Puppy food versus Adult food

Josephsmum · Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 3:28 pm Post subject: Puppy food versus Adult food

Hi,

Joseph is 8 months old and has a catilage problem in his left shoulder which seems better this week but has been a problem now for approximately 6 weeks. He is currently on Rimadyl and no exercise, although this is finished soon and I dont think I'll continue due to health scares.

I've read in various postings that most lab owners change their puppies onto adult food at 7 or 8 months to reduce excess growth which can lead to cartilage problems. However, my vet and Eukanuba,( Joseph has been on Eukanuba always as recommended by my breeder) say he should be on puppy food still until he is 12 months - I just dont know which way to go.

I'd love more info from you experienced lab owners out there on this, also what do you think of Eukanuba as I havent seen anyone else on the website has their dog on it?

dylansdad · Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 3:46 pm Post subject:

Hi JM,

I think the general trend is away from 'science' diets. Having said that, the general rule is if your dog has no problems(scurf, poor coat, behaviour, eating poo etc) and it suits him then why change.

I took the decision to try and get as close to raw feeding as i could from a premade feed, and that turned out to be naturediet, as I believe that like my kids, my dogs behaviour and overall health would benefit from as natural a diet as possible.

On the issue of feeding, the labrador is classed ad a large breed, and unlike most dogs continues to grow untill about 18-24 months. It is correct that labrador advice generally is to move off puppy food at 6 months (confirmed by my vet) to slow growth and try and avoid the problems of growing too fast, i.e. the dogs joints, cartelidge and tendons cant cope with the weight of the body.

I do not have any secific knowledge of eukanuba, I know it is one of the brands vets sell, however as you will have read that means little. I expect you will get some more specific advise soon, but I would just say that I would believe the experienced people on this forum such as kayc or john etc. above a vet and especially above a food manufacturer.

Good luck

kayc · Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 3:48 pm Post subject:

I would not feed Eukanuba if I were to feed commercial food.

IMHO the best commercial dry food is NOT tested on animals, (The manufacturers of Eukauba do animal testing), does not have useless fillers such as sugar beet pulp, is free from artificial preservatives and added salt etc.

Eukanuba is multi cereal heavy (dogs are not designed to eat cereals) and contain added salt, SBP, some varieties have linseed which is problematical for some dogs and are maize (corn) based which is tryptophan deficient.

The No.1 ingredient is cereal. Good for herbivores, completely useless for dogs.

No. 2 - 'Meat & Animal derivatives', which is a more acceptable way of describing the undescribable, i.e. everything left of an animal after all the useful bits have been removed, this can include, beaks, feathers and combs.

No. 3 - Vegetable protein extracts? I have no idea what these are, probably the waste product from human food processing

No. 4 - Yeast, this is the ingredient that is almost guaranteed to condem many dogs to a life of sore ears and itchy skin

No. 5 - milk & Milk Derivatives. (((( Many adult dogs cannot tolerate dairy products due to lactose intolerance.A lot of people may be unaware that casomorphine and exorphines are derived from digesting milk and cereals respectively and these have been shown to alter dog behaviour as it is like giving them opiates. A lot of research has been done on autistic children and schizophrenics on this and when all milk and gluten has been withdrawn from the diet their behaviour becomes more stabilised))))

No. 6 - Oils & Fats. If this is virgin olive oil, it is okay. It is however more likely to be waste oil, again from human food processing, that has been heated. This is a known carceogen.

No. 7 - minerals. Okay, you would expect these to be added to any complete food.

No. 8 - contains antioxidants BHA and BHT. These are preservatives added to the food to stop the fat and oil going rancid. These chemicals are also linked with cancer and liver disease.

Personally, I would have him off puppy food now, and most certainly off Eukanuba (this is my personal opinion) Wink

JohnW · Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 4:29 pm Post subject:

I personally do not believe in feeding puppy foods for too long. Think of it this way. There is no puppy food in the wild and until just recently there were no puppy foods for pets either. To me, puppy foods were not brought out for the benefit of dogs as much as the benefit of dog food manufacturers! My first dog, during the days of food rationing after the Second World War, was fed on table scraps. That was all there was in those days and at 16 years old is still the oldest dog I've ever owned! Puppy foods have only been available for the last two or three puppies which I've owned.

Over the last few years since the introduction of puppy foods we have been seeing so many more cases of OCD than we ever saw in the old days and I am convinced of the link.

My Amy is 14 weeks old today and is now eating a mix of puppy and adult food. The main reason for the early change was that she decided she preferred what her mum was eating but I was quite happy to start changing. I'll continue adding some puppy for a few more weeks yet but she will be on adult by 6 months, possibly before if I think she's growing faster than I like.

Regards, John

Karen · Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 5:17 pm Post subject:

With the brands I've come across, the puppy version is more expensive .... wonder if that's why the manufacturers say to feed until 12-18 months on the packets? Wink

dylansdad · Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 5:21 pm Post subject:

thrupence · Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 5:21 pm Post subject:

Karen you may have just hit the nail on the head there.

Not everything is to benefit the dogs, unfortunatly making money comes first with some of these manufactures. Sad

lablover · Account Deactivated

I agree John, I can't help feel that all these new foods are as much a marketing exercise and to fill the shelves than anything else. First we had puppy, now we have puppy and junior....

regards
Jenny

lablover · Account Deactivated

I hadn't noticed that, Karen - it doesn't surprise me though
regards
Jenny

JohnW · Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 5:45 pm Post subject:

The first "Special" foods were for racing greyhounds. Their claim to fame was that they helped the dogs to run faster. And they did! Trouble was, they tended to blow their hearts! But of course, once a few people started to use them everyone else had to or come last! And of course it's a tread mill you cannot step off!

After claiming the racing dogs, where was the next big sale? What about show people? A food which would make their puppies mature faster? Look at the puppies in the ring now and compare if you can, puppies from 20 years ago. They are so much more developed than in days of old. Natural development of bones has gone and dogs, (To me anyway) are being made into adults before their time. But puppy foods are here. People are using them. I was told a few years ago by the Waltham's dietician at Crufts, literally, that my dogs would die an early death unless I fed their latest special feeds. Puppy feeds for the young, special needs foods for the old, you name it. Thing was, this dietician was so young that I doubt she could have seen many dogs through from birth to death at old age. That takes years.

So where do the food manufacturers go from here? "What’s the numerically largest breed? Oh yes, the Labrador! We'll grab that market by labelling a food specially for them!" Silly? No! It’s been done! Pet food manufacturers are in business for one reason. To make money. Supplying dog food is secondary to that. I bet a large percentage of Watham shareholders don’t own a dog!

Regards, John