Does anyone know what the best protein content is to be feeding a 10 week old labrador puppy? I have done alot of research and am non the wiser about it, at the moment I feed Burns which is about 21% protein but most puppy foods seem to have at least 30%. I don't want my pup to grow too quickly and end up with hip problems but then I don't want to do him any damage by malnourishing him! As with most labs he seems to be constantly hungry, he's a big boy but not fat. Any advice would be gratefully received.
Sarah

Most puppy foods have between 28 and 30% protein.
If you were unsure about the Burns i would give the helpline on the bag a ring and ask them, they know their food better than anyone (i would hope).

What did your breeder have him on?    Whatever you change him to, do it very gradually, so that his digestive system can adapt gradually.

Regards
Margot

My breeder had him on Fromm large breed puppy food, I have changed him over to Burns mini bites over the course of a week and he has not put any weight on in that week. I have been told that it is better to have a slightly underweight pup than an overweight one but I just feel so cruel when he finishes his food in 10 seconds flat and still looks hungry. I think my vet may have been pushing this certain puppy food on me for the wrong reasons, is it true they get paid for promoting certain foods?

sarah

A lot of people seem to say their dogs don't put weight on with Burns. Burns is a good quality food, but not all food suits all dogs. My pup was on Fromm before I changed her to raw feeding, and she grew really well on it, although it's slightly difficult to get hold of (I got it mail order). I'm not an expert, but I think pups should put on at least a little weight each week.

Other similar quality completes you could try are Arden Grange and James Wellbeloved. I think they're all pretty much similarly priced and at the end of the day there's no point feeding something that doesn't agree with your dog. Good luck

:-)

edit: as for promoting certain foods, there are a lot worse food your vet could have promoted! I'd be happy if my vet had promoted Burns, but was instead recommended Pedigree I think.. I never took him up on that tho!!

Most vets unlike doctors (Private excluded) are interested in maximising profts from thier practice
and will recommened the food thats giving them most proft (Hills, the macdonalds of the dog food world- one in every Vets )  .they are not to keen on promoting other diets that may improve your dog health
as they prefer animals to be unhealthy it makes them more money i trust my vet to treat my dog for any iillness, but i would not trust him to feed my dog.jo

Which ever food a vet chose to sell would have a mark up and consequently a profit so I can see no incentive for them to choose to sell anything inadequate for the job.  I totally disagree with your view that vets prefer animals to be unhealthy as that would mean they want them to suffer and I have never met, or even heard of a vet, that wanted animals to suffer.

Hi Jo,

>as they prefer animals to be unhealthy it makes them more money<

I think that's a bit harsh :(  I'm no fan of vet's steering everyone towards one type of food or type of feeding but I can't agree with your statement.

Teri

No the point I am making is that healthy eating for dogs is not high on some vets list
It can't be or is Hills the best food in the world? Surely if vets are cornered about diet They would stock better foods .The competition in the vet world for customers is just the same as in any other business, cut throat. A branch of pet4vets opened in a near by town from us and were giving that many special offers that one of the other Vets went out of business  (in tragic circumstances) so the point I was trying to get across was Vets Need to be able to generate income and anything that prevents people from taking their pets to the vets IE better diets is costing them money. my first post should have read feeding unhealthly. sorry-jo

The fact that it brings a good profit is no indication as to whether it is a good food. Personally I think it is a perfectly good food but there are plenty just as good cheaper.
I disagree that healthy eating is not high on vets list as they will be well aware of the relevance of nutrition on an animals general health and as I have said I do not agree with your view that vets like animals to be unhealthy. For them to do that they would have to not care about animals and I cannot believe that can possibly be true of them as a body.

I never said they dont care! But vets are business people at the end of the day they LIKE to make money. The fact that certain vets sell Hills and only hills would indicate that they do not spend much time
On finding out if that's the best food so it must be low on their list of priorities. I know that some Vets wont touch Hills with a barge pole and do not stock their waiting rooms full of dog food. Can you go to your doctors and find a food that's good for Cancer?
Hills promote one, vets recommended it, costs a fortune but people who are very vulnerable at the Vets believe it. But after all the medical research that human's do they have yet to find a food that helps human cancer sufferers. All I am saying is that when it comes to feeding  SOME Vets have their own agenda.         

I can't follow your logic Jo, I am not aware that Hill's claim there food is good for cancer, do you mean preventing it or curing it?  I am not saying Hills is the best food just a perfectly good food, like many others, so on that basis why shouldn't vets sell it I think it is reasonable for all businesses to make money as long as their product or service is fit for the purpose.
I'm afraid I do think you are saying vets don't care when you say things like vets prefer animals to be unhealthy, what else can that mean?

Vets do recieve kickbacks and incentives from hills for pushing and selling their products ontop of the profit they make from selling it.

I can understand where Jo is coming from,Honestly take a look at the ingredient list on a bag of hills,it is of very substandard quality with  a high quality price tag,vets are not nutrionalists,unless they have studied it to obtain a seperate nutrition degree ontop of their veterenary degree. Just for the record i have been to a fair few vet practices and asked the vet to tell me the ingredient list of hills,without looking on the bag,none of them could tell me :(

No, vets probaly dont intentionally want to make pets sick by selling a less than desirable food such as hills that contains BHA, BHT and ethoxiquin, which by the way is used to make rubber in tyres etc.,peanut hulls,with fillers up the wazoo and undisclosed ingredients. But one has to ask why they would want to sell such a food that obviously contains so many un-needed,unhealthy ingredients ???? Serious disease and illness can almost always be traced back to nutrition. Disease-illness,without them vets would be out of a job :)

Like i've said before,vets are good for diagnosing and treating illness,but i wouldnt go to them for nutrional advice,i would go to a canine nutrionalist. Same with humans,i wouldnt go to my local g.p for nutrition advise,i would seek out someone trained in that particular field. Vets are not gods,they do not and cant possibly know everything about everything ;)

>I can't follow your logic Jo, I am not aware that Hill's claim there food is good for cancer<

Hills have a food for cancer inflicted dogs :rolleyes: I wont even go into the ingredients this food contains :(

Science plan: science death,science fiction :D

I have already said I think the profit vets make on Hills is probably more substancial than it need be but I still do not accept that they have heartlessly chosen a harmfull product in order to do that.

>Serious disease and illness can almost always be traced back to nutrition

I think only a proportion can be attributed to diet and I would have said a very small one with modern feeding, most serious disease and illness in dogs these days appears to be age related but whatever the cause it is the vets who will be dealing with it on a daily basis and therefore are likely to be more aware of any of causes.

>i wouldnt go to my local g.p for nutrition advise

I would :)
I know you have issues about the ingedients in a lot of foods Rose, but I think most people appreciate that the chemicals used to preserve the food in a reliably good condition are well within the, already small, permitted limits and fibre in any form is just fibre and serves a useful purpose.

>Vets are not gods,they do not and cant possibly know everything about everything

No, but a 4 year degree course covering the foundations of anatomy, physiology and aetiology are probably a good head start on those us who try to find things out for ourselves without benefit of examination on the subject to ensure we are up the right track :)

Vets are well trained and you need a brain to be one, however I do think
There is a serious conflict of interests when they become salesmen for a particular
Brand of food. They cannot be objective about a one product WHEN they are receiving a vast profit for selling that food... That's why I said I would trust them to treat my dog for an illness (4 years hard work and qualifications to match) but would not trust them to feed my dog (large money based profits). -Jo

So who do we trust? :) Just about everyone giving us advise on what to feed is either selling a food, selling a book about food or has an axe to grind like anti-capitalism.  Even those who merely offer their own experience will have it limited to a fairly small sample of dogs.  If we are now both agreed that vets are not out to cause ill health in animals I don't see their recommendation is likely to be a particularly bad one even if the profits are high :) after all I would imagine they could get that level of mark up from any product they chose to endorse.

The quality of Hills If you get the chance check their ingredients remains at best mid quality range compared to others JWB, ARDEN GRANGE, BURNS, and TROPHY. Sold through Vets at about £40.00 for 15kgk bag Allows vets to make a substantial profit More so if they sold another brand. Hills know this and play on human beliefs (like you) that vets know best. Hills  i belive spend most of their promotion budget on sponsoring Vet Training The simple fact that in an any other free market, say every time you went
To your doctor he had a waiting room stocked only of one brand of food. He then advised you that the food in his waiting room was the best for healthy humans. The monopolies committee would have a fit. Vets treat ANIMALS  to get them better,they sell pet food for gain. As i said in my first reply Vets Unlike a doctor are business men ,so even if they do care they are out to make as much money as possible.Selling Hills gives them an unfair and misleading advantage on other foods.JO 

The quality of the ingredients is obviously going to be a matter of opinion :)  I am not sure that vets sell Hills as the best but rather this is a good food that we are stocking for your convenience which may suit some people and if not they can shop elsewhere.  As I say I am perfectly happy for vets to make a profit on this so long as there is nothing wrong with the food, they have to make their profit and perhaps it will help to keep the general running costs of the surgery down which will be reflected in their fees :).  If you think this gives Hills an unfair advantage why don't you report it to the Monopolies Commission :)

It took a couple nearly 20 years to get MacDonald's Proven wrong.
I don't know if I got 20 years to spare fighting a multi million company such as Hills. Big money talk's small minds listen.-Jo

Weren't the McDonalds two let off on a technicality over whether they should have got legal aid rather than any verity to their pamphlet :)  I'm pretty sure the Monopolies Commission are impartial and probably not small minded ;)

No, without legal aid they were deemed to not be able to fight MacDonald's on a level playing field I.e. MacDonald's could employ the best legal team, they could not. So the outcome of the libel case was unfair not on a technicality, but deemed unfair. Hills are not approved by the Buav but vets use them and if  vets are so ethical why do they promote a firm that has been accused of carrying out experiments on healthy animals.

I think even with access to yours and mine taxes these two may be hard pushed to get all their claims deemed as acceptable :)
Not sure what McDonalds has to do with Hills though, are you just generally saying all large companies are unethical.
All a company has to do to fail to get a tick from the BUAV is to refuse to let this, self appointed, group traipse round their factory and pass their critera for what constitutes cruel testing which may not be the same as you or I would see it.

I think the buav is a little bit more involved than your simplistic synopsis.
Fact is the Buav list is growing. More and more Companies are looking to be approved.
That in its self says something .McDonald, Hills are laws unto themselves because they have the money. Give me a small independent UK firm any day .

Clearly you and I are not going to agree on the benefits of testing, the evils or merits of capitalism or the benefits to the consumer of large unit sales but these after all are matters of opinion :)

Quite frankly I'm not in favour of the higher levels of protein for puppies and get mine off of puppy food just as soon as possible.

Going back to your original question, the quoted percentages are often very misleading. For example, tinned food often gives figures as low as 5% but the reason for that is that tins can contain anything up to 80% water! Very often these figures are not comparing like with like.

Regards, John

When Fagan was a pup I put him on burns mini bites, he lost alot of weight and was always hungrey, I feel really guilty because I bascially starved him for the first month that I had him and there was me thinking I was doing the right thing because I went by what it said on the bag :( Burns advised I changed to their large breed puppy food which I did for a while but he still didnt put on enough weight for my liking.  Thats when I changed him to raw and you could see the difference within a week he really filled out and looked really healthy.  I gave my left over sacks of Burns to my mum and her dog (a lurcher) did really well on it, so its swings and roundabouts really.  I have tried to feed Fagan on complete since but he just didnt do well on it  Im not trying to push BARF here (or start another huge BARF debate) because I really do think it is up each to their own and different things agree with different dogs but my other pup Alfie (4.5 months old) was reared on a semi BARF diet and I have had him totally on BARF nearly since I got and he has grown much slower than Fagan and has stayed in proportion where as Fagan shot up quite fast and went quite leggy and thin (and still is :( ) a lot of this is quite possibly in the dogs lines (although both dogs are related) but I think the food did contribute a great part. 

I would do as John says, change to adult early as this will help with the slow growth, dont worry too much about proteins.

Well its been a week since I put Kobi on Burns and he has now started putting weight on again, although I am feeding slightly more than it says. And just to lower the tone, its the first time since we've got him that his poo has been solid and consistant, so that's got to be a good thing. I am now trying to persuade the in-laws to have a go with it as their dogs have terrible tummy trouble on Baker's complete (icky stuff)- wish me luck!

Sarah

Thats a very balanced view Blondebird88 :)  I don't think many people object to anyone recommended raw feed only when it is done on the basis that complete foods are no good.  As you have seen for yourself some foods that don't suit one dog will do very nicely for another, some more dogs would do very well on either :)

Why thank you Isabel :)