Please can someone sort out my confusion about dog food.  I am currently feeding the pup beta large breed puppy food as this is what the breeder had him on but due to the volume of poop that comes out I am looking to change it.  I was going to try orijen as I like the idea of grain free but on looking at the composition I am confused about whether it is fine to feed him.

I have been led to believe that large breed food should be fairly low in protein and calcium plays an important role too (although can't remember if it should be a low or high ratio).  So, the composition of Orijen is;

GUARANTEED ANALYSIS
Protein (min.) 42.0%
Fat 16.0%
Carbohydrate 18.0%
Moisture 10.0%
Fiber 2.0%
Calcium (min.) 1.4%
Calcium (max.) 1.6%
Phosphorus (min.) 1.1%
Phosphorus (max.) 1.3%
Omega-6 2.5%
Omega-3 1.0%
Glucosamine 500 mg/kg
Chondroitin 150 mg/kg
Microorganisms 80M cfu/kg
pH 5.0
Ash (min.) 6.5%

Beta has 29% protein and 1.2% calcium.

So what I want to know is that if both are formulated for large breeds why is the orijen protein so much higher?  Help me before I drive myself crazy with this.....

I always feed the bigger larger breeds the lower the protein, and vise versa, larger breeds you want them to grow slower, hence keeping the protein level down, or they bounce off walls!
All 7 of my dogs are on 21%, when the Danes were puppies they were on adult food with 19% protein, and they have turned out well ,and slowly matured, instead of shooting up!
Higher ptoeins are used for working dogs, in whelp bitches, dogs who need to gain weight, or ill dogs.

Have you thought about using Arden Grange Junior?

For my part I would concentrate on calories rather than protien ;)
These 'Large Breed' diets  often replace protein with carbohydrates. Protein and carbohydrates contain exactly the same number of calories per gram, so reducing protein in favor of carbohydrates provides less needed nutrition without reducing calories! (that's a no brainer in my book)

Interesting research papers in recent times regards this large breed & protein debate, off the top of my head Nap RC, The Netherlands 'Growth rate in Great Danes' research paper (though I have others if anyone  contests/is interested) That show High Protein intake does not result in increased risk of OCD, HD. There is no effect on longitudal (sp??) bone growth :)
HTH?

The info I have here for Orijen states- Excessive calcium,phosphorus and calories(not protein) are the key dietary concerns for large breed puppies.Most high protein foods are higher than 2.5% calcium and so are not suitable for large breed puppies.Orijen is formulated with low-ash ingredients to keep calcium and phosphorus levels at a safe level-as half the meats used are fresh and boneless-and the chicken meal is prepared by removing the bones first,resulting in a very low ash content.High protein does not make puppies grow too fast or damage their joints.
Hope that helps!

Hi everyone.

I agree with your comments about calories and would add that its too much calcium and phosphorus which can cause problems not high protein-so any food should have safe levels of both. If you do have other articles you could let me have I would be really interested

these links are interesting reading regarding protien.

www.dogfoodproject.com/index.php?page=feeding_puppies

www.orijenpetfoods.co.uk/acatalog/ORIJEN_White_Paper.pdf

www.thepetcenter.com/imtop/protein.html

Oop!

Forgot Dietary fibre! that adds to the calories too ;)
as we see:
Calories per gram of:
Water = 0kJ (0 Cal)
Protein = 17kJ (4 Cal)
Dietary fibre = 13kJ (3 Cal)
Fat = 37kJ (9 Cal)
Alcohol = 29kJ (7 Cal)
Carbohydrates = 16kJ (4 Cal)

My poor dogs! I count their calories but don't give a flying fig about my own! (Just tucking into a big fat Choclate eclaire as I type!!) ;)

> Have you thought about using Arden Grange Junior?

have you used it yourself?  What is the input to poo ratio?  I know there is a lot more at stake than poo size but large sloppy poos suggest to me that there is a lot going in that doesn't need to go in IYSWIM.

That is really useful Helenmd.  Like HG I care more about my dogs diet than I do my own so want to make sure it is right.

Hi Ali, hope you don't mind!

> If you do have other articles you could let me have I would be really interested

Last 2 links are most relevant to your queries though Ali :)

High Protein Low Carb = Weight Canine weight loss,Clinical study

Liverpool Uni/Royal Canin research

Royal College Vets & Hills, nutritional role bone disease

Longitudal bone growth study in 4 large breeds Leonberger,Wolfhound...

Pathology Dept University Berlin- Relationship of nutrition and bone growth in Large/Giant breeds

Energy + Calcium = the risk factors

Hope this helps. Happy reading! ;)

>> Have you thought about using [url=http://www.ardengrange.com/Pet-Food/dog-food.asp?id=3" rel=nofollow]Arden Grange Junior[/url]?
> have you used it yourself? 

No, not personally as I'm a vegetarian!  ;-)   And it's a long time since I had a puppy/junior but I use the adult and am very happy with it.   Mine tend to do looser bigger piles when on Beta, Pedigree etc.  more cereal in it as it's used as a (cheap) bulking agent.

>>> Have you thought about using [url=http://www.ardengrange.com/Pet-Food/dog-food.asp?id=3" rel=nofollow]Arden Grange Junior[/url]?
>> have you used it yourself? 
> No, not personally as I'm a vegetarian!  ;-)

lol, rofl.

Some really good links there HuskyGal! Especially the one about high protein diets being suitable for weight loss as they help prevent hunger.About 95% of the dogs I see at the salon are overweight,with about half of those really quite obese-being able to feel a dogs ribs is a very rare occurrence.

> The info I have here for Orijen states-........High protein does not make puppies grow too fast or damage their joints.

I find it odd how Origen can make such a claim.
The info in one of the links from HG -

>While not directly responsible for skeletal disease in the growing dog, protein provided in excess of metabolic requirements is deaminated by the liver and used for energy, increases plasma levels of insulin-like growth factors, and contributes to an increased rate of growth.

My dog was nearly crippled by too much protein in his diet.

I haven't read any of the links yet, but was always told that large breed dogs need no more than 25% protein when they are growing, less is preferred.

When i am more awake and have more time i'll have a read through those links.
Looks like we all want to do whats best for our dogs..

I think the key factor is: > , protein provided in excess of metabolic requirements

So excess to requirements.

This would coincide with what I have found when managing my dogs weight, they do better on less of a more nutritious diet, than more of one of the filler packed onces designed for weight loss, which are usually low protein and fat and the dogs coats and condition suffers.

I personally would not feed a dog food with a 40% plus.  I don't want to pay for something that my dog does not require nor is able to utilize.  If I wanted to feed a grain free food I would choose one which is lower in protein.

I don't understand why Origen manufactures nor promotes the high percentage of protein in its foods, apart from marketing reasons. It is well above what a dog would eat in its "natural" state, so at least in my view Origen does not mimic how a dog would be fed "in the wild"; as it seems to claim.

As a point of comparison, the percentage of protein is well above what a dog fed raw or even cooked meats would ingest.  Meat only from a roast cooked chicken has 26grams of protein per 100 grams meat, the same meat raw would contain 20 grams protein.  There isn't a single source of pure meat protein that comes close to 40% protein.

26grams of protein per 100 grams meat,  Do you not mean 26 grams of Protein to 100 grams weight which includes the water so the protein per meat is actually higher.

For example chicken cooked by boiling process at 100 grams of weight actually has 45 grams of protein in it..

We seem to all forget that % of things in food is not actual unless the moisture has been removed. 

I don't understand why Origen manufactures nor promotes the high percentage of protein in its foods, apart from marketing reasons. It is well above what a dog would eat in its "natural" state, so at least in my view Origen does not mimic how a dog would be fed "in the wild"; as it seems to claim.
 

Just wonder what makes you say that.  

What true  % do you think they eat in the wild?

Just took any old ingredient from the net ( cat food wet)

Chicken Pouch: Moisture 79%, Protein 14%, Oils and Fats 2.5%, Fibre 0.2%, Ash 2%
To actually work out the true protein in this you would need take out the moisture and work out the % of each that is actually there.

I think we have general pet owners completely confused with labelling.

> My dog was nearly crippled by too much protein in his diet.

Was this a commercial diet fed at the manufacturers recommended daily grams per serving? What was their response?

>> I think we have general pet owners completely confused with labelling.

errr, yes!  I am officially confused (still) ;)  I ordered orijen at the weekend but then had a panic there when I read the most recent posts about crippled dogs and lots of protein.

We need to start a campaign for simpler dog food labelling.  Who is the dog equivalent of Jamie Oliver who can sort this out. lol

> Chicken Pouch: Moisture 79%, Protein 14%, Oils and Fats 2.5%, Fibre 0.2%, Ash 2%
> To actually work out the true protein in this you would need take out the moisture and work out the % of each that is actually there.
>
> I think we have general pet owners completely confused with labelling.

It isn't that confusing. 100g of the above would provide 14g of protein. It is fed with the moisture content so you don't need to work out the dry matter value to work out the weight of protein per portion.
100g of Origen @ 40% protein would provide 40g of protein.
If the chicken pouch above needs to be fed at twice the amount (ie, 200g of that instead of 100g of Origen) it would still be providing less protein.

I feed tripe & complete @ 50:50 Eg. 200g of complete (26%protien) = 52g protein + 200g of Tripe (13% protein) = 26g protein = Total of 78g of protein. It doesn't matter what the dry matter value % of protein in the tripe is, as the actual weight of protein will remain the same.

> Was this a commercial diet fed at the manufacturers recommended daily grams per serving? What was their response?

Yes, well, fed slightly less than manufacturers recomended amounts or he would have got fat.
I haven't been in touch with them, what would they do?? I would have to be able to PROVE that my pup was fed as per thier instructions and that he never ate anything other than thier food and that I didn't give him any suppliments that could have caused the problems (over-supplimenting giant breeds is known to cause many problems, especially with calcium suppliments-I've given no suppliments). Then comes the part that whos to say growth problemns aren't mutli-factural, ie, a high protein diet will only affect a dog with a genetic pre-dispositon?
I only have my very limited experience and the experience of other owners & breeders, a large company that stands to loose a lot of money by having thier entire Large-Breed Puppy range muddied, is not going to give any credence to a relatively small segment of Mastiff owners :(

But it does matter mastifflover - they have to be compared as equal values.

A complete food 26% protein
Orijen is 42% protein
Naturediet is 11% protein
Tripe is 13% protein

This is taken from the Naturediet fact sheet on protein level comparisons between moist and dry foods which explains things in a simple way:

"Many people, whilst trying to gauge nutritional quality of a diet, will try to compare protein levels in dry food against protein levels in moist food and end up wondering why there is such a vast difference. First of all it has to be appreciated that levels given in dry food, are given on a "dry matter" basis - this is because dry food, by definition,
has had most of the moisture content removed. Moist food has a higher moisture level, normally somewhere between 75% - 85%. Levels of ingredients declared in moist food include the moisture content and hence will be significantly lower than the same dry matter would provide. But the most important thing is to look at food on an "as fed basis", and the mg of protein, calorific value and digestibility of the ingredients when fed in the recommended amounts. It is possible (in theory) to draw a comparison between the dry and moist food declared nutrient levels using the following example: Naturediet food, for instance, has a moisture content of 75%, which is the natural moisture content of the ingredients. We do not add water to bulk out the content, the only water added is to facilitate the correct cooking of the rice. If we were to bring this
down to a dry matter basis (theoretically) to liken it to dry food, the content would be 4 times the declared percentages, this is because there is 75% moisture in the product and 25% dry matter."

So a direct comparison would be:

A complete food 26% protein
Orijen is 42% protein
Naturediet is 44% protein
Tripe is 52% protein

I don't find it confusing at all but I can work calculations out quite well..  

It isn't that confusing.  It is quite confusing to a lot of people. I can see from the replies above people are confused. The % of protein in chicken has been miscalculated over and over again.. I can see you understand how to work it out :-)

People get it wrong because you can't compare dry matter % to moist food in grams.  You have to make them both the same for a true comparison.

>> A complete food 26% protein
> Orijen is 42% protein
> Naturediet is 11% protein
> Tripe is 13% protein

> So a direct comparison would be:
>
> A complete food 26% protein
> Orijen is 42% protein
> Naturediet is 44% protein
> Tripe is 52% protein

ok, I am slowly starting to get it.  maths and nutrition are clearly not my strengths!

Was this food Orijen or a different brand?

I haven't had any problems with my large dogs or puppies weaned on high protein grain free but the phosphorus / calcium levels are important in these foods.

You are right lots of these things can't be isolated due of other factors it isn't easy.

So many things to read and understand my poor brain is tired, I do know a cure for that though - chocolate,works everytime!!!!!

My dog was nearly crippled by too much protein in his diet. Just wonder how or if this was proven?

> My dog was nearly crippled by too much protein in his diet. Just wonder how or if this was proven?

im not sure it could be proven, but there must be statistics somewhere as every giant breed owner will say the same, keep the protein low whilst they are growing otherwise they will grow too fast.

again not something that can be proven but i recently had a pup i bred back temporarily and he was the runt of the litter (although as a litter they were always very advanced) and he went to a lady who feeds him orijen fish with 2 tins of sardines in each meal (yes he does stink) and the pup is 10 months old and is far far bigger than both mum and dad no issues at the moment thankfully but i hope it wont cause any in the future.

The thing with all this protein malarky IMO is that the canine species is designed to eat high protein, meat-based diets. Most of the completes are grain-based, which a canine isn't designed to eat.

pedlee couldn't agree more. 

I feed mine a fish complete used as a mixer and add meat to every single meal.. Most fish and Chicken.  

very intesting post this is.  I have just started feeding Orijen adult fish to my 13 1/2 month border collie as I struggled to find any complete that she actually enjoyed, this she loves.  She has been on it for about 2 weeks now.  My worry was that she would be hyper especially with all the hype about protein values but can safely say it has had absolutely no effect and she is the same gorgeous girlie she always has been.  The great thing is the lack of poo out of the other end.  Loads smaller!

<The great thing is the lack of poo out of the other end.  Loads smaller!>

That says it all to me! The likes of Beta, Pedigree etc. which are the grain-based foods, produce enormous amounts of waste meaning the dog isn't using the contents of the food. Foods like Orijen produce far less waste which says to me that more of the actual food is being utilised.

> The thing with all this protein malarky IMO is that the canine species is designed to eat high protein, meat-based diets.

Another factor though is that dogs were not "designed" in nature to grow to Mastiff or Great Dane size and this therefore needs to be taken into account when considering the appropriate diet for these animals when growing rapidly to the extreme end of natures intentions.

> My dog was nearly crippled by too much protein in his diet. Just wonder how or if this was proven?

That's just it, how can it be actually proved. A low protein diet (18%) rectified the problems but that in itself isn't proof.

Mastifflover - You say the dog was nearly crippled on high protein - what was the actual problem? And just how did the low protein correct the problem?

Isabel - I would still think that no matter what the size of the dog, be it a Dane or a Yorkie or anything in between, the basic construction and internal make up of the dog is much the same. Many raw feeders have "big" dogs and don't have growth problems with their dogs and they will be on a high protein diet.

> As a point of comparison, the percentage of protein is well above what a dog fed raw or even cooked meats would ingest.&nbsp; Meat only from a roast cooked chicken has 26grams of protein per 100 grams meat, the same meat raw would contain 20 grams protein.&nbsp; There isn't a single source of pure meat protein that comes close to 40% protein

It would when you took the moisture out of it.

Most meat etc would come above that when the moisture is taken out.

Remember fresh food is around 80% water and the dry food only 10%.

You would feed 3 times the amount of meat compared to the Origen dry.

So 300g of your chicken would give you 60g of protein, 100g of origen 40g.

With most commercial foods we have simply replaced Protein (expensive) with carbohydrate (cheaper), the dog gets the same calories.  Strictly speaking dogs don't need carbohydrates as they are god at utilising fats and protein for energy.

> be it a Dane or a Yorkie or anything in between, the basic construction and internal make up of the dog is much the same.

Yes, but the amount of growth achieved is very different.

>Many raw feeders have "big" dogs and don't have growth problems with their dogs and they will be on a high protein diet.

Surely raw feeding doesn't have to be high protein.  Perhaps some adjust it down by feeding other than just meat.  I must admit if I had a large breed I would wish to take specific advise from a breed specialist.

The very nature of raw feeding, unless feeding a very high (and unnecessary) veg content, would be a predominantly meat diet, therefore high protein. BARF, RMB etc. are all basically high protein and are well known for producing slow, steady growth.

> The very nature of raw feeding, unless feeding a very high (and unnecessary) veg content, would be a predominantly meat diet, therefore high protein.

I didn't know there were any rules :-)  I know BARF etc are a prescribed diet but surely "raw feeding" is just that, feeding whatever you think is appropriate for your dog or breed, except raw :-)

There aren't rules as such, but if someone wants to feed loads of raw vegetables that's up to them, but I think you'll find they basically come out as they went in and are of very little use! Dogs aren't equipped to digest vegetables, hence the need to pulp them when feeding them.

Anyway, this is going slightly OT and I stand by the fact that the canine species is made to cope with a high protein, meat-based diet NOT a grain-based one.

> Dogs aren't equipped to digest vegetables, hence the need to pulp them when feeding them.

I believe the pulping is to facilitate the extraction of the vitamins but fibre does have a function.  Something to be appreciated when a dog suffers from constipation :-)

Brainless,

Actually, my comparison was cr*p, because I don't think you can compare processed foods to raw or home cooked.  For example, if I assumed that 26 grams grams of protein per 100 grams of roast chicken meant 26% protein content, and that some water was removed in roasting (so 75% moisture content), the using the standard formula this would be the result:

26% protein/(100-75) x 100 = 104%  which is nonsense. Unless I did this wrong, which is entirely possible.  My head hurts!

Although a U.S. agency, the article in the link below is interesting because it points out that under U.S. labeling (and I betcha the same here) if a pet food says "in gravy, "stew, or in sauce" or something like that the water content can be much higher than for regular moist foods, measured up to 87.5%. Yikes!

In any event, "in the wild" dogs would not eat nicely butchered cuts of meat - they eat feathers, bone, feet, beaks, hide, hair ... and other low digestible or not at all digestible bits of animal.   Not to mention they wouldn't necessarily eat every day either, so the actual amount of protein they consume over time may be quite different to what any of our pampered pets consume.  

http://www.fda.gov/cvm/petlabel.htm
U.S. FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine: "The most accurate means of doing this is to convert the guarantees for both products to a dry matter basis. The percentage of dry matter of the product is equal to 100% minus the percentage of moisture guaranteed on the label. A dry food is approximately 88-90% dry matter, while a canned food is only about 22-25% dry matter. To convert a nutrient guarantee to a dry matter basis, the percent guarantee should be divided by the percentage of the dry matter, then multiplied by 100. For example, a canned food guarantees 8% crude protein and 75% moisture (or 25% dry matter), while a dry food contains 27% crude protein and 10% moisture (or 90% dry matter). Which has more protein, the dry or canned? Calculating the dry matter protein of both, the canned contains 32% crude protein on a dry matter basis (8/25 X 100 = 32), while the dry has only 30% on a dry matter basis (27/90 X 100 = 30). Thus, although it looks like the dry has a lot more protein, when the water is counted out, the canned actually has a little more. An easier way is to remember that the amount of dry matter in the dry food is about four times the amount in a canned product. To compare guarantees between a dry and canned food, multiply the guarantees for the canned food times four first. "

> Mastifflover - You say the dog was nearly crippled on high protein - what was the actual problem? And just how did the low protein correct the problem?

The problems were down on pasters to the point of nearly being flat-footed, front feet turning out, and a general 'floppyness' all over making it very hard for him to walk.
The low protein diet (18%) slowed & evened out the growth rate allowing the skeleton to catch up with the overgrown ligamants, straightening everything out again. The vet was very concerned with Busters legs and wanted to opperate, if they had stayed in the condition they were in it would have ruined his joints (due to wear at the unnatural angles of the them), I took a leap of faith and went with the breeders advice of the 'corrective' diet and things soon started to rectify :-)

>I would still think that no matter what the size of the dog, be it a Dane or a Yorkie or anything in between, the basic construction and internal make up of the dog is much the same.

It's the growth rate of the puppy that is the major difference, not the finished construction of the dog. Mastiffs & St. Bernards for eg. can grow to be 100 times thier birth weight, a huge percntage of this happens within the first 9 months, encouraging this rapid growth can cause problems.

> The great thing is the lack of poo out of the other end.  Loads smaller!

<IMG src="/images/mi_quote.gif" alt="Quote selected text" title="Quote selected text" class="qButton"/>

did you do a gradual change over of the food.  Usually I would do that but the pup has had really sloppy poos for the last week and has been on chicken/fish and rice to keep things bland.  I added some of his usual food (beta) to the mix today and sloppy poos again by tea time.

given that his stomach is upset at the moment anyway do you think there would be a problem with introducing the orijen to the rice and chicken mix and just binning the beta rather than reintroducing the beta in order to fade it out again.

I'm also wondering how much of it you feed your collie?  There was a poster on here earlier (can't remember who) who said they fed much less of orijen than I feed of beta but the orijen bag says I should be feeding the pup 600g per day which means a bag will only last 3 weeks - ouch!

I did a change over immediately and we had no problems at all with doing that which I was surprised at.

It says that I should feed about 150 grams per day as she only weighs 14.1kg and she has a third of a pack of naturediet for her breakfast.  This is lots less than I used to feed her previous food, I use the burns plastic cups to measure it out and it is about 3/4 of one of those. 

Might be worth giving orijen a ring about the feeding amounts.  Remember it is only recommended amounts and could be different for each dog.

thanks dvnbiker.  He still has sloppy poos so I will wait until it firms up and he is off the chicken/fish and rice as I feel that it defeats the purpose of feeding grain free if I am shovelling rice in with it. lol