,this can easily be achieved in the dogs own home.

That's my point Ktee.

Taste tests is one thing and I would imagine every dog food manufacturer taste tests, putting dogs in laboratories to test food is surely not needed,  values of food can easily be determined these days, we know the dietary requirements for healthy muscle, bones eyes brains etc , computer models design all sorts of stuff these days from foods to medicines to the way the waves can produce energy so all is needed is taste testing, not invasive destructive tests.