is this food really bad for your dog?

It's high fat, high sugar and full of colourings. MaccyD contains protein, vegetable and carbohydrate - all vital for human health - but would you feed it to a child every day?

My trainer says it's the only food she has come across that does have a negative impact on dogs' behaviour.

There are more e numbers in it than there are in a mcdonalds cheese burger (i know.... i counted them!).

Oh.. and the acid test afaik: my pet rats, a species NOT noted for their pickyness over food... will not eat bakers complete.

Well I have a son that goes bonkers when he has E - numbers
After haviung 2 dogs that I could feed anything I then got Ebba!!
Now Ebba is a bonkers Rottweiler. but with ANYTHING with colours in it she goes COMPLETELY BONKERS!!!!!!!
So the oldest of both dog and human young can eat anything but both the youngsters dog and human go hyper on anything not naturally coloured!!!!!
Read up on children allergic to E numbers and relate that to dogs!!!!! Some dogs are ok on Colours like some kids are. but you have to know what they are like without E numbers to know if that is a problem!!! I KNOW both Sam (human) and Ebba (dog) cannot have Enumbers!!!! But it you need to have a degree in chemicals or research them completely to know whayt you should and shouldnt feed dogs!!Off my soap box now!!!!!
But I will say by Ex Boy friends Rottie is on bakers and its the only food she does well on and he has tried a few as she is now 7!!!
So not com,pletely off Bakers. The dog has to be ok on it if not change!!!
Lea :)

It's a food that I've never even looked twice at on the shelves; for some reason I've always associated Bakers with little dogs, Westies and the like.  

>is this food really bad for your dog?

YES!

This food and many others like it should be banned ,there is literally not ONE healthy ingredient on the list.I feel so strongly over this and it makes me so sad and angry when i see people feed this garbage to their pets :(

i dont feed it to my tsb, my friend feeds it to her ckcs ive tried telling her its not good but she said it suits her two dogs, i know they also get veg and chicken, maybe the more posts i get i then will be able to print them of give them to her and then run!!!!

The Dog food aisle of our local Tescos looks like a shrine to Bakers :(    If I didn't know better I'd think that it was a really good food as it appears to be so popular Even Pedigree doesn't take up as much self space :rolling eyes:

I'm no advocate for Bakers, but I believe it is the UK's No.1 selling complete dog food.  Hence the reason the supermarkets stock so much of it - and of course it's cheap.

so what would you suggest thats good food, because i have been feeding mine on that, its the only food that weve found that suits there skin problems (can you beleive it?)

i didntthink it was too cheap, however weve tried eukanuba, pro plan, zd, wainwrights, james wellbeloved, it must have been tasteless too them because they wouldnt eat it, i an currently swithcing them to a barf diet, but they still have complete,

my sister feeds her dog (Boxer) Bakers Complete, her dog is very sensitive to food & very fussy as to what she will actually eat. Sis has found that Bakers is the only thing her dog will eat without ill effect, and the dog is fantastic on it.

Always exceptions my adopted rats had been kept on sawdust and fed the rat equivalent of Bakers until I got them at 30 months they one lived to 39 monts the other to 41 that's OLD for rats.

Didn't stop me changing the bedding or food though. Having said that if it was the only thing that my dog did well on I would probably feed it

deansami have you tried Arden Grange, Burns, Nutro, Pero or Orijen? All good quality foods made from good quality ingredients and all additive, colouring and (artificial) preservative free. My dogs are on a half Arden Grange and half BARF diet and do very well on it.

>i didntthink it was too cheap,

Just looked up the price of Bakers - expected it to be very cheap based on the ingredients. The cheapest I found was £21 and the most expensive £25 (15kg bag). I don't think that's cheap for what you get either. You will get rather a shock if you look up the Orijen...comes in at £40 and £47 (depending on the flavour) for a 13.5kg bag. It is an excellent food but at those prices is understandably out of most peoples league.

Until the two I have now, most our dogs were fed on bakers, they all lived to a good age, 13+, so it doesn't seem to have done them much harm, and their coats always looked fantastic on it. I don't believe that its a particularly great food and for that reason I don't use it with my current two, but if your dog is happy and thriving on it then I don't see any reason to change. We got our first Bernese when he was 8 months old, from his first owner(not his breeder), who was a breeder herself. The food she was using really was rubbish - full of broken crisps etc. I couldn't believe that anyone would feed such c**p and we changed to a much better quality food (not bakers), yet he died at 4 of cancer :-( . Not that I think it was related to what he was fed, although his poor hips were almost definitely caused by the rubbish fed by that original owner, he was lame, overweight and bloated when we got him, but we were young, ignorant and fell in love with him on sight :-)

Everyone has their own opinion on what makes a good food,  if you and your dogs are happy with the food then carry on, if it ain't broke, don't fix it! :-D :-D

For me, the thing about Bakers, Pedigree etc. is that for the price, I have no idea of what I'm actually getting   the ingredients list tells me nothing about how much of each ingredient is in there or what the ingredients actually are :(  'Derivatives of ****' and  'of ***** origin' 'minimum 4% of' tells me nothing except that the manufacturer isn't very proud of whats in there - especially when they hide the ingredients list, written in very small type which requires a magnifying glass to read :( :( 

I have a grooming salon and have to say the condition of a lot of the dogs that come in is shocking,a large number have itchy,scurfy skin,ear problems(infections and ears full of black wax),arthritis,teeth covered in tartar and swollen,inflamed gums(god knows how much pain they're in).No,not all of them are fed on Bakers but lots are,with Pedigree coming in a close second.If a dog fouls their cage we can always tell straight away whether they're fed on Bakers(huge stinky cowpats).We always try and advise on diet,my own dogs are fed on Orijen with some fresh meat,eggs and veggie juice with a few supplements,Salmon oil,vitamin E and Plaque off.Unfortunately I don't think many people are going to feed fresh food but quite a few have changed to Orijen and the results have been very interesting.
1.An elderly cocker spaniel being fed on Bakers,with very scurfy skin,after 4 weeks on Orijen the scurf has gone and she is much more active.
2.Elderly arthritic springer,her owners phoned to say after 2 weeks on Orijen she is a different dog,her arthritis has improved a huge amount.
3.8 year old Westie with recurring ear infections and skin problems,being fed on Bakers.He had been coming in every 3 weeks for a bath in Hibiscrub which helped to control his skin problems,but a month on Orijen and his skin was clear for the first time in years,his coat is much softer now as well.
4.11 year old Westie,very arthritic and again with constant skin and ear problems and constantly licking her feet.After 2 weeks on Orijen the licking has stopped and she is much more active.
5.A young Westie with alopecia,all over her body.Vets are mystified but think possibly its a hormone problem and advise further tests.Her owners changed her straight away from Bakers to Orijen and her hair started growing back within a couple of weeks,3 months later and she's a different dog.
Well,I could list more but its getting boring and you get the drift.
It was interesting reading about some vets and their views on nutrition.Well we clip a cavalier regularly,he's fed on Bakers and has skin problems and is severely arthritic even though he's only 9.The last time he cam in he was in such a lot of pain we advised we wouldn't be able to do him again and said he needed to go back to the vet as he wasn't on any painkillers at the time.We also advised taking him off the Bakers and putting him on Orijen.His owner phoned back and said the vet had told a high protein diet was very unsuitable for him due to his age and could damage his kidneys(which are ok at the moment)and that a lower protein diet such as the Bakers would be much better for him!I didn't say anything,no point,but all I could think about was that poor dog.
As for Orijen being expensive,compared to Bakers or Pedigree most people have reduced the quantity by about a third,so it works out only slightly more expensive and several of my customers have saved a fortune in vets bills.
Sorry to ramble on but this is something I feel strongly about and while SOME of these health problems may well be genetic who knows how many can be solved by a better diet?

LOL Helen! Are you on their payroll? :-D

No,but I think I should be on commission!

but at those prices is understandably out of most peoples league.

I really do not buy this.  If you can afford to do any of the following:

drink, smoke, go out to restaurants, buy takeaways, go on holiday, spend a fortune on your wedding, have SKY TV, wear jewellery, buy cosmetics, eat sweets...

... then you can afford to spend what you need to on your dog's food. 

Your dog is your best friend - she loves you unconditionally - s/he deserves it.

This makes very interesting reading.  However, surely any diet without the rubbish that they put into Bakers complete would have worked as well.  My dogs are on Naturediet and Burns and they are brilliantly healthy.

>I really do not buy this.  If you can afford to do any of the following:

>drink, smoke, go out to restaurants, buy takeaways, go on holiday, spend a fortune on your wedding, have SKY TV, wear jewellery, buy cosmetics, eat sweets...

Lots of people can't afford to do those things, especially now that they're having to pay double the income tax than they did before. People genuinely can't justify spending a week's food money on a bag of dog food and not be able to afford milk or bread for their family.

If they are in such dire circumstances, it would probably be better not to have the extra expense of a pet then. 

maisiemum, that is OK in theory but many of us can be rolling along nicely (money wise) and out of the blue suffer financial set backs. How many of us have children and struggle with the money needed for them? If we all waited for children & pets until we could guarantee long-term wealth a lot of us would end up child & pet-less :(

>drink, smoke, go out to restaurants, buy takeaways, go on holiday, spend a fortune on your wedding, have SKY TV, wear jewellery, buy cosmetics, eat sweets...

I do the last 2 of those. Haven't drunk since I was about 18 (and having an alcoholic father will probably never drink again - utterly repulses me), never smoked, haven't been to a restaurant since 2001, have a takeaway once or twice a year on birthdays, been abroad once 25 years ago and not been on holiday even within the country for the past 9 years, never had sky tv, don't wear jewellery, spend about £2 a week on chocolate, and probably £5 a month on cosmetics. Hardly extravagant. The majority of those things bore me to be honest.

My dog would get through a bag of Orijen in less than a month easily. When I fed raw it cost me probably about £20 a month (and that was when I couldn't get hold of anything for free - I regularly got organic chicken carcasses for nothing). I don't personally not feed Orijen because of the cost, but because I have several other issues with it.

>I really do not buy this.

You have obviously never genuinely been short of money maisiemum, or you have small dogs that don't eat much (possibly both ;-)).

When I was a child, my family were very poor even though I did not think so at the time.  My Mum and Dad used to go without any luxuries so I never went without the necessities.   I remember going out to the toilet in the back yard in my nightie with my coat over the top! I used to be embarrassed to invite my friends home (this was the 70s).  We did not have pets because there was no room and we could not afford it.  Mum and Dad didn't drive and the indoor toilet and telephone were finally installed when I was 16.  Yes I am lucky now because I can afford to have pets but only because I almost lost my house while working for my degree as a mature student and now have a reasonably good job which I work extremely hard at.

So please don't pretend that you know me.

I see it must be the latter then. Now if we all only had JRT sized dogs to feed I'm sure that many of us here would be much better off. Maybe you need to take that into consideration when making judgement on what people are able to afford to feed their dogs. Yes one usually has to feed a bit less of a higher quality food but not so much less that it makes a huge difference to cost. I put my Dobe on an elimination trial back in Sept last year. He was having 4 packs of Naturediet a day, costing over £16 a week. I kept him on it for 2 months as I was determined to try to get to the bottom of his allergies (and I did see vast improvement which I've been able to work with). I think that most people would agree that Naturediet is one of the best quality foods, but I was still having to spend over £65 a month because of his size. No way would I have been able to keep that up. For people with medium/large sized dogs (and multiples of those dogs) you'd have to be positively rich to be able to afford some of the best foods.

>If they are in such dire circumstances, it would probably be better not to have the extra expense of a pet then. 

What a callous attitude. :-( So someone who loses their job and whose income plummets from £30,000 to £5,000 pa should rehome their pets, that have become their family members? Perhaps they should put their children up for adoption too, so that they can afford their previous luxuries?

If they are such valued family members, then they would have to make further sacrifices to feed them properly - not give them cheap and nasty food.  Don't put your words into my mouth - that is not what I am saying.

maisiemum,

Someone earning say £30.000 a year suddenly being made jobless would be going from that income to just about £5000 a year, on that they will struggle to pay the bills - which would not have reduced at all, and feed their family, unless corners are cut with food for both humans and the pet/s, then the pet/s would have to be rehomed, I'm sure given the choice, both children and dog/s would prefer to stay with the family and eat cheaper food ;)

I know this because it's happened to us, except that we never had the £30.000 income - it was £15.000 and was still a massive change.   We lived on baked potatoes and beans with a little fresh veg and meat occasionally for a long time, the dog, even tho he wasn't fed a super premium food, still ate better than we did, but what we fed him wouldn't have satisfied your requirements.

>Don't put your words into my mouth - that is not what I am saying.

Then tell us what you actually are saying. What further sacrifices should be made? Perhaps everyone (humans and dogs) eating only once every two or three days? They certainly wouldn't be able to afford to eat top quality food every day.

>If they are in such dire circumstances, it would probably be better not to have the extra expense of a pet then.

I wonder if your attitude extends to people having children? You have said yourself that your parents were very poor, but you never went without the necessities. You certainly didn't have the "best" then - should your parents not have had you?

>Yes I am lucky now because I can afford to have pets but only because I almost lost my house while working for my degree as a mature student and now have a reasonably good job which I work extremely hard at.

We all have different opinions on what is the best care for our dogs. Some people would argue that if you are having to work all the hours that are sent (not saying that this is the case with you, but I saw from a previous post that you have someone come in at lunch) to be able to have dogs then you shouldn't have them, regardless of whether that job means you can afford to feed them the best food known to man. I think if given a choice most dogs would choose spending more time with their people over having the "best".

Buying the most expensive food doesn't mean you are doing the best for your dog. My old dog can only eat cheap food (anything else causes him problems, including 'human grade' meat), even if I won the lottery he would still be fed what most people would class as cheap cr*p. And just for the record he is in 'fantastic health' according to the vet despite being 14 years old.

Having to feed a dog on a budget is not a reason to not get the dog in the first place (or to get rid of pets when one falls on hard times). My pup is not neglected because he doesn't eat £45 bags of Orijen (for eg.). He is thriving on his diet which would also be termed by some as cheap cr*p.

If somebody has the money to buy the most expensive food for thier dogs and the dogs are good on it then great, but it is very judgemental to be implying that people who can't afford the most expensive food shouldn't have dogs in the first place. I could probably find the money to feed my dogs the most expensive foods (I would need to budget even more than I do now), but as they are thriving on the diets they're allready on I personlly think it is a waste of my money. The dogs have other things that extra money could be spent on/saved for, for example I have an £80 excess for my pups insurance, I would much rather feed a more affordable food and know I have money for if/when he need the vets. My pup is an agrresive chewer, for this reason I won't give him bones, but he still needs things to chew on - dog toys don't last long (30 mins) with a 56kg heavy-chewing puppy.

Maisies mum, you said:

> My Mum and Dad used to go without any luxuries so I never went without the necessities.

Dog food is a necessity, expensive dog food is a luxury (if it suits your dog in the first place as a high price is no guarantee of suitability).

You are obviously out for an argument at any cost and I am not getting drawn into it.  What I am saying is that looking after animals properly is a commitment and a responsiblity and should not be taken lightly.  I make a lot of sacrifices so that my dogs have the best that I can offer them.   I rarely go out, I don't smoke or buy unnecessary items.  Yes, they are Jack Russell crosses, but this wasn't a choice - they were rescued from a terrible life which is why it is all the more important to me to give them everything that they need.  They spent their early months scavenging for food.   However poor my family was, I was never fed junk food - the food was cheap but always nutritious.  I am not talking about extremely poor people, but if you are rich enough to have a computer and an email account, you are rich enough to feed your animals properly. 

Yes and you make the point excellantly yourself nutritious doesn't always mean expensive. The best is subjective.

>if you are rich enough to have a computer and an email account, you are rich enough to feed your animals properly. 

LOL! The computer was bought before the redundancy - and the email account is free.

And my dogs are fed properly - they're just not fed expensively. The human comparison would be the folly of buying Heinz baked beans when Tesco Value ones are just as good and much cheaper.

>feed your animals properly. 

Proper:

1) Suitable for a particular person, condition, occasion, or place

2) Suited to one's end or purpose

3) Conforming to accepted standards

If a dog is healthy and happy on a cheaper food then what is the problem? If the dog has health issues then it may point to there being a problem with the diet, not necessarily because it is a cr*p food perse but just because it doesn't suit. I know of several people whose dogs can't tolerate the higher end foods because they are too rich for them and can cause all kinds of digestive upsets.

I take the commitment of my dogs very seriously. One of my dogs is a 'rescue', I'm sure he didn't care how much his previous owners spent on his food, but the fact that they mistreated him made a big impression. I do not go out socially atall as I don't like to leave the dogs, I work from home so I can be there for my children & dogs. We are going on holiday this year (we go once every 3 years to cornwall), for that week there will be my dad & sister taking it in turns to stay at my house so my dogs have people they know with them 24/7.

I was brought up by my disabled dad, (mum legged it when I was 9 & my sister was 7), due to him in & out of hospital for opperations (arm amputation, pain blocks etc..) he couldn't work. I was brought up on cheap & nutritious food just like you were, which is how I know that you don't need to provide the most expensive food to your dependants in order to be feeding them healthily.

Some dogs will stay healthy regardless of what you feed them because they have inherited hearty immune systems and other dogs will not.  Some people will notice differences in behaviour and/or health when changing from one type of food to another, other people stick to a cheaper food for their dogs because their dogs are perfectly fine on that.  For some people feeding particular foods i.e. top end pricewise, to their dogs makes them feel good about themselves. 

My brother built my computer 8 years ago for about £200 - still going strong (she says). He's worked for several computer firms over the years and is still in contact with old co-workers so regular gets discarded items when they upgrade. It's not very much money for a basic computer nowadays though, especially with eBay and the like.

Waiting for my bill from yahoomail now though

Why do people feel they need to justify their personal possessions because a total stranger on the internet has got all uppety about dog food?

curious not uppety thanks.

tessisbest, I don't think the 'uppety' remark was aimed at you - you were simply asking opinions on Bakers :)

No tessiebest the remark was not aimed at you.  The uppety remark was directed at those who think that everyone should do as they do and put the dogs into rescue if they can't. I know someone who feeds Bakers to their dogs. Dogs are normal happy dogs and so are the owners. Horses for courses.

BTW what do rescue dogs get fed on?

I would say that I agree with Maisies mum but would go further than her opinions. 

I believe that having pets is a luxury and also believe the same about children.  I know for sure that I would not be able to have the lifestyle I have now if I had children to look after so therefore as the lifestyle is important to me I choose not to have children.

i also believe that people should not have dogs if they cannot afford them. If an individual does not have the money to pay for expenses that I believe are necessary to support the health and wellbeing of a dog they should not have one (e.g. decent food/worming/flea treatment/vacinations or titre testing).  Too many people (on other forums, not this one to be fair) complain about their dog having accidents but they can't afford the vet bills and could not afford insurance.  If they cannot afford insurance and don't have a pot of money put aside then they should not have a pet.

I'm sure that many others don't feel this way but we are all entitled to our opinions.

I'm also wondering where some of you are getting your free broadband or dial up as there have been comments in this thread about computers not costing after the initial outlay.

Are you saying then that if you can only afford to feed Bakers you shouldn't have a dog? Regardless of individual opinions, it has to be acknowledged this is a dog food and not curry and chips.  Buying a cheap complete food doesn't mean that people are not supporting their dog's wellbeing by not vaccinating etc. To say so is making ill founded assumptions.

BTW not every dog is a luxury.

What some of us have taken offence at is people saying only the most expensive food  should be fed, and anything other than the most expensive means that we are not doing all we should for our dogs.

> If an individual does not have the money to pay for expenses that I believe are necessary to support the health and wellbeing of a dog they should not have one (e.g. decent food/worming/flea treatment/vacinations or titre testing).

I'm sure we all agree on that, but what the argument is about is that DECENT FOOD doesn't have to be the most expensive available.
I agree that people shouldn't choose to get a dog/pet if they can't afford it's upkeep, but a lot of people hit unexpected financial hardship and during these times they do all they can for thier pets and I don't think that choosing a dog food that is more affordable constitutes neglect.

ETA I mean that I'm sure we all agree that our dogs should have decent food/worming/flea treatment/vacinations or titre testing etc. I don't think dogs should be dumped in a shelter because the owner needs to budget!

Rescues feed the dogs on what ever food is donated/can afford which certainly wouldnt be £30-£40 a bag!!!! (unless there is a medical reason for a dog needing different food of course!!)
Lea :)

I would like to clarify the following:

A.  I am not saying that you should only feed your dog expensive food, but that I, personally would avoid cheap food which is full of artificial additives. 
B.  If you read through my postings, I have never recommended 'dumping' dogs into animal shelters.