Dog Food Chat banner

1 - 20 of 51 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I am most familiar with Dog Food Analysis, any others?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,359 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
329 Posts
I don't think Dog Food Analysis is unbiased. Their rating system is pure ridiculous :rolleyes:

You want to learn about dog food?....read posts on this site. We'll tell you exactly what the dog is doing on the food. We've fed it all!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
517 Posts
I don't think Dog Food Analysis is unbiased. Their rating system is pure ridiculous :rolleyes:

You want to learn about dog food?....read posts on this site. We'll tell you exactly what the dog is doing on the food. We've fed it all!


Why do you think that?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,791 Posts
I don't like DFA simply because it is too simplistic in its rankings.

Rating Taste of the Wild in the same class with Orijen and EVO is unfair in my opinion. (both 6 stars)

I'd also like to see more emphasis on faith and ethics of the manufacturer.

However, I will say this....it would be near impossible to devise a PERFECT system for rating foods. DFA does it about as best as you would be able to do.

And if someone picks anything on that site in the 4-6 star class, they are feeding a much better food than 9/10 owners.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
329 Posts
Why do you think that?


There is no study or science behind how they rate foods. They even state this on the disclosure on the website.

The only thing they are grading on is the ingredients in the food not taking into consideration, caloric intake or the nutrient analysis.

They also have a biased vision on beet pulp, vitamin E, what causes bloat and determining meat content.

You will learn so much more on this website then you ever will on DFA. DFA is a good site in terms of seeing all the dog foods availble in one place, but you are a fool if you pick a food based on THEIR rating system.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
132 Posts
I would never put much credence into a site which does not fully explain their whys and wherefores. And, too, WHO is this site? Are they canine nutritionists or just some schmo with his opinions? Learning about ingredients, nutritional analysis, and studying the companies/ manufacturers ( do they own their own plant? if not, who makes their food? how long in business? where are their ingredients sourced from? what is their recall history? etc) are all things that would play into whether I would be interested in a particular food. And then, of course, the very most important.... does my dog (s) do well on this food? Everything can look great on paper, but if your dog doesn't do well on it.... GI upsets, allergy issues, dull dry coat, etc. it's a no-go.

FWIW, I like this site as it does have an educational bent... not just some random ranking based on personal bias. DogAware.com: Commercial Dog Foods
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,713 Posts
I don't like DFA simply because it is too simplistic in its rankings.

Rating Taste of the Wild in the same class with Orijen and EVO is unfair in my opinion. (both 6 stars)

I'd also like to see more emphasis on faith and ethics of the manufacturer.

However, I will say this....it would be near impossible to devise a PERFECT system for rating foods. DFA does it about as best as you would be able to do.

And if someone picks anything on that site in the 4-6 star class, they are feeding a much better food than 9/10 owners.
if you look at taste of the wilds rating, they say that it is not a solid 6 stars contender and is one of the lower quality 6 star ones. then if you go to orijen regional red, hey say its got one of the highest meat contents available. i like DFA they are very explanatory for each specific one of their foods they got.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
132 Posts
In looking at DFR, am I missing something???? Does he not have the nutritional analysis available? And he only profiles one variety of a brand? They can vary considerably. Personally, I want to see the nutritional and guaranteed analysis. The ca:phos ratio is very important for our autoimmune compromised springer who is an AIHA survivor. There is much more info by visiting the companies' websites. Also, he is a DENTIST..... just who I want my dog food consultation from! lol
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,713 Posts
TOTW is a Diamond product and as such has ethoxyquin in any fish meal ingredient. That for me is enough to put it in the NO bucket.
ive read people
's emails(posted on forums) that TOTW as tested just as low as orijen for ethoxyquin. ive also read it is cooked out during the extrusion (cooking) process. im assuming all kibbles with ethoxyquin are just cooked out...im not sure why ethoxyquin is illegal in human if this is true so maybe im wrong?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
132 Posts
That is the rhetoric from some. However, there are quality foods out there without ethoxyquin.... they either use whole fish (not meal) or are preserved with Nature Ox ( a natural preservative). Most quality foods not using ethoxyquin state so on their site, and also state that their suppliers do not use it either ( a big loophole, since if suppliers use it, it does not have to be disclosed).

Very important, neither Orijen or Acana use ethoxyquin. See their site here:Champion Petfoods | F.A.Q
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
517 Posts
I don't like DFA simply because it is too simplistic in its rankings.

Rating Taste of the Wild in the same class with Orijen and EVO is unfair in my opinion. (both 6 stars)

I'd also like to see more emphasis on faith and ethics of the manufacturer.

However, I will say this....it would be near impossible to devise a PERFECT system for rating foods. DFA does it about as best as you would be able to do.

And if someone picks anything on that site in the 4-6 star class, they are feeding a much better food than 9/10 owners.

Yeah I'm with you on all your points. I will say they did say mention that TOTW was going to be a 5, but it just barely slipped into the 6 category, and that it is a low 6. I just hate it that they have tripett in the 5 category, it should be a 6 imo, not that it matters though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
329 Posts
How is Acana Grain Free a 5 star and Canine Caviar a 3 star!!!!!!

DFA is the most messed up grading system in all of the dog world.


I whole heartedly agree with Penny and Maggies Mom.


Can DFA decipher a Nutrtion Analysis?



Lastly, as everyone seems to be talking about TOTW. Yes, DFA says it's barely a 6 star because it's grain free. I'd just like to point out that at 360 to 375 calories per cup, (depending on the formula) not only is it missing grain, but it's missing meat!

If they rank Acana Grain Free a 5 star, then based on DFA's pethetic "rating" scale, TOTW would be a 4 star at best.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,713 Posts
well if its baked out i dont see the problem. ive read that all foods use a little bit. ive read orijen has lie .00001 or something in it, so its not 0... and TOTW has liek .00005 or something.(just making up numbers but iread something similar)

salty dog, i think for the most part DFA is accurate, however....i think they have canidae grain free and TOTW mixed up. they rate canidae grai nfree as one of the highest quality 5 star foods, yet TOTW which is a lesser food IMO is a low quality 6 star.
i think acana grain free is a little higher quality than TOTW also and that's 5 stars.

id give canine caviar atleast 4 stars.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
438 Posts
ive stated this countless times on another forum:

dogfoodanalysis is primarily a tool that is good for looking at many different foods and their ingredients and profiles all in one handy location. beyond that, i think it is incumbent on a consumer to further research their food choices via other sources. DFA is certainly not the bible of dog food quality evaluation that many think it is. the rankings are inconsistent at best. are most of the better foods in the 4,5,6 star category? id say in general, most of them are, but that is a pretty broad range.

as far as canine caviar, i have emailed them to ask what percentage of their final product is meat content. they have responded with the old standy "proprietary information." i can get this information from Natura or Champion. i believe a high meat content is important. i dont expect it to be very high at 26% protein for the CC. my own personal ranking would probably put CC at 4 stars. i definitely think it is justifiable to have some of the grainless foods with high meat content rated very high, while others (TOTW, for example) should not be quite as high.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
132 Posts
well if its baked out i dont see the problem. ive read that all foods use a little bit. ive read orijen has lie .00001 or something in it, so its not 0... and TOTW has liek .00005 or something.(just making up numbers but iread something similar)

salty dog, i think for the most part DFA is accurate, however....i think they have canidae grain free and TOTW mixed up. they rate canidae grai nfree as one of the highest quality 5 star foods, yet TOTW which is a lesser food IMO is a low quality 6 star.
i think acana grain free is a little higher quality than TOTW also and that's 5 stars.

id give canine caviar atleast 4 stars.
All foods do NOT use it. Read the orijen/ acana link I posted above. Also, all natura products are E free, as are fromm products. And remember, it is ONLY used to preserve fish MEAL (not whole fish) so if a food does not contain some kind of fish meal, it is E free no matter who the manufacturer is.

Also, I have never seen scientific evidence of it being cooked out. If you have, please post a link.
 
1 - 20 of 51 Posts
Top