Dog food reviews
Dog Food Analysis
Dog food information
Dog food reviews and ratings
Home Information Dog food reviews Frequently asked questions Forums About DFA

Reviews Views Date of last review
1 32648 Thu February 8, 2007
Recommended By Average Price Average Rating
No recommendations None indicated None indicated

Description: Metabolisable energy (in vivo)
- kcal/kg 3693
- MJ/kg 15.50

Chicken (> 20%), rice, maize, sorghum, animal fat, fish meal, poultry meal, dried beet pulp (2.8%), chicken digest, dried whole egg, brewer's dried yeast, fructooligosaccharides (0.8%), potassium chloride, sodium chloride, sodium hexametaphosphate, linseed, DL- methionine.

Protein (%) 2
Oil and Fat (%) 13.0
Ash (%) 6.5
Fibre (%) 2.5
Moisture (%) 8.0
Calcium (%) 1.00
Phosphorus (%) 0.80
Vitamin A (IU/kg) 12000
Vitamin D3( IU/kg) 900
Vitamin E (a-tocopherol) (mg/kg) 200
Copper as Copper II sulphate (mg/kg) 20
Beta- carotene (mg/kg) 1
L- Carnitine (mg/kg)


Registered: October 2005
Posts: 3953
Review Date: Thu February 8, 2007 Would you recommend the product? No | Price you paid?: Not Indicated | Rating: 0 

Pros: First ingredient is a named meat product.
Cons: Inadequate meat content, mixed quality grains, fat and meat products of unidentifiable origin, controversial filler. Preservative not disclosed.

The first ingredient in this food is chicken. Since this ingredient will end up weighing around 20% of its wet weight once the moisture is removed, as it must be to create a dry food, it is unlikely that this is the true first ingredient in the food but would be more accurately placed further down the ingredient list.

It is followed by three grains, giving the clear impression that this is a food with very little meat content. Rice is a decent quality grain, but the use of maize (corn) is less desirable. Corn is a difficult to digest grain of little nutritional value for canines, and that is commonly associated with allergies and yeast infections. Sorghum is a low digestibility grain.

Animal fat is a low quality ingredient of unidentified origin for which it is impossible to determine source or quality. Unidentified ingredients are usually very low quality. AAFCO define this as "obtained from the tissues of mammals and/or poultry in the commercial processes of rendering or extracting. It consists predominantly of glyceride esters of fatty acids and contains no additions of free fatty acids. If an antioxidant is used, the common name or names must be indicated, followed by the words "used as a preservative".

A second meat product, fish, in meal form is the 6th ingredient. This is too far down the ingredient list to add significantly to the overall meat content. We do not find any information about the presence or otherwise of ethoxyquin in the ingredient (ethoxyquin is a chemical preservative commonly added to fish ingredients and that is banned from human foods due to the belief that it is carcinogenic). There is a further meat meal ingredient 7th on the ingredient list, but this is not named by species and hence is unidentifiable source and quality. Unidentifiable ingredients are usually very low quality and we recommend avoiding the use of any product using this ingredient.

Beet pulp is a low quality ingredient and filler. It is a by-product, being dried residue from sugar beets which has been cleaned and extracted in the process of manufacturing sugar. It is a controversial ingredient in dog food, claimed by some manufacturers to be a good source of fibre, and derided by others as an ingredient added to slow down the transition of rancid animal fats and causing stress to kidney and liver in the process. We note that beet pulp is an ingredient that commonly causes problems for dogs, including allergies and ear infections, and prefer not to see it used in dog food. There are less controversial products around if additional fibre is required.

Chicken digest is material from chicken which results from chemical and/or enzymatic hydrolysis of clean and undecomposed tissue. This is another low quality ingredient. We appreciate the use of whole eggs rather than egg product in the food.

Missing from the ingredient information is the form of preservative used in this food. Were chemical rather than naturally-occuring preservatives to be used, this food would receive a 1-star rating. The manufacturer has been given the benefit of the doubt and a 2-star rating given to the product.

Powered by: ReviewPost PHP
Copyright 2006 All Enthusiast, Inc.

Copyright 2005 - 2009 All Rights Reserved.