[TwoSweetBabies]

Hey guys!
I was just wondering...since i'm fairly young (22), I can't really say I know how long these hollistic dog foods have been around (canidae, halo, solid gold etc). This has led me to wonder, is there anyone around here who feeds a hollistic food, that has had atleast one dog that lived its whole life on a hollistic food?
The reason I ask, is while I will never feed a dog food like Pedigree, Purina, etc (although I don't judge those who do), I was just thinking about all the people I know who have very old dogs that grew up eating those foods, like Pedigree. My fiances dog was fed anything from Pedigree - Kibbles n Bits - people scraps, and she just passed at almost 22 years old!
I'm just curious as to whether hollistic fed dogs really do fair better off in the long run?
Thoughts?

[jesirose]

Every dog is different. Different breeds have different life expentancies. Just as different people eat different diets and have different results.

[TwoSweetBabies]

Well yes, I do believe dogs have different life expectancy, thats fairly obvious. But I was mostly asking in general...

[Zack_the_Mouse]

my Poodle has been on holistic food most of her life but so far it just creates less vet bills that works for me.

[UrbanBeagles]

I think there are other factors besides nutrition to be taken into account when determining longevity ... for instance keeping your dog at an ideal bodyweight throughout it's life, envorinment/exercize, and genetics. I also think you have to look at what's being fed besides the kibble, and how often. Fresh meat is just better absorbed by the body. By it's very nature, all kibble is a processed product - so adding fresh meat - i.e. table scraps - can definitely contribute to longevity. That's one factor you may find in common with most unusually old dogs ... they've been fed scraps or fresh meat on a regular basis. At least, that's been my own experience. The oldest dogs I know reached 17+ on scraps alone or scraps & the old standby foods (Pedigree, Purina, Science Diet, Euk). I know a retired police K9 handler with GSDs who have lived to 15-16 on nothing but Euk and some outstanding Veterinary care.

That being said, holistic foods HAVE been around much longer than you think. You mentioned Solid Gold - they've been around for about 30+ years, and were really the first self proclaimed "holistic" manufacturer. Every dog, EVERY single dog I have seen on Solid Gold's products, have skin/coat problems. My friend's Chi has severe dermatitis on that Just A Wee Bit formula. A show Labrador breeder had awful results with their puppy food and one of the adult formulas. Her bitches were having conception problems and lactation problems. Milk was dring up when pups were 1-2 weeks old!!! We had a few puppy buyers feed varying formulas of Solid Gold, more recently the high protein Bark at the Moon food. All coat problems.

Fromm is quite old - they've been around since the late 40s/early50s. Eagle Pack, Azmira, Avoderm ... these are all older companies. Obviously, they must work, or people would not still be purchasing them. But here you have a company (Fromm) producing feed for the pet market several years before Purina went mainstream with their brand and began selling to grocery/feed stores, and yet, it still has not achieved the same level of popularity or success. Smart companies tried their formulas with breeders and let their formula build a name for itself. Then based their marketing upon that. Which is what Paul Iams originally did, as well. If a feed is good, it attracts buyers, then you sell it based on how well it has performed for such and such show dogs, breeders, working dogs, etc.

Many of the holistic companies are formulating their diets on computers, based on the research of the old Gaines company, Purina, Iams, Waltham. The companies with the feeding trials almost always have the better feeds, *regardless* of ingredients. Dogs will do better on a diet that has meat and bone meal or some other "icky" ingredient but has been tested to work on dogs and is digestable & has a vitamin premix that is well balanced. That's why we usually see dogs on Pedigree or Purina living to ripe old ages with few problems. I have honestely never heard of a dog kept on basically one or two main holistic foods living to 15,16,17+ ... if I had I'd certainly admit it & would probably try it myself, lol. And it's not because those foods haven't been around, it's simply that they don't work for more than a few months in most cases. Many people feeding holistic foods "rotate" every few months because the diets just don't work much longer than that. There should be no nutritional gaps in a good food, and if I need to rotate with another food for the dog to get all it's nutrients, I'd seriosuly second guess what I was feeding ...

[TwoSweetBabies]

Urban,
Thank you for such an informative answer. Though I'm confused about your actual opinion on hollistic foods. Are you suggesting against them? I have a hard time understanding why foods like Pedigree, which contain cancer causing ingredients, would be recommended over one that doesnt.
I fully understand that other factors come into the equation and that its impossible to relate it all back to the kibble fed. This was meant solely as a food based question as to what the owner fed and how long the dog lived.
What do you feed, Urban?
THanks!

[UrbanBeagles]

Originally Posted by TwoSweetBabies

Urban,
Thank you for such an informative answer. Though I'm confused about your actual opinion on hollistic foods. Are you suggesting against them? I have a hard time understanding why foods like Pedigree, which contain cancer causing ingredients, would be recommended over one that doesnt.
I fully understand that other factors come into the equation and that its impossible to relate it all back to the kibble fed. This was meant solely as a food based question as to what the owner fed and how long the dog lived.
What do you feed, Urban?
THanks!

I'm not suggesting any food in particular ... I don't care for Pedigree, either. Not because of the preservatives, however, but because when I fed it for a very short time, my pups were off the walls and had a bad body odor. I know people who feed Pedigree & have very healthy dogs. I also know other Beaglers who feed Black Gold, which also contains BHA, and their dogs do quite well on it.

I'm not against any kibble, holistic or otherwise. It's very naieve, IMHO, to consider holistic foods better because their ingredient lists look nicer. They are still a processed product, and the chicken meal or turkey meal or lamb meal or whatever meat is in them is basically processed in the same way the meat in a McDonald's Chicken Nugget is. So ALL kibble from Innova to Pedigree is processed. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing for dogs, becuase they do have that scavenger nature and can eat quite a few things that would not be conducive to health in humans - such as raw meat No, I wouldn't eat McDonalds or feed it to my kids, but my dogs ain't children and shouldn't be fed like humans.

I do feed some raw, scraps, so when I look for a kibble, I now prefer ones that are cost effective and have a solid vitamin mix in lieu of ingredients that look nice. Keep in mind, most ingredients are similar - meat and bone meal is simply the meat of more than one tyoe of an animal mixed in the same batch - so chicken and beef or lamb and pork plus the dried bone meal from those animals. What's wrong with that? I've seen foods that list turkey meal as the first ingredient then a few ingredients down will list another meat source from an entirely different animal, say lamb meal. Essentially, that's what meat meal is, only it's more economical for the manufacturer to buy because it's just leftover parts (which is what is in all kibbles, don't kid yourself, your dogs ain't getting filet mignon with Innova) sold together. Bone meal ... nothing wrong with that. I buy bovine bone meal for myself. It's dried, crushed up bone. So that is what you need to be aware of with the holistic foods. They're worded differently, but not always better. You may be getting the same thing only packaged and arranged differently. There could be "cancer causing" preservatives in holistic foods that use a source o fmeat meal, say chicken meal. Did you know that "meals" are sold to the manufacturer as is and by law, the manufacturer does not need to list any preservatives their supplier used on their ingredients? That's what often happens with fish meal. Most of it is preserved by w/ ethoxyquin as per Coast Guard regulations, yet no manufacturer will list that their supplier's fish meal has ethoxyquin. If you feed ANY kibble, your dog is eating a pricessed product that has a high probability of having trace amounts of chemicals. That can be said for raw fed dogs, too, whose owner's unknowingly purchase "enhanced" meat.

As for what I feed, it's not holistic I've never had much luck w/ holistic diets. The best feeds I've used were "middle of the road" types, with basic ingredient lists. My dogs look and feel great, so will be continued on what they're currently eating ... I'd love for anyone to see my dogs pics & tell me they don't look 1000% healthy ... http://www.flickr.com/photos/houndmusic/

[TwoSweetBabies]

Urban,
I just wanted to say again that I did not intend this to be a argument between regular kibble and hollistic kibble. Just simply a infomative topic about dogs longevity on hollistic diets. I personally am switching from Canidae to Halo, simply because I want to get as far away from the companys that were in any way effected by a recall. I do believe many dogs thrive on basic kibble, because, obviously I've seen them do it. But for my dogs I want the best, and if I have to pick between 2 processed kibbles, i'm probably going to pick the one that lists chicken as the first ingredient and doesnt list all the unpronouncable ingredients that are in basic kibbles.
I'm a marketing major at my university, and I clearly have an educated understanding in the possible "marketing lies" being made by Hollistic dog food companys, in no way am i naive to that. But if I have to pick one, i'm tempted to pick the hollistic one. But then the argument can be made that dogs have been doing well on basic kibble like pedigree for years. So I'm definitely confused. Would love opionions!

[GreatDaneMom]

Originally Posted by TwoSweetBabies

Urban,
I just wanted to say again that I did not intend this to be a argument between regular kibble and hollistic kibble. Just simply a infomative topic about dogs longevity on hollistic diets. I personally am switching from Canidae to Halo, simply because I want to get as far away from the companys that were in any way effected by a recall. I do believe many dogs thrive on basic kibble, because, obviously I've seen them do it. But for my dogs I want the best, and if I have to pick between 2 processed kibbles, i'm probably going to pick the one that lists chicken as the first ingredient and doesnt list all the unpronouncable ingredients that are in basic kibbles.
I'm a marketing major at my university, and I clearly have an educated understanding in the possible "marketing lies" being made by Hollistic dog food companys, in no way am i naive to that. But if I have to pick one, i'm tempted to pick the hollistic one. But then the argument can be made that dogs have been doing well on basic kibble like pedigree for years. So I'm definitely confused. Would love opionions!

"marketing lies"... that doesnt only apply to hollistic. in fact, i see hollistic foods advertised MUCH LESS than low grade kibble. talk about a marketing lie, ever watch the commercial for Beneful where there are vegies raining from the sky, and they say its soooo great for your dog that hes being spoiled. thats a marketing lie, but so many people feed it because they say its the best. every food is going to say their the best for one reason or another, and it doesnt mean they are. its just plain marketing. i think personal research into food ingredients and canine nutrition is what will make a food good or not. once you can understand the lable, you can make your own decisions.

the fact that dogs have been doing "well" on low grade kibble for years isnt even a good argument. if you really look back into ingredients in past years you will see a lot of change in formulas for those foods, most have declined in quality. those foods were what was available then to most people. also there were significantly less vet visits then too. many dogs died from tumors and cancer and such, but you dont hear about that because many people just took them into the back yard and shot them. thats just how things were. those dogs did "well" on the foods that were available, but very very few of those dogs ever were up to par on their nutritional standards as they could have been. also a lot of those dogs lived different lives than dogs now. dogs were not just pets that sat around in the house like some people have, or just went for walks. those dogs for the most part were workers. most on farms. they were hearding, hunting, etc. they werent laying on the couch. IMHO they were much better trained than most dogs as well....

[TwoSweetBabies]

GreatDaneMom,
If you look at any of my other posts, you will see that I myself feed hollistic. Canidae switching to Halo right now. And I figured it was so obvious of the marketing lies basic main stream kibble companys tell, that I didnt need to mention it.
Everyone seems to not be able to stop arguing and get back to the point.
What do you feed?

[UrbanBeagles]

I don't think anyone is arguing, just offering opinions As I mentioned, I do not know any dogs that have been on a base diet of one or two holistic kibbles that have reached an extraordinary old age. I do know a few who are old now, and have been switched to holistc foods as seniors. I also know quite a few raw fed dogs (not in my own breed) who have been on raw since pups but haven't lived beyond average life expectancy. That was the original question, correct? Do we know of any dogs living to ripe old ages on holistic foods? My answer is no, personally, I don't & that's not because the holistic foods haven't been around long. Solid Gold has been around 30yrs and was the first to call itself a holistic food, then you have Azmira, Fromm, etc. I know there is another well known one that's been around for 30-40 + years, just can't think of the name right now, lol.

A good friend who has one of my pups who will eventually be the foundation of her breeding program has a masters in animal science. She feels the same way I do regarding holistic/non holistic diets and we've had many interesting conversations about chelated minerals, etc., lol. Her dogs have always been on basic foods and have lived loooong lives.

So that's my opinion, and my answer to your question. Not looking for and argument, it's simply a discussion & expression of opinions. I don't feed holistic food and have healthy hounds. My opinions on the subject & part of my reasoning in not feeding holistic foods are well reflected in this article:
http://www.showdogsupersite.com/kenl.../dogdiets.html

[TwoSweetBabies]

I guess my point about arguing was that you didn't seem to understand that I agree with you, I don't know any dogs to live to ripe old ages on hollistic either. Which is why I asked the question. But I also don't know anyone who has been on hollistic their whole lives, so it doesn't really matter.
I really do appreciate all opinions and yours has been the most informative, but I have been on forums where people were a little more supportive of peoples ideas, and I wish it was more like this on this forum! I do not believe that hollistic is the only way, because obviously basic kibble works well for so many. But in my attempt to provide the best, I am interested in finding more out about the ingredients in hollistic kibble. I, like I said, realize that there are untruths in the marketing done by hollistic food, but in theory, I cant see how their ingredients could possible be worse than regular kibble?
So are you saying you think hollistic is actually worse than basic kibble? And why do you think that?

[jenns]

My dog's trainer had a GSD who just passed away at age 15. She was fed holistic foods for most of her life. Is 15 old for a GSD, I really don't know.

How exactly do we define what a "ripe old age" is in a dog? Is it 14? 15? 18? 20? It depends on the breed and what one's definition of old age is. The average lifespan for dogs in the US is based on dogs eating Old Roy, Pedigree and Purina Dog Chow because that is what the vast majority of them are fed. Who knows what a dog's lifespand should be if they are fed an optimal diet. The Purina life span study showed that lean fed labs on Purina foods lived a median age of 13, and only 25% of the dogs lived to age 13.5. So I wouldn't go thinking that all these dogs being fed Purina and the like are living till 18 y.o. because Purina's own controlled study showed that to be false.

[UrbanBeagles]

Originally Posted by TwoSweetBabies

So are you saying you think hollistic is actually worse than basic kibble? And why do you think that?

Not at all! It's not a popular opinion, but I believe the following. Let's stray from the holistic vs. non holistic comparison for a moment, and classify kibbles as economy, basic, premium, super premium. I think most of us would agree that the "holistic" label applies to the premium & super premium category. Obviously, bargain basement/economy foods are going to skimp on quality or vitamins - these are usually generic or store brands and I don't give them any credence. Then you have the basic foods which are meat & grain plus *usually* more focus on vitamins, digestability, feeding trials, research & development. There can be cheaper and pricier types of these foods, and usually their ingredients don't look too appealing, but they generally work well. There are actually a few "Top 10" foods in this category - Nutri Source would be one of them. And I happen to think Nutri Source is an outstanding, underrated feed, from what I've seen of it. The basic foods range from Purina to Science Diet to Iams to Blackwood to Tuffys Gold to Royal Canin, etc.

Then you have premium foods which are sometimes an upgrade of a manufacturer's original product - that used to be Eukanuba, which was the higher end version of Iams and Pro Plan, the upscale version of Dog Chow/Purina One. Now premium foods are basically holistc foods that have blander ingredient lists, such as Healthwise, the economy version of Innova.

Super premium is the ultimate marketing gimmick, IMHO. It starts out as a decent diet but then would not be considered super premium unless you have herbal supplements, fruits, veggies, exotic oils, excessively high amounts of fat & protein, etc. These extras are of no use to dogs. And even if they were, consider that they are added in such small amounts, they either have no benefit, or in the case of kelp, which can interfere w/ thyroid function if fed too often, can actually cause damage. Save for the excessively high protein feeds, the super premium holistic foods are usually much higher in carbs than basic diets.

So no, I don't think holistic is worse or that basic is better, for that matter. I think there are different foods that are marketed to certain types of owners and most of them have their place. My very long winded point is that the holistic foods fill a marketing niche for people who want to feed their dogs a certain way but are not necessarily better because they are holistic. Just a processed food with a kitchen sink approach to the ingredient list. Holistic food is probably the greatest misnomer possible. It can't be holistic, because no matter what herb you throw in the batch, it's still processed food. Secondly, holistic referrs to lifestyle choices for humans. It's fresh, whole foods, proper lifestyle habits, plus treating illness with homeopathic remedies that target the root problem, not the symptom. It really does not apply to kibble, but the name sells a lot of food.

And I think the reason those "holistic" foods don't often work long term is because dogs do well with the simpler foods that dont have 10 different sources of protein, a stick of cinnamon, exotic oils and 40% protein. Turkey meat doesn't upset my stomach unless I have it in a meat loaf with half a dozen other heavy ingredients added. I think it's the same with dog food. All the extra ingredients look and sound nicer, but in the end all it does is give my wallet and the dogs stomach agida lol

The moral of the story ... feed what works ... one is not inherently better than the other because of ingredients, but RESULTS.

[TwoSweetBabies]

I see what your are saying, and like I said, being as that I am majoring in the field of marketing, believe me, I understand the need to appeal to a select target market that desire to feed more "natural" food, be it truly natural or not.
I understand your point of a dog food having a bunch of "froo froo" ingredients, just to sound better. I get that. That is one of the reasons I decided against Innova, it was just....too much. However I see Halo Spots Stew as a pretty basic dog food, minus all the preservatives and chemicals of the traditionally basic food. Sure they list quite a few vegetables, and i'm sure thats great, but i'm smart enough to know the quantity is so little that it probably doesn't matter.
Like I said, I would have a hard time justifying feeding a food that lists known carcinogens in the ingredient list.

[UrbanBeagles]

Originally Posted by TwoSweetBabies

Like I said, I would have a hard time justifying feeding a food that lists known carcinogens in the ingredient list.

Ah, but not all those basic foods have preservatives. Actually, most don't anymore. Pedigree does have BHA/BHT, but not even Science Diet contains preservatives anymore. Dog Chow doesn't have chemical preservatives either. Black Gold actually has a nice, semi holistic ingredient list, but many of their formulas contain BHA. Also, keep in mind that the studies proving those chemicals were carcinogens were feeding them to rodents in massive quantities. Are they desireable ingredients though? No, absolutely not. I'm not sure if I'd be comfortable feeding a food with preservatives, but jsut because they're not listed on the ingredient panel doesn't mean they're not there. I don't think anyone wants to feed diets with carcinogens - but then again that depends on what your definition of a carcinogen is? Preservatives, or actual ingredients? Some would say the food I use is a carcinogen in and of itself, lol. Anyway, the basic, cheaper foods do not automatically contain preservatives. The food I use does not. It's just as basic as you can get

[JenTN]

I think one reason a lot of people don't see dogs with great long lives on holistic food is because, in my experience, the majority of holistic feeders own purebreds. Purebreds generally have more health problems and live shorter lives than mixed breeds, which are often on lower quality food.

My puppy is a mix, as well as my kittens, and they are all on Innova, kittens on EVO. I must say I have noticed a HUGE difference in my kittens coats after switching from Science Diet, which I had them on for about 6 months. They no longer have dry skin and aren't hurking hairballs up left and right any more. Their coats also went from pretty dull looking to very satiny. I can only imagine what it does for their insides.

I transitioned Bo from Science Diet puppy to Innova large breed puppy a week after I got him, and his stools are much better/firmer and his coat usually looks like I waxed him with Turtle Wax

[jenns]

Originally Posted by UrbanBeagles

Not at all! It's not a popular opinion, but I believe the following. Let's stray from the holistic vs. non holistic comparison for a moment, and classify kibbles as economy, basic, premium, super premium. .

Interesting you bring this up, because the word "premium" pretty much has no meaning anymore. Even Purina is now referring to all of their foods as Premium on their website. Next will be Ol Roy, lol. I don't worry about labels - it's not about holistic vs. non holistic vs premium because I don't think foods can be categorized as such. Like Urban Beagles said, kibble is kibble but I do think that ingredients matter to at least *some* degree. You can technically make a food that would meet AAFCO requirements out of leather and sawdust but of course that is not good for your dog. And "results" are so hard to guage when you are talking about things such as lifespan and cancer. You won't know until it's too late.

[UrbanBeagles]

Originally Posted by JenTN

I think one reason a lot of people don't see dogs with great long lives on holistic food is because, in my experience, the majority of holistic feeders own purebreds. Purebreds generally have more health problems and live shorter lives than mixed breeds, which are often on lower quality food.

There is absolutely no truth to that statement. The only purebreds that have short lives are the extra large ones - otherwise, a well bred purebred should have a normal, long lifespan with few health issues. Many show breeders feed Pro Plan, Pedigree, etc. and have healthy, long lived dogs. OTOH, out of my dogs, the only one who has chronic health issues is the mutt. He's 7 now, and has never been healthy. My 8yr old purebred Beagle is in better health.

[TwoSweetBabies]

Originally Posted by jenns

And "results" are so hard to guage when you are talking about things such as lifespan and cancer. You won't know until it's too late.

Exactly, which is why I asked for people whom have possibly had or known a dog who has already reached old age on the more "hollistic" foods.