I think anecdotal reports of how a dog "did" on an individual food are worthless. There is far too much individual variability between dogs, personal bias, and various uncontrolled and unrelated factors to make accurate comparisons. I would rather see macronutrient and micronutrient comparisons and ingredients to make a final decision on where to start with my personal pet, then try that and see how he likes it and how he seems to do as an individual. I'm guessing that's why those sites rated lower (as they should).

 

Well when there are hundreds of "anecdotal" reports from owners actually using a product it is not something to just throw away. If a product does not work it is worthless regardless of the profiles and ingredient list. Sites that rate a food very high simply because the ingredient panel pleases them means nothing to me at all. That was the point of the manufacturer making the food the way they did. I want products that are constructed to work, that give results that are known over and over again. For instance Blackwood foods. On rateitall many people reported excellent results and were thrilled with the products. Then came the jerks that had never even seen the product nor used it claiming the products to be garbage, they do this because they think they can read an ingredient profile and magically know that a food is good or bad. That is BS, pure BS. Through experience there are foods I will use and recommend and ones I will not. It is my experience overall that influences my opinion on a product....not some review of it's ingredient panel.

Also realize these reviews based on reading the ingredient panel are also anecdotal. They are usually not based on any fact at all, having many myths influencing them and just plain incorrect information.

 

Also realize these reviews based on reading the ingredient panel are also anecdotal. They are usually not based on any fact at all, having many myths influencing them and just plain incorrect information.

That's not what anecdotal means. Anecdotes are based on personal experience. Analyzing feed ingredients and nutrient profiles are not anecdotal. I do agree with you that there are many myths and inaccuracies influencing those websites that rate foods based on ingredient lists, which is why I don't go by dog food rating websites at all :smile:

 

I'm not really sure why you are going off in that direction- it really has nothing to do with what I was saying.

Anecdote: Someone's dog did well on Brand X.
My interpretation: meaningless

Scientific approach: Brand X has A% protein, B% fat, etc, and ingredients Q,R,S...
My interpretation: Meaningful place to start

I completely disregard how websites rate foods, as there is too much misinformation (corn is the devil...). As a 4th year vet student with a scientific background, I prefer a scientific approach :smile:

 

Agreed, testing, background of the users of a food, experience of the company all critical. Ingredients as discussed on many webistes are just marketing.

There is never one fact when it comes to demonization of something like corn, by products, beet pulp, K3, etc. Despite evidence to the contrary there is never any respect for proven science. I was reading where Karen Becker was trashing Porcine Plasma despite at least 40 peer reviews studies and field use all over the world that it is extremely valuable to animals. Figure that one out.

But, when it comes to herbs, berries, coconut oil and every other crazy ingredient, there is "always" proof because someone believes it is so.

As a vet it must drive you crazy when you read grains cause allergies. There is so much data available to the contrary, you wonder how people can still believe that crap.

 

You have nailed it! That's why I don't put much value on anecdotes. I think any medical professional can be driven crazy by all the misinformation that is available, however I admit I am also guilty of doing my own internet "research" and self-diagnosing. I do try to avoid it though and consult with real medical professionals when necessary!

 

Personally I think people do themselves a disservice if they disregard the experiences of others on a product. These experiences tend to have obvious trends (that's scientific ) that can assist people in selecting a product. Seeing some highly rated, highly recommended foods perform poorly over and over again tells me something as does that poorly rated food that produces awesome results

 

I like a combination of anecdotal and scientific points of view! I don't want to side with one or the other

That's a healthy attitude and I totally agree with you.

 

Number 13 is dogfoodanalysis.com I really dislike this site, it got a 3 start rating but I would have rated it lower as the rating is based on credibility. The dentist that owns this site knows nothing about pet food nor pet nutrition and only grades foods based on his understanding of the ingredient panel and his invented way of determining meat content which can only be determined by asking the company or being there to see what is put in. Ingredient lists being in one place can be convenient but only as long as they stay current.

Dog Food Advisor is owned by the dentist, not Dog Food Analysis.

See: About the Dog Food Advisor

 

Last time I checked, DFA was a dead website and not updating. It is also filled with factual errors.

 

I love Dr. Becker.