Innova

[Michael Romanos]

Linda - it doesn't. And that is quite interesting that a company which has supposedly such great products, goes to lengths to mention AAFCO when it is obvious in their references that AAFCO has not approved nor passed the products.

[Dillydoodle]

meanwhile peanut hulls and animal byproduct and corn containing Hills "Science" diet has passed- along with some foods like Kibbles and Bits, a REALLY high quality food... NOT!
I dont need to see AAFCO on a bag of food i buy for my dog, all i have to do is use my brain and READ the labels of the food and make smart choices
Emilie

[corgimom]

Originally Posted by Michael Romanos

Linda - it doesn't. And that is quite interesting that a company which has supposedly such great products, goes to lengths to mention AAFCO when it is obvious in their references that AAFCO has not approved nor passed the products.

Michael you sparked an interest in me and since I was already planning on going to the pet store today, I checked out several brands.

I was surprised to see that with the several brands that I checked, all had the same statement on them, in regards to the AAFCO, as the Innova product discussed here did. All used the word "substantiate" instead of "approve". This included the cheapest generic brand that you can buy; 35 pounds for $7.50(full of junk ingredients), and all of the varieties of the Science Hill line dog food(including their Natures Best line and their Senior Advanced Protection food.) With wheat, corn and corn Gluten in them.

Now Nick says Science Hill is the best for our pets, yet they also refer to the AAFCO(on their bag), that their products were "tested and substantiated." The word "approved" is not on their bags either.

[glencorgi]

It would be interesting to see how many of the Whole Dog Journal's top foods had an AAFCO "seal of approval."

Debbie

[Michael Romanos]

Linda - if the label says something like "AAFCO tested and substaniated" then that does suppose to mean that AAFCO has approved and verified the product. Substantiate means confirm, validate, prove and verify.

AAFCO is not the be all and end all of things but at least a person unqualfied in canine nutrition, can safely assume that an AFFCO-approved product they are giving their dogs contains everything that it should for the greater benefit of the dog. And as Dr Nick Cave pointed out some other products that have not been subjected to AAFCO testing could also be excellent for dogs. And he mentioned to me Eukanuba in this respect.

[corgimom]

Originally Posted by Michael Romanos

Linda - if the label says something like "AAFCO tested and substaniated" then that does suppose to mean that AAFCO has approved and verified the product. Substantiate means confirm, validate, prove and verify.

That is what I had said originally about the Innova and you disagreed; so thanks for re-thinking that one.

[Michael Romanos]

Forgive me. It is not a word that I thought was particularly superior to passed or approved so my subconscious mind ignored it.

[glencorgi]

Originally Posted by Michael Romanos

AAFCO is not the be all and end all of things

Now really, ya think???? That's not the message being pounded with no equivocation.

but at least a person unqualfied in canine nutrition, can safely assume that an AFFCO-approved product they are giving their dogs contains everything that it should for the greater benefit of the dog.

And it would be nice if a certain amount of respect would be/could be extended to the various list members who have done a great deal of research on various brands of dog foods, compared results and are having good results with quality foods they selected to feed and recommend to others. Cindy, for one, has time and time again provided links to excellent sites to research foods. Others have done the same.

And as Dr Nick Cave pointed out some other products that have not been subjected to AAFCO testing could also be excellent for dogs. And he mentioned to me Eukanuba in this respect.

Ahhhhhhh, so Dr. Cave even admits there are excellent foods on the market that don't carry the AAFCO "seal of approval" which is a good reason to not keep harping on and on and on about it.

Innova, while I loved the ingredients, it was too rich for my corgis. Stools were too loose and too much output (if you know what I mean ). My dogs did great on Wellness, my sister's Cardigans did not - dull coats and looser stools. Her Pugs thrived on it. Bottom line, even among the top of the line premium foods (AAFCO approved or not), there is no one size fits all. Some dogs will thrive on Ol' Roy, others a food with a milligram of corn in it will send them into scratching/itching fits and/or worse. Then there are those BARF feeders who believe all kibble is terrible. Researching, asking for opinions and recommendations, reading ingredient labels are the best tools one can utilize in finding a good food for one's dog.

Debbie

[corgimom]

Originally Posted by Michael Romanos

AAFCO is not the be all and end all of things but at least a person unqualfied in canine nutrition, can safely assume that an AFFCO-approved product they are giving their dogs contains everything that it should for the greater benefit of the dog.

Too bad I didn't write down what was in that generic 35 pound bag of food for $7.50. I did however, read the ingredients That the AAFCO substantiates what was in there as nutritious tells me that just about anything will pass - I did not see any of those ingredients as being for the "greater benefit of the dog."

[Michael Romanos]

Linda - I think you are mistaken. AAFCO have a list of vitamins, minerals and nutrients that must be contained in a daily main meal provided for a dog. In all cases they have minimum quantities and in some cases they have maximums. That the food producers put other contents in with the food is at the discretion of the producers and are not the concern of AAFCO so long as the additives are not harmful and are indeed useful.

The article I have produced will contain a complete list of vitamins, minerals and nutrients as designated by AAFCO.

[corgimom]

Michael,

I know that the AAFCO has standards set for a minimum /maximum amount of nutrients that is required in pet foods. However, when I look at a bag of dog food and see Ground Yellow Corn, Poulty by-product meal, ground wheat middlings, digest of poultry, animal fat and corn gluten meal(as the first 6 ingredients) in comparison to other higher quality foods, where meat is their first ingredient(along with other healthy ingredients), the AAFCO substantiated testing statement really means nothing to me; other than the minimum/maximum amount of nutrients are in the food and that they don't care about the rest and what it consists of. That the AAFCO has their guarantee for nutrients such as on the bag mentioned above, does not in anyway make me want to feed it to my pet.

As a consumer, I always read the ingredient label first, and the AAFCO statement is just something that I would expect to see on the bag.

[glencorgi]

One theoretically could meet all their nutritional requirements by dining at fast food restaurants daily. However, just because the daily nutritional requirements are met doesn't mean that McDonald's 3 times a day is the healthiest way to eat.

Debbie

[Fluffypants]

Originally Posted by glencorgi

One theoretically could meet all their nutritional requirements by dining at fast food restaurants daily. However, just because the daily nutritional requirements are met doesn't mean that McDonald's 3 times a day doesn't mean it is the healthiest way to eat.

Debbie

Great analogy Debbie!!!

[Dillydoodle]

slightly off topic, but Debbie, a guy in excellent health did an experiment where he ate only Mcdonalds food for 3 months and his health deteriorated so dramatically the doctors were asking him to discontinue his little experiment...so your analogy is perfect...

Emilie

[corgimom]

I actually saw that Emilie and my kids watched in it school and I think the guy gained 20 or 30 pounds also.